Episode 2797 CWSA 04/02/25

are.

We better check the stock market here because as you know it's the tariff liberation day.

See how everything looks.

Stock market is a little royiled.

Got a little bit of green and a lot of red.

S&P 500's down a little bit.

All right.

Well, let me get my comments going here and then we can have the show you deserve.

Yeah, it's the one you deserve.

Not the one you get, it's the one you deserve.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've probably never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass of tanker gels in a canteen jugger flask.

A vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine dinner of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now.

Go.

So good.

Well, you probably heard by now actor Val Gilmer has tragically died at age 65 from pneumonia in Los Angeles.

I don't have anything to say about that, but uh when people who are younger than me die, it bothers me a little extra, I have to say.

So, uh, uh, rest in peace, Val Kilmer.

All right.

Uh, shall we do some, uh, fake news?

Let's look at some fake news.

Uh, according to Futurism, Maggie Harrison Dupra is writing that after a single concussion, kids are 15% less likely to go go to college.

Does that sound like real science to you?

After one concussion, kids are 15% less likely to go to college.

Do you know what else could be behind that number?

Could it be that smart kids get fewer head injuries?

I'm just asking.

If I showed you a bunch of mathletes and they were standing next to a bunch of athletes, the athletes probably are going to break their heads a little bit more often.

And the mathletes are probably going to be joining the band and maybe working on the I don't know the uh working on some clubs.

I I hate to be uh all stereotypical, but I'm pretty sure that intelligence is highly correlated with protecting your head.

What do you think?

Yeah.

Do you do you think that people of all intelligence levels are equally likely to wear a helmet to ride a bicycle?

It's not been my experience.

My experience is the dumber you are, the less likely you'll wear a helmet when you're riding your bicycle.

Anyway, I thought that was funny.

Well, the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections didn't go the way a lot of Republicans wanted it to go.

So the Democrat Crawford won, which means that there will be likely some reortionment, which means Wisconsin will uh subtract some Republicans and add some Democrats to the House, which means the Republicans could lose the majority in the House.

Now, I don't know how close it is to guaranteeing that that will happen.

How close are we to guaranteeing that we lose the majority or Republicans lose?

I is it just very likely or is it guaranteed now?

Cuz anything could happen.

But let's talk about why that happened.

Why the heck did that happen?

Um the according to The Hill, they say that Elon Musk might be toxic to elections.

Charlie Kirk says that the low propensity voters uh a lot of low propensity voters voted for Trump, but if Trump's not on the ticket, are they really going to show up for, you know, a local election?

That might be part of it.

I I think a lot of it is that the Democrats had nothing else going for them.

So they had this one thing that if they could find this clever way to sort of beat the system that they wouldn't have to act like they live in a democratic society.

They'd rather live in a lawfare driven kleptocracy or something.

So they found this little weasly way to win if they could put all their energy into it.

But they didn't have anything else to put energy into.

They had no policies, no no ideas, but they sure like this idea of reortioning so they have power.

So some of us do that with the fact that nothing else was happening and so they could put all of their hopes and dreams and energy into this one little weasly thing.

And I'll tell you, Democrats love weasly It's like lawfare.

Sign me up.

uh reaportion to win.

Absolutely.

So it's all trickery, trickery and schemes.

Um so but do you think Elon Musk is toxic to elections and that that might lead to the midterms?

Do you think the midterms will go poorly because of Elon?

Well, that might uh the interesting part is that he'll be done with his role.

It's supposed to only last 130 days.

So, he'll be done, I don't know, for the summer or something.

And he thinks he can get his trillion dollars of savings before he's done.

Now, if he does that, if he succeeds, and you know, the major news sources agree that, okay, he did he did find a trillion dollars.

didn't think he could do it.

Will that still make him toxic?

Well, maybe.

But it seems like after he's no longer working on the government, isn't it going to be harder to say it's his fault?

Because the actual cuts are going to be made by, you know, cabinet heads and group leaders who are in the government.

So, are you really going to blame Doge or Musk if they get a trillion dollars and every one of the cuts, every one of them at this point would be approved by people who, you know, are at least uh most of them I think have to be at least approved by Congress before they can get in their job.

I don't know.

It could feel completely different in six months.

Just the fact that you don't see his face associated with it all the time.

And and the main thing is um when it comes to Democrats, I saw Dr.

Insensitive Jerk on uh on on X saying that uh you won't understand Democrats until you understand that they that they're thieves and and they they like letting people out of prison and they like, you know, prisoners having freedom because they relate to the thieves.

That's pretty that's pretty harsh.

But it does seem a little bit like when you show them a let's put it this way.

It seems to me that Democrats are about transferring wealth from people who made it and Republicans are about creating wealth.

So you got one party that creates wealth and that's their main thing and one party that wants to just take it away from them.

Uh, I don't know how that how could that even be a thing, but it feels like that's what it is.

Well, today's Liberation Day, April 2nd, and the President Trump will be announcing at uh 400 p.m.

I think in East Coast time um from the Rose Garden, he'll tell you what exactly the tariffs are going to look like.

Will they be just straight reciprocal?

Will they be uh done with a scalpel or a or a jackhammer?

Um it doesn't matter what he does.

The press is going to say they hate it because you know what else they have to do except say they hate everything he does.

So we'll see how that goes.

That's what's uh roing the stock market today.

the stock market's going to going to react to the uncertainty.

Now, Israel uh quite cleverly got out in front of it and dropped all their duties and tariffs on American goods.

To which a lot of us said, "Wait a minute.

They had tariffs on American goods.

Uh, I thought they were our friends and they had tariffs on American goods.

They weren't very high and it wasn't there wasn't much of it.

So, they they didn't give up much by giving up their tariffs.

But it's so smart to do it before the tariffs kick in like like given that there wasn't much money involved and Israel is very free market oriented.

It was just a clever move to get ahead of it and you know be one of the first let's call it a victory for Trump because sure enough he threatens and uh and Israel just says okay we'll drop ours.

So that's how the negotiation is supposed to work.

India did the same.

Somebody says I haven't seen that in the news.

Did India drop all of its tariffs?

I think they only reduced them.

So, I'll have to check on that.

But give me give me a fact check on that.

Did India drop their tariffs in in anticipation of uh the US tariffs or did they only adjust them downward?

I think they only adjusted them downward, which would be not nothing.

So, we'll see how that goes.

You know, the the funny part is people are still treating it like it's intended to be permanent.

And it doesn't matter how many times it's explained.

No, the point of this is to not have tariffs.

The the end goal is that we don't have tariffs.

They don't have tariffs.

So, we'll see.

Um, unusual Wales on X, that's an account on X, um, said that tariffs to the tariffs would add as much as $10,000 to the cost of the average new home.

What do you think of that as a data point that the costs of tariffs, the extra cost would add $10,000 to the price of building the average new home?

Now, that's per CNBC.

Here's what I say.

What's the first thing I teach you when they show you a number without a percentage or a percentage without a number?

What does it mean when the news gives you a number without the percentage or the percentage without the number?

Because you don't know how much the average house costs to build, do you?

You don't know if that's 20%, 2%, 1%.

Do you?

So this is propaganda or just really lazy lazy work because uh I had to go to AI and say what's the cost of the average house and somewhere in the somewhere in the 300,000 range would be the average cost of a new house.

So $10,000 added to that would be about 3% extra.

Now, would it be fair to say that now that we know the number and the percentage, would it be fair to say that the tariffs will add 3%.

No.

No.

Because the point of the tariffs is not to leave them in place.

The point in point of the tariffs is to negotiate.

So, what we don't know is where it all shakes out.

But what we do know for sure is that nobody, including the administration, plans for them to be permanent and to just add costs to the US consumer.

So everything about that estimate is misleading.

First of all, that it would last and or even ever, it's possible it will never even touch us because maybe things will happen so quickly.

It's possible.

And the other thing is it's 3%.

10,000 sounds like a lot.

3% I don't know that you would notice it.

Would you on a on a house?

I mean, nobody wants to spend 3% more, but would you even know the difference?

If I told you that the cost of a new house was 300,000 blah blah blah versus the first time I ever talked to you about it, I told you was 3% higher.

It wouldn't make any difference to your decision, would it?

3%.

Almost certainly no.

All right.

according to uh Mario Knoff and he's quoting he's quoting somebody named Alec uh Stap.

So I guess Mario thinks this is a real number.

Uh maybe it is, but the stat is that the US is now producing 50% more oil than Saudi Arabia.

Does that sound right to you?

Does it sound right that the US makes 50 or is producing 50% more oil than Saudi Arabia?

I think I'm going to need a fact check on that one, too.

If it's true, it's amazing.

So uh I guess Saudi's uh share of the world oil has declined steadily and uh anyway so that so that would US is leading the the world accounting for 16% of the total global output whereas Saudi is 11% and Russia is 12%.

Now, if this is true and it's newish, I also don't know how newish it is, but if we suddenly have created a surge in in oil production, wouldn't that tell you that that would make a bigger difference to lowering prices than the tariffs might have to increasing prices?

If it's true, let's see.

I've got Yeah.

All right.

So, I'm not even sure I believe that.

It sounds like almost too good to be true.

Well, as you know, Senator Corey Booker um he broke the record for talking nonstop uh in Congress or at the Senate.

But they're calling it a talkathon, not a filibuster.

Because it's not a filibuster because he wasn't trying to stop any particular legislation.

So why was he doing it?

I don't know.

I've been watching this news for like two days and it's a headline story.

I don't I don't even think the news told us why he did it.

I feel like he just needed some attention and he so he just put on a play.

What are we going to do?

I don't know.

How about I put on a play and I'll pretend to be the very tired senator who cares a lot and talks for 25 hours and breaks the record.

And I'm thinking it's it's pure theater.

There's there's not even a specific thing he wanted.

Somebody said they had something to do with immigration, but what exactly is he disagreeing about immigration?

So the ridiculousness of it, the complete weakness of it can only be can only be beaten by the fact that apparently his really good friend who works for him sometimes.

Uh was led into the building around the security check and then later he told people he had a gun.

He was immediately arrested because no guns are allowed in the Senate.

Uh but there's a little it's a little unclear whether Senator Booker is the one who escorted him in because it seems like Booker was probably just at the podium most of the time.

Um or somebody else did.

But uh I think it was reported as a member of Congress led him in and led him around the screening.

Why does anybody get to go around the screening?

If you're the security person and a member of Congress says, "Oh, this is somebody I know really well.

We're going to let him go around the screening." I would say to you, "Uh, isn't that the most dangerous person who came to the building, the one who has a, you know, somebody who's going to take him around the screening?

Why would you ever let anybody do that?

So, first of all, I'd probably fire the security people for allowing a member of Congress to take anybody around the screening, especially when you find out later they have a gun.

Now, apparently there was nothing dangerous about it, but I mean, he wasn't threatening anybody or anything like that, but uh that's just crazy.

Now, do you think that's bigger or wor is that a worse problem than Mike Waltz fat fingering?

Probably.

We don't know the exact story, but however, he invited Jeffrey Goldberg accidentally and then he saw some plans for the attack, which they don't call plans for the attack.

I don't know.

I think these are both nothings.

You know, they both led to nothing.

Nobody got hurt.

you know, could have been a problem, but wasn't.

So, I'm gonna I'm gonna treat this, you know, the the friend who brought a gun in.

I'm going to treat this the same as the Mike Waltz thing.

I don't really think, you know, even if Booker is the one who who took him around the uh security, we don't know that, but even if he is, I don't think Booker should be, you know, resigning.

I don't think Mike Wall should be resigning.

These are just tiny little, you know, human problems.

They were dumb.

You know that I'm not not defending any of it, but not the biggest problem in the world.

Well, meanwhile, CNN and uh Harry has some new numbers that are bad for Democrats.

So according to a new poll Quinn Quinnipc uh Democrats opinion of their own well actually the entire voters's opinion of Democrats in Congress is 21% approval.

Now this is Democrats in Congress.

So it's not about the party of Democrats just the ones are elected in Congress.

And uh only 40% of Democrats approve of their own their own uh bunch of Congress people.

It's the lowest approval on record for Quinnipic.

So So even though the Democrats had a good day yesterday in in Wisconsin so they can do their little reortionment scheme, um they're not doing so well.

By the way, there were also uh there were some elections in Florida, some special elections, and the Republicans both won, but not by as much as people thought they would.

So, it kind of everything is sort of suggesting all the special elections are sort of suggesting that the Republicans have some weakness uh whenever Trump is not on the ticket.

So that that could be a bad signal coming up.

All right.

So yesterday I didn't know during the show that Bill Maher had already had dinner with Trump at the White House.

Um and there's a little bit of feedback.

I think Bill Maher is going to talk about it on Friday on his show.

That will be interesting.

But uh the the dinner was Bill Maher Trump, Kid Rock who set it up and Dana White who was just there because he's a good dinner date I guess.

And I was thinking to myself, how could that not be fun?

I mean, just think about it.

Bill Maher, Trump, Kid Rock, Dana White.

There was no chance that that could be anything but a good time.

But here here are the the little bit of stories we've heard from it.

We'll hear more.

Um, I think I heard this on Guffeld uh that uh that Bill Maher brought with him a list of insults Trump had said about Bill Maher over the years and handed it to him.

So, what do you think Trump did with it?

The list of insults that Trump had used against Bill Maher.

What's the funniest thing that Trump could do?

He autographed it and gave it back.

He signed it.

Now, how much do you love that?

And how disarming is that?

So you you're Bill Maher and you're coming in with, okay, these are all the things you said about me, which, you know, in itself was kind of a humorous thing to do.

But I think I think Trump topped him by signing it, especially if he hadn't been asked to sign it.

It's funnier if Bill Mah didn't ask him to sign it and he just said, "Give me a pen." Oh, that was funny.

But apparently a good time was had by all.

They got along and there was a um little guided tour of the White House and even the the private residents.

That's the good stuff.

People don't get to usually see that.

And then we learned that Bill Maher, the Democrat that he's been forever, has never been to the White House.

You even I've been to the White House.

there there's so many like podcasters and you know Republicans of all kind who have been invited to the White House generally you know because the president wants to you know make sure you're on board and just work the crowd a little bit but uh Bill Martin never been invited but here's here's the kill shot now we might hear more about this but this is what we know so far that apparently during dinner Trump asked Bill Maher about Mar's opinion about uh Iran and Israel and the Middle East.

Now, what I was looking for was the kill shot.

The killshot is where Trump, who has crazy charisma, he can turn to anybody in person.

Like, you cannot dislike him in person.

It would just be so hard cuz in person, I mean, he just glows.

I I had the experience.

um you just want to be talking to him and he never runs out of things to say.

He always gives you full attention and treats you like you're the only person in the room.

But here's the kill shot.

Imagine being Bill Maher and you think of yourself as basically a well-informed political comedian and then the most powerful and important person maybe in the world, the president of the United States looks at you and says, "What do you think I should do about the Middle East?" And you might actually have some ideas because you've been thinking about it and you're well informed.

I can tell you what happened next because I experienced it.

Whatever Mar said, unless he just said a joke, which I doubt, so maybe we'll find out about that later.

if he gave him any actual advice or and treated as seriously like, you know, I think the only thing you can do is this or that, I guarantee you that Trump gave him his full attention, listened to him completely without interrupting and then, you know, maybe commented on his comments or something.

Do you know what that does to a person?

I I had that experience where I I've told you this story before.

It's not really private.

Um, when Trump asked me who I thought would be his running his running opponent the next time he ran because I saw him in 2018 and I said I thought it would be Kla Harris and then, you know, he said he thought it would be uh um Biden.

So, he was right.

But when the president of the United States asks for your opinion and then he listens for the answer like he really actually no joke in the real world wanted to hear your opinion.

The power of that is incalculable.

So I expect Bill Maher will try to act like nothing happened.

You know, like there were two adversaries who had a good dinner and it was fun, but it doesn't change anything about how he feels or how he's going to act or how hard he's going to be on Trump.

I I imagine that that's the look we're going to get.

But I'll tell you that experience will change you and that's one of the superpowers that Trump has.

He can ask He can ask for your opinion, treat you like you're the only one in the room and your opinion matters and you'll never be the same.

You'll never be the same.

It will just change you forever.

It's it's it's like an incredible thing.

Anyway, do you remember a while back, it was in 2020, there was a study that went all over the internet that said that uh black infants uh have a lower survival rate if they're cared for by white doctors?

How many of you remember that?

I remember it.

So, that's that would be pretty horrible, right?

so racist if if black infants didn't do as well if they had white doctors.

So, uh, guess what happened?

Turns out somebody looked at the data and found out the data was maybe not so reliable.

And here's why.

There was a little bit of a selection bias.

And this it's so it's so bad.

science is so terrible.

Here's what the selection bias was.

There are more white doctors in the specialties where you you go to those specialties because somebody's might die.

So the white doctors were in the sort of dangerous jobs, more of them.

There were more of them.

So that it looked like when you went to a white doctor, you'd have bad outcomes, but you would only go to those specialists who just happened to be more staffed by white doctors if you were already in in dire trouble, right?

So it might be the oncologist or, you know, heart surgeon or something like that.

So all it was was they had they didn't select, you know, an equal set of black doctors and an equal set of white doctors.

The white doctors were more often in specialties that involved, you know, more dangerous kinds of situations.

And that's all it was.

And if you once you corrected for that, the difference kind of went away.

Now you know even if you didn't know that what was the the credibility you should have given the study from day one as soon as you heard it the answer is none from from the first time you heard it without even knowing what the problem was you should have said oh it's one of those here's why half of all this these studies half are not reproducible, meaning that it's a coin flip, whether it's real or not.

Even if it's peer-reviewed, there's a 50% chance it's not reproducible, meaning it was never valid in the first place.

Now, if the question is sort of a yes, no, which this is, do the black babies do as well if the doctor is a different race?

Yes or no?

Right?

It's it's like a coin flip.

It's yes or no.

Under those conditions, when the studies themselves are only 50% reliable, what is the difference between doing a study and not knowing if it's reproducible and flipping a coin?

Because it's just going to be yes or no, heads or tails.

And the answer is there's no difference.

There's no difference between that study even if you didn't know that it was flawed.

At the very at the start of it, you should have said, "Well, that means nothing." Now, it could become it could become meaningful.

Let's say if the study were reproducible, that would mean something.

Suppose other people did studies in the same domain and got similar answers.

Well, now you have my attention.

you know, as long as it's not all being funded by one kind of entity that has a has a horse in the race.

But no, when you first hear a study like this, it's just a coin flip.

It means nothing.

Here's another one.

Uh, lab grown meat.

I saw this in the internet today.

Lab grown meat potentially worse for the environment than retail beef.

So, this is uh told to us by an account called No Farms, No Food.

So it's an entity that is sort of pro-farm which means probably not pro-lab grown meat and uh they say an interdep departmental study from the University of California University of California uh concluded that lab grown meat may be up to 25 times worse for the environment than natural pasture raised cattle retail beef.

Now, here's the first tell that something's a miss.

The the poster that's Pro.

Arm did a screenshot instead of a link.

So, if I wanted to click and see the details of the study, couldn't do it.

So, that's your first, you know, that's a that's a little uh signal there.

Um, secondly, we don't know who funded the study.

Was it big meat?

I mean, who else would fund it?

Is there anybody was there anybody else even going to look into it?

I don't know.

So, if you don't know who funded it, you should ignore it.

Um, and then again, you have to put it into the context of the studies being 50% false anyway.

So, I don't know.

I don't know if any of that's true, but it's a low reliability.

Speaking of low rei reliability, Katherine Herage and number of other people um reporting about the I guess we have some new information about the internal deliberations at the FBI during the time that the Hunter laptop story was breaking.

And the news is that the FBI knew that it was real, but they just shut up and told everybody to shut up about it.

Now, did you have the same experience with this story that I did?

If you already heard it, that didn't you think, didn't we already know that everybody in the government was lying about the laptop and that they knew it was real?

I I had trouble figuring out what was the new part.

Maybe I just assumed it, didn't you?

Is there even one person listening who thought the FBI thought that that was fake or the Department of Justice or or or those 51 intel people who said it looked like Russian dis Russian I don't know craft or something like that.

I didn't think that there was anybody who thought that was real.

I didn't think there was anybody who thought it was anything but real.

I thought we knew everybody in the government was lying in every capacity in every place, including the FBI.

But, uh, I guess Katherine Herage is going to do an expose with or a deep dive um with Michael Shelonburgger.

I don't think they've worked together before, so this could be interesting.

And uh so they got newly released FBI chat messages and basically people were told to stand down and shut up about it.

But again, why does it feel like it feels like I saw the future or something, right?

Because I kept reading and thinking, didn't everybody know this?

Didn't everybody know the FBI was lying if they were involved at all?

Stop acting uh stop acting surprised that the FBI lied to you.

Well, the New York Times has inexplicably written a uh very long story about the US involvement in Ukraine.

I guess this was yesterday, the day before.

And it it kind of reveals what all of us already knew again.

So this this is like the same thing I said about the last story.

Didn't you already know that the US was deeply involved in creating the situation that caused war in Ukraine?

But now the New York Times is revealing to us through their investigation that yes, the US was very involved.

But what they were keying on here is that uh the targeting information was coming from uh US people at a German military base and that even General Millie was directly involved in planning for the planning for the Ukraine military and there were even troops on the ground.

US troops on the ground in Ukraine, presumably advising, but I would think helping with targeting and I would think helping tell people which button to push on the weapons if they're American weapons.

And so, so again, I asked the question, didn't we all know that?

Is there anybody who is watching this who didn't know that there must have been US military people sort of embedded with the Ukrainians from day one?

I just thought everybody knew that.

So now it's a big story in the New York Times and people are like, "What?" But seriously, in the comments, didn't you all know that we had boots on the ground from day one?

Cuz that's the way everything works.

You don't have to know about Ukraine.

You just have to know anything about the United States.

And and anything about the United States would tell you.

Of course, we had people pretending not to be our military who were our military.

might have been CIA, might have been just special forces or something, but they just take off their outfits, dress like Ukrainians, which I guess dress like Americans, and uh they're they're just training them.

Maybe they're just training them.

This is the least surprising story of all, but there's some speculation.

I saw Jack Pabic talking about it and uh that the uh New York Times might be trying to maybe cover their own asses or or get ahead of the fact that there will be more coming out so it doesn't look like they didn't do their job.

So I don't know.

Um, so apparently the US has been directly involved in a war with Russia the entire time, which again, I thought everybody knew it.

None of you were surprised, right?

It's just how we operate.

Anyway, so now that there are multiple offers for Tik Tok, uh Wall Street Journal is reporting that uh Trump is going to be briefed on all the offers and make some kind of a decision.

But here's my question.

Isn't it up to China?

If China says you can't sell it or Tik Tok says it, but really we would imagine that China was banned.

And I don't think China's going to sell it.

So if I had to predict, I think that that China would eat the billions of dollars of revenue that they could have made, 50 billion or whatever it is.

Um because a lot of that would have go to the investors.

It wouldn't go to China.

If you were China and you knew you were going to lose control of Tik Tok in America anyway, just America, would you sell it if you thought you had a little money involved?

You know, maybe a billion here or there, or or would you just say, "No, we'll just uh go out of business in America and just sell it everywhere else." I think China is not going to approve the sale.

So, I think Trump is going to have to kill Tik Tok, which China would be challenging him to do because you know how unpopular that would be?

That would be super unpopular because even Trump has said he's Tik Tok.

So, I think that China is going to want to corner Trump and put him especially during the tariff situation.

They're going to want to corner and embarrass Trump by saying hard no, we're not selling it.

So if you want to put it out of business, that will be you, Trump, putting it out of business.

So explain that to all the small businesses who go out of business because they lose their Tik Tok access.

Uh it would be a nightmare.

So, I feel like Trump may have accidentally walked into a trap that he set himself.

How in the world does he get out of this?

So, that's my prediction.

China will be a hard no on the sale and they'd rather embarrass Trump into being the one who kills Tik Tok.

I think that's where it's heading.

Apparently in uh New York State uh there was uh some kind of a big strike by the corrections uh professionals and uh so there there weren't there won't be enough or there were not enough people to operate the jails.

So what they're going to do is release a whole bunch of prisoners.

not not the most dangerous ones, but they're going to release some massive amount of prisoners that should be in jail just by saying they don't have jails.

They don't have a staff to manage it.

So, I guess the corrections officers have been on strike since February.

They don't like the forced overtime and tough working conditions.

To which I say, why did you why did you ask for a job in a prison?

What?

Why?

Why?

Imagine asking for a job in a prison and then complaining about the difficult working conditions.

What did you think it would be like when you decided to work in a prison?

Did Did you think you'd have a nice cubicle and a and a and a window view?

It seems to me that job would be the hardest job of all jobs, you know, and also the most dangerous.

So, I certainly understand why they'd go on strike.

I just don't understand why they take the job in the first place.

Well, meanwhile, uh, Project Veritoss has a new undercover video.

um involving the NASA and the State Department in which the employees are saying that they're not getting rid of DEI, they're just rebranding it and they're going to defy Trump's uh orders on DEI being illegal.

So, they said they cancelled their DEI stuff, but people just did it and called it something else.

They work around the rules.

Uh what do you think's going to happen?

Do do you think that the Department of Justice, I guess it would be them, Pam Bondi, would come after them when the undercover the undercover uh investigation shows that they were just lying and they were just continuing to racially discriminate, at what point do you go to jail for it?

Because it's illegal.

If you're if you're doing a scheme so that you can continue illegally discriminating against white people, is there no jail for that?

You know, at what point is it jailable?

You know, maybe is it a civil, you know, you get sued for it, you lose your funding.

What exactly is a penalty for that?

Because if there's no penalty, nothing's going to happen.

But uh apparently racism is very important to NASA and the State Department, at least parts of it.

Well, according to The Hill, Tim Walsh's daughter has decided not to go to grad school.

It turns out the daughter might be as dumb as Tim Walsh.

So, listen to her reason for not going to grad school.

Um, and she announces on Tik.

Tok that she's not going to go to grad school because she says there's a a lack of support, at least in the school that she wanted to go to, for the right to protest a higher education institutions.

She said, "I I applied for one school.

Uh, I kind of had my heart set on it.

I am not going to name the institution, but given the recent events, I'm not going to give my money, go into debt for, or support institutions that do not support students and the right to protest and speak out for their communities.

So that's why she's not going to graduate school.

So, she's destroyed her own career because she thinks she doesn't have free speech on a college campus.

I'm not entirely sure this was about free speech, was it?

I thought it was about uh gross anti-semitism.

Was anybody complaining about free speech?

Because I don't know that free speech protects you from a level of anti-semitism that pretty much guarantees there's going to be violence attached.

I don't know.

Tim Wals's daughter.

Uh I don't think you don't think you made a good decision there.

Well, let's check in with the Department of Imaginary Concerns.

As you know, Democrats have a lot of drama and a lot of imaginary concerns.

So, we're going to check in on those.

Uh, imaginary concern number one, Elon Musk is not elected.

That is an imaginary concern.

Now, it's true he's not elected.

You know what else is true?

There are only two people in the executive branch who are elected.

Just two.

But I haven't given you the percentage yet.

Remember, number within a percentage is misleading.

Uh, but there are about 2.4 million federal government workers.

I I think those are just within the the president's um domain.

So, of the millions, let's just say a few million.

Um, of the millions of workers, only two of them are elected.

the rest are you appointed or in some cases Congress had to agree.

But the vast majority of people who work for the executive base, the vast majority like 99.9999% are all unelected.

So the unelected claim is both true, but it it belongs in the domain of the imaginary concerns.

We'll put that with uh things that could have happened but didn't.

Anyway, here's another one.

Uh there's a uh there's a Yale um professor who said uh I think this was on MSNBC.

They're interviewing a Yale professor who's going to leave the United States for Canada because he fears that Trump is implementing fascism and he wants to, you know, highlight it, make a point.

So, he's a professor of fascism.

So, he's a he's a scholarly expert on fascism.

Now, what happens if you're a scholarly expert on fascism?

Do you notice a lot of it?

Yes, you do.

What would happen if you were a scholarly expert on ghosts?

Would you see more ghosts than other people?

Yes, you would.

Suppose you were a scholarly expert on narcissists.

Do you think you'd see more of them than other people?

Yes, you would.

You'd see them everywhere.

So whatever you're the scholarly expert on, you're just going to sort of be primed to see it everywhere.

But what examples do you think are there?

Because you've been hearing it too, right?

Trump's a fascist.

Trump's a fascist.

What exactly are the examples?

So, I went to Grock um to find out what Trump is doing specifically that his critics would call fascism.

And here's what Grock told me fits under that cate category of fascism.

And what I want you to look for is is this the sort of thing that looks like confirmation bias?

Meaning if you were the Yale fascism scholar expert, you could interpret all of this as fascism.

But if you were not crazy, you could interpret it as just ordinary stuff.

All right?

So the first indication that Trump is a fascist is his America first policy.

If you happen to be the Yale fascism scholar expert, well, that's a pretty big signal that you're going to be a fascist.

If you were a normal person who's not bad crazy, you'd say, "Oh, you mean like every country does?" Is is there a country that doesn't put themselves first?

Well, maybe Great Britain.

Maybe maybe France and a little bit of Germany at that point.

But do you don't you think that countries in general should manage their own situation first with you know with an eye to the fact that they have to work productively with other countries.

So taking care of America first and doing things like making sure that our uh our tariff situation is at least reciprocal.

Is that what makes a fascist?

Only if that's how you're primed.

If you're not primed to see it, it just looks like ordinary.

The most obvious ordinary thing that the president has the country in mind first.

Here's another one.

Trump pardoned the January 6ers, which would suggest that he is, you know, in support of violent insurrectionists.

Hm.

But that's just a media narrative.

It's not true.

What's true is it was a protest.

It's not true they were insurrectionists.

So if you believe they were insurrectionists and he pardoned them, well, I could see how you might think, well, that's a little too far.

But if you happen to know that the media and the Democrats cooked up this horrific scheme to hunt and jail Republicans, then you would say, "Oh, well, this is justice." What What part of justice is fascism?

And has not has not Trump also pardoned over time a lot of other people who were not bunch of white Republicans?

He has.

So, so looking at pardons, because pardons are always sketchy, you know, every president who does pardons does at least a few that you say, "What?" Um, so pardons, I think that's a crazy standard.

How about strict immigration policies?

Again, this is from Grock trying to give you examples of how Trump is a fascist or his critics would say it.

Grock is now saying it.

um strict immigration policies.

That's just common sense.

That's literally just protecting your country from what?

Criminal Venezuelan gangs and degradation of the workforce in the United States or at least the pay for it.

How in the world is that fascist to not let other people come in and take your stuff?

Um then Grock says uh Trump has a uh he he has a rhetoric that talks about toughness like oh break those heads and you know we might involve the military to do this but that's just talk and it's just how it gets reframed.

If you said to yourself that's just how he talks it means nothing.

If you say to yourself, well, that's the only the only people who talk like that are fascists because you're the Yale fascism scholar expert.

Well, then suddenly it looks like something, but it's so thin.

Then about uh Trump makes attacks on the media.

So, this is on Grock's list of why Trump's critics call him a fascist.

Attacks on the media.

Well, if you thought that the media was fair and honest, then attacking it would look a little fascist.

And do you think that the Yale fascism scholar expert believes that CNN and MSNBC, he was actually appearing on MSNBC?

He was appearing on MSNBC and didn't notice that the entire media landscaped is so biased that attacking it is just common sense because they're in many cases just completely lying.

And there are plenty of examples where the media just ran schemes that they ran plays against Trump and they knew they were doing it.

We know they knew they were doing it.

So attacking the media makes sense if the media is worthy of attack.

And boy are they.

Uh uh and then then Grock says uh that on Twitter Trump allegedly praised Hitler.

Okay, I don't need to tell you that never happened, but there it is.

That's what Grock says.

No, that never happened.

And then they're saying that uh Trump made racist stereotypes of prosecutors.

Did he?

I think the racist stereotype, if he did anything, was that there's there's a coincidence to the type of people who were coming after him, which we all noticed, which is not a racist stereotype.

It's more it's more a complaining about people being racist against him.

Now, uh and then the summary is that Trump likes nationalism, suppression of disscent and authoritarian government, suppression of dissent.

What What part was that?

Attacking the media.

The media are liars.

is is it's suppression of misinformation maybe by by arguing back and authoritarian government.

What makes an authoritarian versus effective?

Where's the line between getting stuff done and being an authoritarian?

Does the authoritarian ask Kidrock and Bill Maher to go to dinner?

Uh, it seems to me that this is one of those framing hypnosis cult situations where if you've been trained to see the world through the eyes of everything's fascism or it's not, then you could sort of talk yourself into it.

But no, the evidence um is purely open to interpretation and I don't see it.

But once you're a ghost hunter, you're going to see a lot of ghosts.

Um, according to the the Daily Signal is writing, Tyler O'Neal, that Tesla owners, not connected to Doge, just people who own a Tesla, are acceptable victims according to 31% of Democrats.

So, roughly a third of Democrats uh in a poll um said that attacking people who simply owned a Tesla, which would include, you know, probably half of them are Democrats or leading Democrat that they would be acceptable targets.

Now, remember I told you that uh Democrats are basically thieves um and they're looking to take things from people who have things.

That includes Democrats who have things.

So, if anybody has nice things, you're going to find a lot of Democrats who are willing to take it away.

And I don't think it goes deeper than that.

So, I think that probably 31% of Democrats can't afford a Tesla.

So, if you say to them, "Hey, how about these people who can afford a Tesla or even just afford a car, uh, what do you think of them?" And they're like, "Ah, I think they should be victims just because I don't like Elon Musk." But really, is that the reason or is it just because they can afford a nice car and you can't?

So, that's crazy.

Um, I think in general that people who don't have money are in favor of violence against people who do.

Do you think that's a good generalization?

People who don't have money and don't expect that they're going to make any in any legal way are going to say they're going to be open to violence to take money from the people who have it because everybody wants more money.

And if you can't figure out a way to make it yourself, maybe you'd rather take it from people.

Um, I I had the experience of going from a low income situation to a high income situation and I can tell you that while I thought my character was improving and my morality as I got richer, all I re I eventually realized I was protecting my own class.

Like I got I became really anti-rime when I had money that people could steal from me.

But when I had nothing and I saw somebody maybe ripped off a rich person didn't bother me a bit.

Is it because I used to have low character and then I developed a conscience and higher character and morality and ethics?

No.

probably just made more money and then joining the people who said you shouldn't attack people who have more money because they earned it themselves.

So the difference I think with Republicans who don't have money and Democrats who don't have money is that Republicans who don't have money are more likely to think but I could have money if I worked harder and did all the obvious things that people do to make money.

So, they're not thinking, "I want to steal things and go to jail." They're thinking, "How do I work harder?

Where's my mentor?

You know, where do I get a foot in the door so I can make something of myself?" I think the Democrats are more likely to think that the system is rigged and uh they need some reparations or they need some basically they need the government to take money from the rich and give it to them.

And whether you deserved it or work for it, none of that matters.

They just don't have money, other people do.

So, they're trying to figure out ways to get it.

And if you can make the government be your your uh criminal enterprise, which is what Democrats have done, you notice the Democrats have turned the entire government, you know, through USAID and all the NOS's.

They've turned the entire thing into a criminal organization to take money from the people who have it and give it to themselves.

In many cases, they're rich and they're still doing it.

So, there's that.

Anyway, here's a story that sounds like you've heard it before, but it's actually just a third one like it.

There's yet another law firm that Trump went after um because they had been involved in uh investigating the January 6 attacks and some other stuff.

And uh see, this one is called uh Wilky Faren Gallagher.

So Trump was getting ready to go after them, but they cleverly got ahead of it and they said uh that they'll provide the equivalent of $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes the administration supports.

Now this is the third major law firm um to offer a gigantic pro bono, you know, kind essentially bribe, could you call it a bribe?

Um, they don't call it a bribe.

Let's not call it that.

Uh, but here's my question.

So, pro bono means that nobody would have to pay for it and they would do a hundred million dollars in legal services for Trump related or Republican related uh areas.

Now, here's my question.

Do they put the top lawyers on that kind of proono work?

Are you going to get the A+ players or are you going to get the the lawyers that maybe won't make it with the law firm and you know they're junior and you know well we could say we tried but you know we put our we put our lawyers on it and we did not prevail but uh I'm going to call that $10 million of legal service and nobody's really going to check that it was really $10 million of legal service and they will burn through that 100 million commitment in no time at all and they will probably not win a single case.

They they'll somehow you know like you know it it seems to me that the odds of them giving the a team to the pro bono work for the other side is really low.

Really low.

So, I'm not so sure that this is a real victory, but it's fun.

All right, here's a question that I can't wrap my head around.

Um, it doesn't seem like that long ago.

We were talking about China was in terrible trouble because their demographics are bad.

They don't have enough young people.

Uh, they're full of bureaucracy and they can't get anything done.

And you know, they might have a lot of debt and they build a bunch of cities that they're just knocking down because it was a waste of money and they're stretched kind of thin everywhere and they're they're getting ready to collapse at any moment because the US is moving it manufacturing out of there etc.

On the other hand, it seems like the United States doesn't know how to make anything and China has entire industries of people that they've trained in the art of making stuff.

So, if you wanted to build a manufacturing facility in the United States, you'd have to find somebody who knows how to do that.

and there aren't that many compared to China where I think it's a major and and you got all these, you know, armies of trained engineers and everything else who just know how to build a manufacturing plant.

So, how do you compete with that?

That we've got our kids who can barely read.

Every time there's a new report coming out, it's worse.

So, China is educating its kids.

We're not.

Um, it feels like we stopped being able to invent things.

Yeah, only a few things have come out recently.

Um, mostly AI, but China's AI is seems to be cheaper and open source.

So, if they keep their AI almost as good and cheaper and open source, how do our big companies that we think are the are the jewels in our crown, how do they even survive?

How how would um chat GPT survive if it's competing against just as good and almost free?

I don't know how.

And I don't think that China is going to, you know, suddenly start charging for AI or at least charge you more.

Um suppose there's a war.

the smart people.

I think Naval said this recently.

Uh whoever has the most drones that are, you know, least good enough to be uh in military.

Whoever has the most drones is going to win every war because they're going to be all drone wars and whoever has the most is going to win.

How in the world are we going to have more drones than China?

China will instantly go to complete military dominance because they can manufacture.

They can just make drones all day long and they would have rare earth minerals and they would have everything they needed.

They wouldn't need anything from anybody.

So that's crazy.

So here's what I can't tell.

Is China in trouble?

Do they have debt problems and, you know, population problems and bureaucracy and they can't get anything done?

Or have they become this competitive monster that we'll never be able to match militarily, technologically, or manufacturing wise.

And if we can't match them as a economy, then eventually they will dominate us.

And it seems like there's nothing we could do about it.

I saw a uh post by Hotep Jesus on X and uh Hotep Jesus is funny because he says things that you're not supposed to say in public, very provocative things.

And I don't have exact quote, but I think he said something like um if you're not expanding your empire, somebody's going to basically expand onto you.

So you don't have a choice of just staying the same.

In this world, that's just not an option.

You can be growing and growing your empire or somebody else is going to grow their empire and take yours.

Those really are the only two choices.

Because if you look at any any civilization that was thriving, they were usually conquering at the same time.

you know, whether it was Rome when it was growing.

Um, China right now is looking to, you know, conquer, it's already conquered what, Tibet, and now it's going to conquer Taiwan.

It's already conquered Hong Kong.

So, China is growing and it's looking to dominate the the oceans around China.

It's expanding.

Russia is expanding.

it got bigger and in a pretty important way and we don't know I mean it doesn't look like he's done uh he just added more people he just he just increased the size of his army substantially uh Putin did and then the United States um we're looking to pick up Greenland and uh maybe something about Panama and maybe even Canada.

So when you see Trump uh overtly trying to expand, don't feel like that's a risk to the United States.

Think about it in terms of there are only two ways that big countries can go.

They can keep expanding or they die.

Somebody else expands onto them.

So, uh, you know, maybe Europe is the only place that's operating the opposite and it looks like they're doomed, right?

So, I don't see anybody in Europe who's trying to expand their country.

Instead, they're looking to give it away through mass migration.

So you should be able to predict that Europe is doomed and that uh the US, Russia and China are still expansionist countries and we might, you know, come to blows with each other.

Um I think we'd be smart enough to avoid world wars, but those are three healthy competitive situations if we don't go broke from debt.

Anyway, Russia says it won't accept a US ceasefire proposal because it doesn't give them what they want, which is no NATO in uh Ukraine and um something else.

Some kind of security guarantee.

No, what is it?

What are the same ones?

They want to I don't know, consolidate the land that they've already gotten and make sure that there's no NATO and blah blah.

So, but I'm going to go further.

I don't think that Putin's going to say yes to any deal.

So, I hate to predict this because I would have Well, I did.

I predicted that Trump could wrap up the Ukraine war fairly quickly because I thought to myself, well, he's just going to say there's an obvious deal to be made.

Russia keeps what it already got.

Uh Ukraine doesn't join NATO.

But as it's shaping up, I think I'm going to bet against any kind of a peace deal.

Um, I wouldn't bet that we'll necessarily stay supporting Ukraine, which maybe isn't the worst thing that could happen.

So, I'm going to say that there's not going to be a Ukraine peace deal.

And I don't think Putin wants it.

I don't think Zilinski wants it.

I don't think the European Union wants it, but the US wants it.

Uh, so I think we'll just bow out.

I I think maybe we might sell weapons to people want to buy them, but I think Europe's going to have to cash the check.

So, yes, no peace deal in my opinion.

It doesn't look like anything's pointing in that direction.

Um, according to Tech Explorer, there's this new EV battery breakthrough that you could charge 500% faster even in sub-zero weather.

University of Michigan engineers have it.

And apparently, it's working so well that it's already being commercialized.

So, we might see that.

Um, if if batterdriven cars didn't have the cold weather problem and you could also charge them 500% faster, that's a big deal.

Now, I will tell you that I do see a battery breakthrough story every single day, but they all start sounding the same, so I stopped reporting on all of them.

But the battery stuff is really interesting.

is really interesting.

All right, here's uh on uh Andrew Huberman's show, Huberman Lab, he had an expert on who said that if a mom has diabetes, the risk of an autistic child doubles.

If the mom has obesity, the risk of having an autistic child doubles.

And if the mom has diabetes and obesity, which often go together, uh it would quadruple the risk of the autistic child.

Now, I don't know if I'm fully believing that yet because that would fall into the somebody did a study, but I don't know.

But you first of all it doesn't it doesn't match any of my anecdotal experience because every time I think of somebody who had a um who had an autistic kid I don't really think of them as being overweight and so and I don't know that they had diabetes so I haven't really seen it.

It's not like something I've noticed or anything like that.

So, I'm a little skeptical of this one, but um if it's true, it might be at least part of the puzzle of why there's so much of it lately.

And it wouldn't surprise me if diabetes and obesity, you know, created a whole bunch of, you know, health problems that you didn't see coming.

So, that part sort of makes sense.

But I don't know if I'm quite buying into that.

It might be a big part of the answer.

I don't know.

I'm a little skeptical, but it could be that there are multiple reasons and they're all environmental andor health and uh it'll be hard to untangle it.

Uh meanwhile, according to HR dive, Emily Shamway is writing that uh the judge says that IBM must face the discrimination claim from the white male worker who believes that he was uh fired because he was white so that the bosses could make room for uh their diversity goals.

And here, let me just read this part.

The plaintiff alleged that IBM CEO set specific percentage targets for the racial and gender composition of IBM's workforce.

Now, I know that's true because I've seen video of the CEO saying exactly that.

And then IBM implemented a system of financial incentives to reward executives who worked to achieve those uh those targets, the DEI targets uh according to the lawsuit.

Now, uh, and the IBM CEO suggested that executives who did not make progress on getting that diversity they wanted could be penalized or be fired or have their pay reduced.

Now, this is the goal versus system problem.

as a as a goal.

A little extra diversity might be just positive as a goal, but you have to develop a system to make it happen.

The system that he developed, IBM CEO guarantees that there would be massive discrimination against white people.

Why?

Follow the money.

He he he created a a massive financial interest in discriminating against white people and trying to make it look like it didn't happen.

So suddenly this guy who had been getting good reviews suddenly puts on a gets put on a performance, you know, improvement plan, which is sort of the last thing they do before they fire you.

So that they would have some paperwork.

Allegedly, they would have some paperwork that would support the firing the white guy because every time you fired a white guy and replaced them with a non-white guy, you would make more money.

Or or to put it the other way, the more successful you were discriminating against your white workforce, the less risk there would be that you would get fired, which is all about money, too.

So, how in the world does the CEO of IBM not understand how money is an incentive?

And he didn't realize that people would massively break the law as soon as money was involved because they could pretend they weren't doing it.

It wouldn't be hard to pretend, right?

Uh, I know.

Uh, Carl was doing a inexplicably bad job.

Autism Capital is saying that Mexican President Claudia Shinbomb says she will not impose reciprocal tariffs on the US.

I'll need to know more about that.

But today is going to be fascinating.

So if if the stock market turns green today, and it might, it would be because a few countries, it wouldn't take many, decided to um play ball with Russia.

I'm sorry, play ball with uh the tariff situation and just be reasonable and come up with something that that makes sense.

So maybe that's what Mexico is doing.

Maybe that's what Israel did.

Although that there.

They didn't have much tariffs.

So, we'll keep an eye on that.

I I think there is a real good chance that the stock market will end up in positive territory by the end of the day.

Um, all it takes is a little bit of a a little bit of a trend that countries are looking to avoid the economic war and make something work.

It wouldn't take much.

maybe two or three countries and stock market's going to love it.

So, we'll see.

Oh, but I think Trump's announcement will be after the market closes.

Not sure.

Yeah.

So, we'll see.

All right.

So, IBM's going to figure that out.

Um Elon Musk is getting a lot of attention for saying he posted on X.

As I mentioned several years ago, it is increasingly it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital super intelligence.

Now, of course, he's 100% right.

It's just an analogy.

It's not like it's not like you have to buy into the analogy.

But, um here's what I think.

The reason that Elon Musk says we need to be an interplanetary species is that if you stayed on Earth, eventually you would be destroyed by a meteor or the sun burns down or something.

So the only way humans can survive is if they're interplanetary.

And even that seems like a risk because, you know, I mean, Mars might get destroyed before the United States and before we find a third planet cuz it's not like there's a bunch of other planets.

But suppose there was some kind of uh gigantic risk to all life on Earth.

Would that risk be equal to the AI?

Could you launch a rocket that just takes the best AIs and puts them on there and has a solar panels and and the AI just lives forever as a digital entity that's super intelligence.

So it could be that you need the biological entities, we humans, for a brief period of time just to get super intelligence going, which could last forever potentially could could last through suns burning out and everything else.

Whereas the biological parts are unlikely to survive as easily for, you know, for millions of years.

Anyway, I think you're fine this week.

I don't know.

I I agree with his statement, but people are taking it wrong.

They're taking it as if he's saying that AI is more important than human beings, which is exactly the opposite of anything that Elon Musk ever said or believed.

Wait, the stock market's already up?

Is that true?

Oh, I'll be damned.

The stock market's up already.

Well, there you go.

There you go.

All right, everybody.

That's all I have for today.

Thanks for joining on X and Rumble and You.

Tube.

I'm going to talk to the subscribers on subscribers on locals next and privately.

The rest of you, we'll see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

are. We better check the stock market

here because as you know it's the tariff

liberation

day. See how everything

looks. Stock market is a little

royiled. Got a little bit of green and a

lot of

red. S&P 500's down a little

bit. All right. Well, let me get my

comments going here and then we can have

the show you

deserve. Yeah, it's the one you

deserve. Not the one you get, it's the

one you deserve.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott

Adams. You've probably never had a

better time. But if you'd like to take

this experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a cup of mug or a glass of

tanker gels in a canteen jugger flask. A

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure of

the dopamine dinner of the day. The

thing that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip and it

happens right now. Go.

So

good. Well, you probably heard by now

actor Val Gilmer has tragically died at

age 65 from pneumonia in Los Angeles. I

don't have anything to say about that,

but uh when people who are younger than

me die, it bothers me a little extra, I

have to say.

So,

uh, uh, rest in peace, Val

Kilmer. All right. Uh, shall we do some,

uh, fake news? Let's look at some fake

news. Uh, according to Futurism, Maggie

Harrison Dupra is writing that after a

single concussion, kids are 15% less

likely to go go to college. Does that

sound like real science to you? After

one

concussion, kids are 15% less likely to

go to

college. Do you know what else could be

behind that

number? Could it be that smart kids get

fewer head

injuries? I'm just asking.

If I showed you a bunch of

mathletes and they were standing next to

a bunch of

athletes, the athletes probably are

going to break their heads a little bit

more often. And the mathletes are

probably going to be joining the band

and maybe working on the I don't know

the

uh working on some clubs.

I I hate to be uh all

stereotypical, but I'm pretty sure that

intelligence is highly correlated with

protecting your head. What do you

think? Yeah. Do you do you think that

people of all intelligence levels are

equally likely to wear a

helmet to ride a bicycle? It's not been

my

experience. My experience is the dumber

you are, the less likely you'll wear a

helmet when you're riding your

bicycle. Anyway, I thought that was

funny.

Well, the Wisconsin Supreme Court

elections didn't go the way a lot of

Republicans wanted it to go. So the

Democrat Crawford won, which means that

there will be likely some reortionment,

which

means Wisconsin will uh subtract some

Republicans and add some Democrats to

the House, which

means the Republicans could lose the

majority in the House. Now, I don't know

how close it is to guaranteeing that

that will happen.

How close are we to guaranteeing that we

lose the majority or Republicans lose? I

is it just very

likely or is it guaranteed

now? Cuz anything could happen. But

let's talk about why that

happened. Why the heck did that happen?

Um the according to The

Hill, they say that Elon Musk might be

toxic to elections.

Charlie Kirk says that the low

propensity voters

uh a lot of low propensity voters voted

for Trump, but if Trump's not on the

ticket, are they really going to show up

for, you know, a local election? That

might be part of it. I I think a lot of

it is that the Democrats had nothing

else going for them. So they had this

one thing that if they could find this

clever way to sort of beat the system

that they wouldn't have to act like they

live in a democratic society. They'd

rather live in a lawfare

driven kleptocracy or something. So they

found this little weasly way to win if

they could put all their energy into it.

But they didn't have anything else to

put energy into. They had no policies,

no no ideas, but they sure like this

idea of reortioning so they have power.

So some of us do that with the fact that

nothing else was

happening and so they could put all of

their hopes and dreams and energy into

this one little weasly thing. And I'll

tell you, Democrats love weasly

It's like lawfare. Sign me up.

uh reaportion to win.

Absolutely. So it's all trickery,

trickery and

schemes. Um so but do you think Elon

Musk is toxic to elections and that that

might lead to the

midterms? Do you think the midterms will

go poorly because of Elon? Well, that

might uh the interesting part is that

he'll be done with his

role. It's supposed to only last 130

days. So, he'll be done, I don't know,

for the summer or something. And he

thinks he can get his trillion dollars

of savings before he's done. Now, if he

does that, if he succeeds, and you know,

the major news sources agree that, okay,

he did he did find a trillion dollars.

didn't think he could do it. Will that

still make him

toxic?

Well, maybe. But it seems like after

he's no longer working on the

government, isn't it going to be harder

to say it's his fault? Because the

actual cuts are going to be made by, you

know, cabinet heads and group leaders

who are in the government. So, are you

really going to blame Doge or Musk if

they get a trillion dollars and every

one of the cuts, every one of them at

this point would be approved by people

who, you know, are at least

uh most of them I think have to be at

least approved by Congress before they

can get in their

job. I don't know. It could feel

completely different in six

months. Just the fact that you don't see

his face associated with it all the

time.

And and the main thing is um when it

comes to Democrats, I saw Dr.

Insensitive Jerk on

uh on on X saying that uh you won't

understand Democrats until you

understand that

they that they're thieves and and they

they like letting people out of prison

and they like, you know, prisoners

having freedom because they relate to

the thieves.

That's pretty that's pretty

harsh. But it does seem a little bit

like when you show them a let's put it

this way. It seems to me that Democrats

are about transferring wealth from

people who made it and Republicans are

about creating wealth. So you got one

party that creates wealth and that's

their main thing and one party that

wants to just take it away from them.

Uh, I don't know how that how could that

even be a thing, but it feels like

that's what it is. Well, today's

Liberation Day, April 2nd, and the

President Trump will be announcing at uh

400 p.m. I think in East Coast time um

from the Rose Garden, he'll tell you

what exactly the tariffs are going to

look like. Will they be just straight

reciprocal? Will they be uh done with a

scalpel or a or a

jackhammer? Um it doesn't matter what he

does. The press is going to say they

hate it because you know what else they

have to do except say they hate

everything he does. So we'll see how

that goes. That's what's uh roing the

stock market today.

the stock market's going to going to

react to the

uncertainty. Now, Israel

uh quite cleverly got out in front of it

and dropped all their duties and tariffs

on American goods. To which a lot of us

said, "Wait a minute. They had tariffs

on American

goods. Uh, I thought they were our

friends and they had tariffs on American

goods. They weren't very high and it

wasn't there wasn't much of it. So, they

they didn't give up much by giving up

their tariffs. But it's so smart to do

it before the tariffs kick

in like like given that there wasn't

much money involved and Israel is very

free market oriented. It was just a

clever move to get ahead of it and you

know be one of the first let's call it a

victory for Trump because sure enough he

threatens and uh and Israel just says

okay we'll drop ours. So that's how the

negotiation is supposed to work. India

did the same. Somebody says I haven't

seen that in the news. Did India drop

all of its tariffs? I think they only

reduced

them. So, I'll have to check on that.

But give me give me a fact check on

that. Did India drop their tariffs in in

anticipation of uh the US tariffs or did

they only adjust them downward? I think

they only adjusted them downward, which

would be not

nothing. So, we'll see how that goes.

You know, the the funny part is people

are still treating it like it's intended

to be permanent. And it doesn't matter

how many times it's explained. No, the

point of this is to not have tariffs.

The the end goal is that we don't have

tariffs. They don't have

tariffs. So, we'll see. Um, unusual

Wales on X, that's an account on X, um,

said that tariffs to the tariffs would

add as much as $10,000 to the cost of

the average new home.

What do you think of that as a data

point that the costs of tariffs, the

extra cost would add

$10,000 to the price of building the

average new home? Now, that's per

CNBC. Here's what I say. What's the

first thing I teach you when they show

you a number without a

percentage or a percentage without a

number?

What does it mean when the news gives

you a number without the percentage or

the percentage without the number?

Because you don't know how much the

average house costs to build, do you?

You don't know if that's 20%, 2%, 1%. Do

you? So this is propaganda or just

really lazy lazy work because uh I had

to go to AI and say what's the cost of

the average house and somewhere in the

somewhere in the 300,000 range would be

the average cost of a new house. So

$10,000 added to that would be about 3%

extra.

Now, would it be fair to say that now

that we know the number and the

percentage, would it be fair to say that

the tariffs will add

3%.

No. No. Because the point of the tariffs

is not to leave them in place. The point

in point of the tariffs is to negotiate.

So, what we don't know is where it all

shakes out. But what we do know for sure

is that nobody, including the

administration, plans for them to be

permanent and to just add costs to the

US

consumer. So everything about that

estimate is

misleading. First of all, that it would

last and or even ever, it's possible it

will never even touch us because maybe

things will happen so quickly. It's

possible. And the other thing is it's

3%.

10,000 sounds like a lot.

3% I don't know that you would notice

it. Would you on a on a

house? I mean, nobody wants to spend 3%

more, but would you even know the

difference? If I told you that the cost

of a new house was 300,000 blah blah

blah

versus the first time I ever talked to

you about it, I told you was 3%

higher. It wouldn't make any difference

to your decision, would it?

3%. Almost certainly

no. All right. according to uh Mario

Knoff and he's

quoting he's quoting somebody named Alec

uh Stap.

So I guess Mario thinks this is a real

number. Uh maybe it is, but the stat is

that the US is now producing 50% more

oil than Saudi

Arabia. Does that sound right to you?

Does it sound right

that the US makes 50 or is producing 50%

more oil than Saudi

Arabia? I think I'm going to need a fact

check on that one, too. If it's true,

it's amazing.

So uh I guess Saudi's uh share of the

world oil has declined

steadily and

[Music]

uh anyway so that so that would US is

leading the the world accounting for 16%

of the total global

output whereas Saudi is 11% and Russia

is 12%.

Now, if this is

true and it's newish, I also don't know

how newish it is, but if we suddenly

have created a surge in in oil

production, wouldn't that tell you that

that would make a bigger difference to

lowering prices than the tariffs might

have to increasing

prices? If it's

true, let's see. I've got

Yeah. All right. So, I'm not even sure I

believe that. It sounds like almost too

good to be true. Well, as you know,

Senator Corey Booker um he broke the

record for talking nonstop

uh in Congress or at the Senate.

But they're calling it a talkathon, not

a filibuster. Because it's not a

filibuster because he wasn't trying to

stop any particular

legislation. So why was he doing

it? I don't know. I've been watching

this news for like two days and it's a

headline story. I don't I don't even

think the news told us why he did it.

I feel like he just needed some

attention and he so he just put on a

play. What are we going to do? I don't

know. How about I put on a play and I'll

pretend to be the very tired senator who

cares a lot and talks for 25 hours and

breaks the

record. And I'm thinking it's it's pure

theater.

There's there's not even a specific

thing he wanted. Somebody said they had

something to do with

immigration, but what exactly is he

disagreeing about immigration?

So the ridiculousness of it, the

complete weakness of it can only be can

only be beaten by the fact that

apparently his really good friend who

works for him sometimes. Uh was led into

the building around the security check

and then later he told people he had a

gun. He was immediately arrested because

no guns are allowed in the Senate. Uh

but there's a little it's a little

unclear whether Senator Booker is the

one who escorted him in because it seems

like Booker was probably just at the

podium most of the time. Um or somebody

else did. But uh I think it was reported

as a member of Congress led him in and

led him around the screening.

Why does anybody get to go around the

screening? If you're the security person

and a member of Congress says, "Oh, this

is somebody I know really well. We're

going to let him go around the

screening." I would say to you, "Uh,

isn't that the most dangerous person who

came to the building, the one who has a,

you know, somebody who's going to take

him around the screening? Why would you

ever let anybody do that?

So, first of all, I'd probably fire the

security people for allowing a member of

Congress to take anybody around the

screening, especially when you find out

later they have a

gun. Now, apparently there was nothing

dangerous about it, but I mean, he

wasn't threatening anybody or anything

like that, but uh that's just

crazy. Now, do you think that's bigger

or wor is that a worse problem than Mike

Waltz fat fingering? Probably. We don't

know the exact story, but however, he

invited Jeffrey Goldberg accidentally

and then he saw some plans for the

attack, which they don't call plans for

the attack. I don't know. I think these

are both nothings. You know, they both

led to nothing. Nobody got hurt.

you know, could have been a problem, but

wasn't. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna treat

this, you know, the the friend who

brought a gun in. I'm going to treat

this the same as the Mike Waltz thing. I

don't really think, you know, even if

Booker is the one who who took him

around the uh security, we don't know

that, but even if he is, I don't think

Booker should be, you know, resigning. I

don't think Mike Wall should be

resigning. These are just tiny little,

you know, human problems. They were

dumb. You know that I'm not not

defending any of it, but not the biggest

problem in the world. Well, meanwhile,

CNN and uh Harry has some new numbers

that are bad for Democrats.

So according to a new poll Quinn

Quinnipc

uh Democrats opinion of their own well

actually the entire voters's opinion of

Democrats in Congress is 21%

approval. Now this is Democrats in

Congress. So it's not about the party of

Democrats just the ones are elected in

Congress.

And

uh only 40% of Democrats approve of

their own their own uh bunch of Congress

people. It's the lowest approval on

record for

Quinnipic. So So even though the

Democrats had a good day yesterday in in

Wisconsin so they can do their little

reortionment scheme,

um they're not doing so well. By the

way, there were also uh there were some

elections in Florida, some special

elections, and the Republicans both won,

but not by as much as people thought

they would. So, it kind of everything is

sort of suggesting all the special

elections are sort of suggesting that

the Republicans have some weakness

uh whenever Trump is not on the ticket.

So that that could be a bad signal

coming up. All right. So yesterday I

didn't know during the show that Bill

Maher had already had dinner with Trump

at the White

House. Um

and there's a little bit of feedback. I

think Bill Maher is going to talk about

it on Friday on his show. That will be

interesting. But uh the the dinner was

Bill Maher Trump, Kid Rock who set it up

and Dana White who was just there

because he's a good dinner date I guess.

And I was thinking to myself, how could

that not be

fun? I mean, just think about it. Bill

Maher, Trump, Kid Rock, Dana White.

There was no chance that that could be

anything but a good

time. But here here are the the little

bit of stories we've heard from it.

We'll hear more.

Um, I think I heard this on Guffeld uh

that uh that Bill Maher brought with him

a list of insults Trump had said about

Bill Maher over the years and handed it

to

him. So, what do you think Trump did

with it? The list of insults that Trump

had used against Bill

Maher. What's the funniest thing that

Trump could do? He autographed it and

gave it

back. He signed

it. Now, how much do you love

that? And how disarming is that? So you

you're Bill Maher and you're coming in

with, okay, these are all the things you

said about me, which, you know, in

itself was kind of a humorous thing to

do. But I think I think Trump topped him

by signing

it, especially if he hadn't been asked

to sign it. It's funnier if Bill Mah

didn't ask him to sign it and he just

said, "Give me a

[Laughter]

pen." Oh, that was funny. But apparently

a good time was had by all. They got

along and there was a um little guided

tour of the White House and even the the

private residents. That's the good

stuff. People don't get to usually see

that. And then we learned that Bill

Maher, the Democrat that he's been

forever, has never been to the White

House. You even I've been to the White

House. there there's so many like

podcasters and you know Republicans of

all kind who have been invited to the

White House generally you know because

the president wants to you know make

sure you're on board and just work the

crowd a little bit but uh Bill Martin

never been invited but here's here's the

kill shot now we might hear more about

this but this is what we know so far

that apparently during dinner Trump

asked Bill Maher about Mar's opinion

about uh Iran and Israel and the Middle

East. Now, what I was looking for was

the kill shot. The killshot is where

Trump, who has crazy charisma, he can

turn to anybody in person. Like, you

cannot dislike him in person. It would

just be so hard cuz in person, I mean,

he just glows. I I had the experience.

um you just want to be talking to him

and he never runs out of things to say.

He always gives you full attention and

treats you like you're the only person

in the room. But here's the kill shot.

Imagine being Bill Maher and you think

of yourself as basically a well-informed

political

comedian and then the most powerful and

important

person maybe in the world, the president

of the United States looks at you and

says, "What do you think I should do

about the Middle East?"

And you might actually have some ideas

because you've been thinking about it

and you're well

informed. I can tell you what happened

next because I experienced

it. Whatever Mar said, unless he just

said a joke, which I doubt, so maybe

we'll find out about that later. if he

gave him any actual advice or and

treated as seriously like, you know, I

think the only thing you can do is this

or that, I guarantee you that Trump gave

him his full

attention, listened to him completely

without

interrupting and then, you know, maybe

commented on his comments or something.

Do you know what that does to a

person? I I had that experience where I

I've told you this story before. It's

not really private. Um, when Trump asked

me who I thought would be his running

his running opponent the next time he

ran because I saw him in 2018 and I said

I thought it would be Kla Harris and

then, you know, he said he thought it

would be uh um Biden. So, he was right.

But when the president of the United

States asks for your opinion and then he

listens for the answer like he really

actually no joke in the real world

wanted to hear your

opinion. The power of that is

incalculable. So I expect Bill Maher

will try to act like nothing happened.

You know, like there were two

adversaries who had a good dinner and it

was fun, but it doesn't change anything

about how he feels or how he's going to

act or how hard he's going to be on

Trump. I I imagine that that's the look

we're going to get. But I'll tell you

that experience will change you and

that's one of the superpowers that Trump

has. He can ask He can ask for your

opinion, treat you like you're the only

one in the room and your opinion matters

and you'll never be the

same. You'll never be the same. It will

just change you forever. It's it's it's

like an incredible

thing. Anyway, do you remember a while

back, it was in 2020, there was a study

that went all over the internet that

said that uh black

infants uh have a lower survival rate if

they're cared for by white

doctors? How many of you remember that?

I remember it. So, that's that would be

pretty horrible, right? so racist if if

black infants didn't do as well if they

had white

doctors. So, uh, guess what

happened? Turns out somebody looked at

the data and found out the data was

maybe not so reliable. And here's why.

There was a little bit of a selection

bias. And

this it's so it's so bad. science is so

terrible. Here's what the selection bias

was. There are more white doctors in the

specialties where you you go to those

specialties because somebody's might

die. So the white doctors were in the

sort of dangerous jobs, more of them.

There were more of them. So that it

looked like when you went to a white

doctor, you'd have bad

outcomes, but you would only go to those

specialists who just happened to be more

staffed by white doctors if you were

already in in dire trouble, right? So it

might be the oncologist or, you know,

heart surgeon or something like that. So

all it was was they had they didn't

select, you know, an equal set of black

doctors and an equal set of white

doctors. The white doctors were more

often in specialties that involved, you

know, more dangerous kinds of

situations. And that's all it was. And

if you once you corrected for that, the

difference kind of went away.

Now you know even if you didn't know

that what was the the credibility you

should have given the study from day one

as soon as you heard it the answer is

none from from the first time you heard

it without even knowing what the problem

was you should have said oh it's one of

those here's why half of all this these

studies half are not

reproducible, meaning that it's a coin

flip, whether it's real or not. Even if

it's

peer-reviewed, there's a 50% chance it's

not reproducible, meaning it was never

valid in the first place. Now, if the

question is sort of a yes, no, which

this is, do the black babies do as well

if the doctor is a different race? Yes

or no? Right? It's it's like a coin

flip. It's yes or no. Under those

conditions, when the studies themselves

are only 50% reliable, what is the

difference between doing a

study and not knowing if it's

reproducible and flipping a

coin? Because it's just going to be yes

or no, heads or tails. And the answer is

there's no difference. There's no

difference between that study even if

you didn't know that it was flawed. At

the very at the start of it, you should

have said, "Well, that means nothing."

Now, it could become it could become

meaningful. Let's say if the study were

reproducible, that would mean something.

Suppose other people did studies in the

same domain and got similar

answers. Well, now you have my

attention. you know, as long as it's not

all being funded by one kind of entity

that has a has a horse in the race. But

no, when you first hear a study like

this, it's just a coin flip. It means

nothing. Here's another one. Uh, lab

grown meat. I saw this in the internet

today. Lab grown meat potentially worse

for the environment than retail beef.

So, this is uh told to us by an account

called No Farms, No Food.

So it's an

entity that is sort of

pro-farm which means probably not

pro-lab grown

meat and uh they say an interdep

departmental study from the University

of

California University of California

uh concluded that lab grown meat may be

up to 25 times worse for the environment

than natural pasture raised cattle

retail beef.

Now, here's the first tell that

something's a

miss. The the

poster that's

ProArm did a screenshot instead of a

link. So, if I wanted to click and see

the details of the study, couldn't do

it. So, that's your first, you know,

that's a that's a little uh signal

there.

Um, secondly, we don't know who funded

the study. Was it big

meat? I mean, who else would fund it? Is

there anybody was there anybody else

even going to look into it? I don't

know. So, if you don't know who funded

it, you should ignore it.

Um, and then again, you have to put it

into the context of the studies being

50% false anyway. So, I don't know. I

don't know if any of that's true, but

it's a low

reliability. Speaking of low rei

reliability, Katherine Herage and number

of other people um reporting about the I

guess we have some new information about

the internal deliberations at the FBI

during the time that the Hunter laptop

story was breaking. And the news is that

the

FBI knew that it was real, but they just

shut up and told everybody to shut up

about

it. Now, did you have the same

experience with this story that I did?

If you already heard it, that didn't you

think, didn't we already know that

everybody in the government was lying

about the laptop and that they knew it

was real?

I I had trouble figuring out what was

the new

part. Maybe I just assumed it, didn't

you? Is there even one person listening

who thought the FBI thought that that

was

fake or the Department of Justice or or

or those 51 intel people who said it

looked like Russian dis Russian I don't

know craft or something like that. I

didn't think that there was anybody who

thought that was real. I didn't think

there was anybody who thought it was

anything but real. I thought we knew

everybody in the government was lying in

every capacity in every place, including

the FBI. But, uh, I guess Katherine

Herage is going to do an expose with or

a deep dive um with Michael

Shelonburgger. I don't think they've

worked together before, so this could be

interesting. And uh so they got newly

released FBI chat messages and basically

people were told to stand down and shut

up about

it. But

again, why does it feel like it feels

like I saw the future or something,

right? Because I kept reading and

thinking, didn't everybody know this?

Didn't everybody know the FBI was lying

if they were involved at all?

Stop

acting uh stop acting surprised that the

FBI lied to

you. Well, the New York Times has

inexplicably written a uh very long

story about the US involvement in

Ukraine. I guess this was yesterday, the

day before.

And it it kind of reveals what all of us

already knew again. So this this is like

the same thing I said about the last

story. Didn't you already know that the

US was deeply involved in creating the

situation that caused war in Ukraine?

But now the New York Times is revealing

to us through their

investigation that yes, the US was very

involved. But what they were keying on

here is that uh the targeting

information was coming from uh US people

at a German military base and that even

General Millie was directly involved in

planning for the planning for the

Ukraine military and there were even

troops on the ground. US troops on the

ground in

Ukraine, presumably

advising, but I would think helping with

targeting and I would think helping tell

people which button to push on the

weapons if they're American

weapons. And so, so again, I asked the

question, didn't we all know that?

Is there anybody who is watching this

who didn't know that there must have

been US military people sort of embedded

with the Ukrainians from day one? I just

thought everybody knew that. So now it's

a big story in the New York Times and

people are like,

"What?" But seriously, in the comments,

didn't you all know that we had boots on

the ground from day one? Cuz that's the

way everything works. You don't have to

know about

Ukraine. You just have to know anything

about the United States. And and

anything about the United States would

tell you. Of course, we had people

pretending not to be our military who

were our military. might have been CIA,

might have been just special forces or

something, but they just take off their

outfits, dress like Ukrainians, which I

guess dress like Americans, and

uh they're they're just training them.

Maybe they're just training

them. This is the least

surprising story of all, but there's

some speculation. I saw Jack Pabic

talking about it and uh that the uh New

York Times might be trying to maybe

cover their own asses or or get ahead of

the fact that there will be more coming

out so it doesn't look like they didn't

do their

job. So I don't know.

Um, so apparently the US has been

directly involved in a war with Russia

the entire time, which again, I thought

everybody knew

it. None of you were surprised,

right? It's just how we operate.

Anyway, so now that there are multiple

offers for Tik Tok,

uh Wall Street Journal is reporting that

uh Trump is going to be briefed on all

the offers and make some kind of a

decision. But here's my question. Isn't

it up to China? If China says you can't

sell it or Tik Tok says it, but really

we would imagine that China was banned.

And I don't think China's going to sell

it. So if I had to

predict, I think that that China would

eat the billions of dollars of revenue

that they could have made, 50 billion or

whatever it is. Um because a lot of that

would have go to the investors. It

wouldn't go to China. If you were China

and you knew you were going to lose

control of Tik Tok in America anyway,

just

America, would you sell

it if you thought you had a little money

involved? You know, maybe a billion here

or there, or or would you just say, "No,

we'll just uh go out of business in

America and just sell it everywhere

else." I think China is not going to

approve the sale. So, I think Trump is

going to have to kill Tik

Tok, which China would be challenging

him to do because you know how unpopular

that would

be? That would be super

unpopular because even Trump has said

he's Tik Tok. So, I think that China is

going to want to corner Trump and put

him especially during the tariff

situation. They're going to want to

corner and embarrass Trump by saying

hard no, we're not selling it. So if you

want to put it out of business, that

will be you, Trump, putting it out of

business. So explain that to all the

small businesses who go out of business

because they lose their Tik Tok

access. Uh it would be a nightmare. So,

I feel like Trump may have accidentally

walked into a trap that he set

himself. How in the world does he get

out of this? So, that's my prediction.

China will be a hard no on the sale and

they'd rather embarrass Trump into being

the one who kills Tik

Tok. I think that's where it's

heading. Apparently in uh New York State

uh there was uh some kind of a big

strike by the corrections uh

professionals and uh so there there

weren't there won't be enough or there

were not enough people to operate the

jails. So what they're going to do is

release a whole bunch of prisoners. not

not the most dangerous ones, but they're

going to release some massive amount of

prisoners that should be in jail just by

saying they don't have

jails. They don't have a staff to manage

it. So, I guess the corrections officers

have been on strike since February. They

don't like the forced overtime and tough

working conditions. To which I say, why

did you why did you ask for a job in a

prison? What? Why? Why? Imagine asking

for a job in a prison and then

complaining about the difficult working

conditions. What did you think it would

be like when you decided to work in a

prison? Did Did you think you'd have a

nice cubicle and a and a and a window

view? It seems to me that job would be

the hardest job of all jobs, you know,

and also the most

dangerous. So, I certainly understand

why they'd go on strike. I just don't

understand why they take the job in the

first

place. Well, meanwhile, uh, Project

Veritoss has a new undercover video.

um involving the NASA and the State

Department in which the employees are

saying that they're not getting rid of

DEI, they're just rebranding it and

they're going to defy Trump's uh orders

on DEI being

illegal. So, they said they cancelled

their DEI stuff, but people just did it

and called it something else. They work

around the

rules.

Uh what do you think's going to

happen? Do do you think that the

Department of Justice, I guess it would

be them, Pam Bondi, would come after

them when the undercover the undercover

uh investigation shows that they were

just lying and they were just continuing

to racially

discriminate, at what point do you go to

jail for

it? Because it's

illegal. If you're if you're doing a

scheme so that you can continue

illegally discriminating against white

people, is there no jail for

that? You know, at what point is it

jailable? You know, maybe is it a civil,

you know, you get sued for it, you lose

your funding. What exactly is a penalty

for that? Because if there's no penalty,

nothing's going to happen.

But uh apparently racism is very

important to NASA and the State

Department, at least parts of

it. Well, according to The Hill, Tim

Walsh's daughter has decided not to go

to grad

school. It turns out the daughter might

be as dumb as Tim Walsh. So, listen to

her reason for not going to grad school.

Um, and she announces on TikTok that

she's not going to go to grad school

because she says there's a a lack of

support, at least in the school that she

wanted to go to, for the right to

protest a higher education institutions.

She said, "I I applied for one school.

Uh, I kind of had my heart set on it. I

am not going to name the institution,

but given the recent events, I'm not

going to give my money, go into debt

for, or support institutions that do not

support students and the right to

protest and speak out for their

communities.

So that's why she's not going to

graduate

school. So, she's destroyed her own

career because she thinks she doesn't

have free speech on a college

campus. I'm not entirely sure this was

about free speech, was

it? I thought it was about uh gross

anti-semitism. Was anybody complaining

about free

speech? Because I don't know that free

speech protects you from a level of

anti-semitism that pretty much

guarantees there's going to be violence

attached. I don't know. Tim Wals's

daughter.

Uh I don't think you don't think you

made a good decision

there. Well, let's check in with the

Department of Imaginary Concerns. As you

know, Democrats have a lot of drama and

a lot of imaginary concerns. So, we're

going to check in on those. Uh,

imaginary concern number one, Elon Musk

is not

elected. That is an imaginary concern.

Now, it's true he's not elected. You

know what else is true? There are only

two people in the executive branch who

are

elected. Just two. But I haven't given

you the percentage yet. Remember, number

within a percentage is

misleading. Uh, but there are about 2.4

million federal government workers. I I

think those are just within the the

president's um

domain. So, of the millions, let's just

say a few million. Um, of the millions

of

workers, only two of them are elected.

the rest are you appointed or in some

cases Congress had to agree. But the

vast majority of people who work for the

executive base, the vast majority like

99.9999% are all

unelected. So the unelected claim is

both true, but it it belongs in the

domain of the imaginary concerns. We'll

put that with uh things that could have

happened but

didn't. Anyway, here's another one.

Uh there's a

uh there's a Yale um

professor who said uh I think this was

on MSNBC. They're interviewing a Yale

professor who's going to leave the

United States for Canada because he

fears that Trump is implementing fascism

and he wants to, you know, highlight it,

make a point. So, he's a

professor of fascism. So, he's a he's a

scholarly expert on fascism. Now, what

happens if you're a scholarly expert on

fascism? Do you notice a lot of it?

Yes, you

do. What would happen if you were a

scholarly expert on

ghosts? Would you see more ghosts than

other people? Yes, you would. Suppose

you were a scholarly expert on

narcissists. Do you think you'd see more

of them than other people? Yes, you

would. You'd see them everywhere.

So whatever you're the scholarly expert

on, you're just going to sort of be

primed to see it everywhere. But what

examples do you think are there? Because

you've been hearing it too, right?

Trump's a fascist. Trump's a fascist.

What exactly are the examples? So, I

went to Grock

um to find out what Trump is doing

specifically that his critics would call

fascism. And here's what Grock told me

fits under that cate category of

fascism. And what I want you to look for

is is this the sort of thing that looks

like confirmation bias? Meaning if you

were the Yale fascism scholar expert,

you could interpret all of this as

fascism. But if you were not

crazy, you could interpret it as just

ordinary stuff. All right? So the first

indication that Trump is a fascist is

his America first policy.

If you happen to be the Yale fascism

scholar expert, well, that's a pretty

big signal that you're going to be a

fascist. If you were a normal person

who's not bad crazy, you'd say,

"Oh, you mean like every country

does?" Is is there a country that

doesn't put themselves

first? Well, maybe Great

Britain. Maybe maybe France and a little

bit of Germany at that point.

But do you don't you think that

countries in general should manage their

own situation

first with you know with an eye to the

fact that they have to work productively

with other countries. So taking care of

America

first and doing things like making sure

that our uh our tariff situation is at

least

reciprocal. Is that what makes a

fascist?

Only if that's how you're primed. If

you're not primed to see it, it just

looks like ordinary. The most obvious

ordinary thing that the president has

the country in mind first. Here's

another one. Trump pardoned the January

6ers, which would suggest that he is,

you know, in support of violent

insurrectionists. Hm. But that's just a

media narrative. It's not true. What's

true is it was a protest. It's not true

they were

insurrectionists. So if you believe they

were insurrectionists and he pardoned

them, well, I could see how you might

think, well, that's a little too far.

But if you happen to know that the media

and the Democrats cooked up this

horrific scheme to hunt and jail

Republicans, then you would say, "Oh,

well, this is

justice." What What part of justice is

fascism? And has not has not Trump also

pardoned over time a lot of other people

who were not bunch of white Republicans?

He

has. So, so looking at pardons, because

pardons are always sketchy, you know,

every president who does pardons does at

least a few that you say,

"What?" Um, so pardons, I think that's a

crazy standard. How about strict

immigration policies? Again, this is

from Grock trying to give you examples

of how Trump is a fascist or his critics

would say it. Grock is now saying it. um

strict immigration

policies. That's just common

sense. That's literally just protecting

your country from what? Criminal

Venezuelan gangs and degradation of the

workforce in the United States or at

least the pay for it. How in the world

is that fascist to not let other people

come in and take your stuff?

Um then Grock says uh Trump has a uh he

he has a rhetoric that talks about

toughness like oh break those heads and

you know we might involve the military

to do this but that's just talk and it's

just how it gets reframed. If you said

to yourself that's just how he talks it

means nothing. If you say to yourself,

well, that's the only the only people

who talk like that are fascists because

you're the Yale fascism scholar expert.

Well, then suddenly it looks like

something, but it's so

thin. Then about

uh Trump makes attacks on the media. So,

this is on Grock's list of why Trump's

critics call him a fascist. Attacks on

the media. Well, if you thought that the

media was fair and honest, then

attacking it would look a little

fascist. And do you think that the Yale

fascism scholar expert believes that CNN

and MSNBC, he was actually appearing on

MSNBC?

He was appearing on

MSNBC and didn't notice that the entire

media landscaped is so biased that

attacking it is just common

sense because they're in many cases just

completely lying. And there are plenty

of examples where the media just ran

schemes that they ran plays against

Trump and they knew they were doing it.

We know they knew they were doing it.

So attacking the media makes sense if

the media is worthy of attack. And boy

are

they. Uh uh and then then Grock says uh

that on Twitter Trump allegedly praised

Hitler. Okay, I don't need to tell you

that never happened, but there it is.

That's what Grock says. No, that never

happened.

And then they're saying that uh Trump

made racist stereotypes of

prosecutors. Did he? I think the racist

stereotype, if he did anything, was that

there's there's a coincidence to the

type of people who were coming after

him, which we all

noticed, which is not a racist

stereotype. It's more it's more a

complaining about people being racist

against

him. Now, uh and then the summary is

that Trump likes nationalism,

suppression of disscent and

authoritarian

government, suppression of

dissent. What What part was that?

Attacking the media. The media are

liars.

is is it's suppression of misinformation

maybe by by arguing

back and authoritarian government. What

makes an authoritarian versus

effective? Where's the line between

getting stuff done and being an

authoritarian? Does the authoritarian

ask Kidrock and Bill Maher to go to

dinner? Uh, it seems to me that this is

one of those framing

hypnosis cult situations where if you've

been trained to see the world through

the eyes of everything's fascism or it's

not, then you could sort of talk

yourself into it. But no, the evidence

um

is

purely open to interpretation and I

don't see it.

But once you're a ghost hunter, you're

going to see a lot of

ghosts. Um, according to the the Daily

Signal is writing, Tyler O'Neal, that

Tesla owners, not connected to Doge,

just people who own a Tesla, are

acceptable victims according to 31% of

Democrats.

So, roughly a third of Democrats uh in a

poll

um said that attacking people who simply

owned a

Tesla, which would include, you know,

probably half of them are Democrats or

leading Democrat that they would be

acceptable

targets. Now, remember I told you that

uh Democrats are

basically thieves

um and they're looking to take things

from people who have things. That

includes Democrats who have things. So,

if anybody has nice things, you're going

to find a lot of Democrats who are

willing to take it away. And I don't

think it goes deeper than that. So, I

think that probably 31% of Democrats

can't afford a Tesla.

So, if you say to them, "Hey, how about

these people who can afford a Tesla or

even just afford a car, uh, what do you

think of them?" And they're like,

"Ah, I think they should be victims just

because I don't like Elon Musk." But

really, is that the reason or is it just

because they can afford a nice car and

you

can't?

So, that's crazy.

Um, I think in general that people who

don't have

money are in favor of violence against

people who do. Do you think that's a

good generalization? People who don't

have

money and don't expect that they're

going to make any in any legal way are

going to say they're going to be open to

violence to take money from the people

who have it because everybody wants more

money. And if you can't figure out a way

to make it

yourself, maybe you'd rather take it

from people. Um, I I had the experience

of going from a low income situation to

a high income situation and I can tell

you that while I thought my character

was improving and my

morality as I got

richer, all I re I eventually realized I

was protecting my own class.

Like I got I became really

anti-rime when I had money that people

could steal from me. But when I had

nothing and I saw somebody maybe ripped

off a rich person didn't bother me a

bit. Is it because I used to have low

character and then I developed a

conscience and higher character and

morality and ethics? No. probably just

made more money and then joining the

people who said you shouldn't attack

people who have more money because they

earned it

themselves. So the difference I think

with Republicans who don't have money

and Democrats who don't have money is

that Republicans who don't have money

are more likely to think but I could

have money if I worked harder and did

all the obvious things that people do to

make money. So, they're not thinking, "I

want to steal things and go to jail."

They're thinking, "How do I work harder?

Where's my mentor? You know, where do I

get a foot in the door so I can make

something of myself?" I think the

Democrats are more likely to think that

the system is rigged and uh they need

some reparations or they need some

basically they need the government to

take money from the rich and give it to

them.

And whether you deserved it or work for

it, none of that matters. They just

don't have money, other people do. So,

they're trying to figure out ways to get

it. And if you can make the government

be your your uh criminal enterprise,

which is what Democrats have done, you

notice the Democrats have turned the

entire government, you know, through

USAID and all the NOS's. They've turned

the entire thing into a criminal

organization to take money from the

people who have it and give it to

themselves. In many cases, they're rich

and they're still doing it. So, there's

that.

Anyway, here's a story that sounds like

you've heard it before, but it's

actually just a third one like it.

There's yet another law firm that Trump

went after um because they had been

involved in uh investigating the January

6 attacks and some other stuff. And uh

see, this one is called uh Wilky Faren

Gallagher. So Trump was getting ready to

go after them, but they cleverly got

ahead of it and they said uh that

they'll provide the equivalent of $100

million in pro bono legal services for

causes the administration supports. Now

this is the third major law firm um to

offer a gigantic pro bono, you know,

kind essentially bribe, could you call

it a bribe? Um, they don't call it a

bribe. Let's not call it that. Uh, but

here's my question. So, pro bono means

that nobody would have to pay for it and

they would do a hundred million dollars

in legal services

for Trump related or Republican related

uh

areas. Now, here's my

question. Do they put the top lawyers on

that kind of proono work?

Are you going to get the A+ players or

are you going to get the the lawyers

that maybe won't make it with the law

firm and you know they're junior and you

know well we could say we tried but you

know we put our we put our lawyers on it

and we did not prevail but uh I'm going

to call that $10 million of legal

service and nobody's really going to

check that it was really $10 million of

legal service and they will burn through

that 100 million commitment in no time

at all and they will probably not win a

single

case. They they'll somehow you know like

you know it it seems to me that the odds

of them giving the a team to the pro

bono work for the other side is really

low. Really low. So, I'm not so sure

that this is a real victory,

but it's fun. All right, here's a

question that I can't wrap my head

around. Um, it doesn't seem like that

long ago. We were talking about China

was in terrible trouble because their

demographics are bad. They don't have

enough young people. Uh, they're full of

bureaucracy and they can't get anything

done. And you know, they might have a

lot of debt and they build a bunch of

cities that they're just knocking down

because it was a waste of money and

they're stretched kind of thin

everywhere and they're they're getting

ready to collapse at any moment because

the US is moving it manufacturing out of

there etc.

On the other

hand, it seems like the United States

doesn't know how to make anything and

China has entire industries of people

that they've trained in the art of

making stuff. So, if you wanted to build

a manufacturing facility in the United

States, you'd have to find somebody who

knows how to do that. and there aren't

that many compared to China where I

think it's a major and and you got all

these, you know, armies of trained

engineers and everything else who just

know how to build a manufacturing plant.

So, how do you compete with that? That

we've got our kids who can barely read.

Every time there's a new report coming

out, it's worse. So, China is educating

its kids. We're not. Um, it feels like

we stopped being able to invent things.

Yeah, only a few things have come out

recently. Um, mostly AI, but China's AI

is seems to be cheaper and open source.

So, if they keep their AI almost as good

and cheaper and open

source, how do our big companies that we

think are the are the jewels in our

crown, how do they even survive? How how

would um chat GPT survive if it's

competing against just as good and

almost

free? I don't know how. And I don't

think that China is going to, you know,

suddenly start charging for AI or at

least charge you more. Um suppose

there's a war.

the smart people. I think Naval said

this recently. Uh whoever has the most

drones that are, you know, least good

enough to be uh in military. Whoever has

the most drones is going to win every

war because they're going to be all

drone wars and whoever has the most is

going to win. How in the world are we

going to have more drones than China?

China will instantly go to complete

military dominance because they can

manufacture. They can just make drones

all day long and they would have rare

earth minerals and they would have

everything they needed. They wouldn't

need anything from

anybody. So that's

crazy. So here's what I can't tell. Is

China in trouble? Do they have debt

problems and, you know, population

problems and bureaucracy and they can't

get anything done? Or have they become

this

competitive monster that we'll never be

able to match militarily,

technologically, or manufacturing wise.

And if we can't match them as a

economy, then eventually they

will dominate us. And it seems like

there's nothing we could do about it. I

saw a uh post by Hotep Jesus on X and uh

Hotep Jesus is funny because he says

things that you're not supposed to say

in

public, very provocative things. And I

don't have exact quote, but I think he

said something like um if you're not

expanding your empire, somebody's going

to basically expand onto you. So you

don't have a choice of just staying the

same. In this world, that's just not an

option. You can be growing and growing

your empire or somebody else is going to

grow their empire and take yours. Those

really are the only two choices. Because

if you look at any any civilization that

was thriving, they were usually

conquering at the same time. you know,

whether it was Rome when it was growing.

Um, China right now is looking to, you

know, conquer, it's already conquered

what, Tibet, and now it's going to

conquer Taiwan. It's already conquered

Hong Kong. So, China is growing and it's

looking to dominate the the oceans

around

China. It's

expanding. Russia is expanding. it got

bigger and in a pretty important way and

we don't know I mean it doesn't look

like he's done uh he just added more

people he just he just increased the

size of his army substantially uh Putin

did and then the United States

um we're looking to pick up Greenland

and uh maybe something about Panama and

maybe even

Canada. So when you see Trump uh overtly

trying to

expand, don't feel like that's a risk to

the United

States. Think about it in terms of there

are only two ways that big countries can

go. They can keep expanding or they die.

Somebody else expands onto them. So,

uh, you know, maybe Europe is the only

place that's operating the opposite and

it looks like they're doomed, right? So,

I don't see anybody in Europe who's

trying to expand their country. Instead,

they're looking to give it away through

mass migration.

So you should be able to predict that

Europe is doomed and that uh the US,

Russia and China are still expansionist

countries and we might, you know, come

to blows with each other. Um I think

we'd be smart enough to avoid world

wars, but those are three healthy

competitive situations if we don't go

broke from

debt. Anyway, Russia says it won't

accept a US ceasefire proposal because

it doesn't give them what they want,

which is no NATO in uh Ukraine and um

something else. Some kind of security

guarantee. No, what is it? What are the

same ones? They want to I don't know,

consolidate the land that they've

already gotten and make sure that

there's no NATO and blah blah. So, but

I'm going to go further. I don't think

that Putin's going to say yes to any

deal. So, I hate to predict this because

I would have Well, I did. I predicted

that Trump could wrap up the Ukraine war

fairly quickly because I thought to

myself, well, he's just going to say

there's an obvious deal to be made.

Russia keeps what it already got. Uh

Ukraine doesn't join NATO. But as it's

shaping up, I think I'm going to bet

against any kind of a peace

deal. Um, I wouldn't bet that we'll

necessarily stay supporting

Ukraine, which maybe isn't the worst

thing that could happen.

So, I'm going to say that there's not

going to be a Ukraine peace deal. And I

don't think Putin wants it. I don't

think Zilinski wants it. I don't think

the European Union wants it, but the US

wants

it. Uh, so I think we'll just bow out. I

I think maybe we might sell weapons to

people want to buy them, but I think

Europe's going to have to cash the

check. So, yes, no peace deal in my

opinion. It doesn't look like anything's

pointing in that direction.

Um, according to Tech Explorer, there's

this new EV battery breakthrough that

you could charge 500% faster even in

sub-zero weather. University of Michigan

engineers have it. And apparently, it's

working so well that it's already being

commercialized. So, we might see that.

Um, if if batterdriven cars didn't have

the cold weather problem and you could

also charge them 500%

faster, that's a big deal. Now, I will

tell you that I do see a battery

breakthrough story every single day, but

they all start sounding the same, so I

stopped reporting on all of them. But

the battery

stuff is really

interesting. is really interesting. All

right, here's uh on uh Andrew

Huberman's show, Huberman

Lab, he had an expert on who said that

if a mom has

diabetes, the risk of an autistic child

doubles. If the mom has obesity, the

risk of having an autistic child

doubles. And if the mom has diabetes and

obesity, which often go together, uh it

would quadruple the risk of the autistic

child. Now, I don't know if I'm fully

believing that yet because that would

fall into the somebody did a study, but

I don't know. But you first of all it

doesn't it doesn't match any of my

anecdotal

experience because every time I think of

somebody who had a um who had an

autistic kid I don't really think of

them as being overweight and so and I

don't know that they had diabetes so I

haven't really seen it. It's not like

something I've noticed or anything like

that. So, I'm a little skeptical of this

one, but um if it's true, it might be at

least part of the puzzle of why there's

so much of it lately. And it wouldn't

surprise me if diabetes and

obesity, you know, created a whole bunch

of, you know, health problems that you

didn't see coming. So, that part sort of

makes sense. But I don't know if I'm

quite buying

into that. It might be a big part of the

answer. I don't know. I'm a little

skeptical, but it could be that there

are multiple reasons and they're all

environmental andor health and uh it'll

be hard to untangle it.

Uh meanwhile, according to HR dive,

Emily Shamway is writing that uh the

judge says that IBM must face the

discrimination claim from the white male

worker who believes that he was uh fired

because he was white so that the bosses

could make room for uh their diversity

goals.

And here, let me just read this part.

The plaintiff alleged that IBM CEO set

specific percentage targets for the

racial and gender composition of IBM's

workforce. Now, I know that's true

because I've seen video of the CEO

saying exactly that. And then IBM

implemented a system of financial

incentives to reward executives who

worked to achieve those uh those

targets, the DEI targets

uh according to the lawsuit. Now, uh,

and the IBM CEO suggested that

executives who did not make progress on

getting that diversity they wanted could

be penalized or be fired or have their

pay

reduced. Now, this is the goal versus

system problem.

as a as a

goal. A little extra diversity might be

just positive as a

goal, but you have to develop a system

to make it happen. The system that he

developed, IBM CEO

guarantees that there would be massive

discrimination against white people.

Why? Follow the money. He he he created

a a massive financial interest in

discriminating against white people and

trying to make it look like it didn't

happen. So suddenly this guy who had

been getting good reviews suddenly puts

on a gets put on a performance, you

know, improvement plan, which is sort of

the last thing they do before they fire

you. So that they would have some

paperwork. Allegedly, they would have

some paperwork that would support the

firing the white guy because every time

you fired a white guy and replaced them

with a non-white guy, you would make

more

money. Or or to put it the other way,

the more successful you were

discriminating against your white

workforce, the less risk there would be

that you would get

fired, which is all about money, too.

So, how in the world does the CEO of IBM

not understand how money is an

incentive? And he didn't realize that

people would massively break the

law as soon as money was involved

because they could pretend they weren't

doing it. It wouldn't be hard to

pretend, right? Uh, I know. Uh, Carl was

doing a

inexplicably bad

job. Autism Capital is saying that

Mexican President Claudia Shinbomb says

she will not impose reciprocal tariffs

on the

US. I'll need to know more about that.

But today is going to be fascinating. So

if if the stock market turns green

today, and it might, it would be because

a few countries, it wouldn't take many,

decided to um play ball with Russia. I'm

sorry, play ball with

uh the tariff situation and just be

reasonable and come up with something

that that makes sense. So maybe that's

what Mexico is doing. Maybe that's what

Israel did. Although that there. They

didn't have much

tariffs. So, we'll keep an eye on that.

I I think there is a real good chance

that the stock market will end up in

positive territory by the end of the

day. Um, all it takes is a little bit

of a a little bit of a trend that

countries are looking to avoid the

economic war and make something work. It

wouldn't take much. maybe two or three

countries and stock market's going to

love it. So, we'll see. Oh, but I think

Trump's announcement will

be after the market

closes. Not

sure. Yeah. So, we'll see. All right.

So, IBM's going to figure that

out.

Um Elon Musk is getting a lot of

attention for saying he posted on X. As

I mentioned several years ago, it is

increasingly it increasingly appears

that humanity is a biological bootloader

for digital super

intelligence. Now, of course, he's 100%

right. It's just an analogy. It's not

like it's not like you have to buy into

the analogy. But, um here's what I

think. The reason that Elon Musk says we

need to be an interplanetary species is

that if you stayed on Earth, eventually

you would be destroyed by a meteor or

the sun burns down or something. So the

only way humans can survive is if

they're

interplanetary. And even that seems like

a risk

because, you know, I mean, Mars might

get destroyed before the United States

and before we find a third planet cuz

it's not like there's a bunch of other

planets. But suppose there was some kind

of uh gigantic risk to all life on

Earth. Would that risk be

equal to the AI?

Could you launch a rocket that just

takes the best AIs and puts them on

there and has a solar panels and and the

AI just lives forever as a digital

entity that's super intelligence.

So it could be that you need the

biological entities, we humans, for a

brief period of time just to get super

intelligence going, which could last

forever potentially could could last

through suns burning out and everything

else. Whereas the biological parts are

unlikely to survive as easily for, you

know, for millions of years. Anyway, I

think you're fine this week. I don't

know. I I agree with his statement, but

people are taking it wrong. They're

taking it as if he's saying that AI is

more important than human beings, which

is exactly the opposite of anything that

Elon Musk ever said or

believed. Wait, the stock market's

already

up? Is that true? Oh, I'll be damned.

The stock market's up

[Laughter]

already. Well, there you go.

There you

go. All right, everybody. That's all I

have for today. Thanks for joining on X

and Rumble and YouTube. I'm going to

talk to the

subscribers

on subscribers on locals next and

privately. The rest of you, we'll see

you tomorrow. Same time, same place.