Episode 2866 CWSA 06/12/25

Here I am.

So, what do you want to do?

Do a show?

Do a podcast?

Yes, we will.

But first, uh, stock market is kind of flat.

Kind of flat.

Kind of boring.

Let's do a podcast.

Almost ready.

Everything's working today.

Look at that.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is.

But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that no one can even understand, whether they're tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or 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 hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

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

Go.

Oh, that was good.

Oh, freshly bathed coffee.

All right.

And I wonder I wonder wonder if uh there's any science that could have been avoided by just asking me.

Oh, here's one.

According to Eric Dolan and Cypost, it's always Eric.

Um, there's this mega study that shows, and I know this will be surprising, that exercise boosts cognitive function across all ages and health conditions.

That's right.

Exercise is good for your brain.

You know how else you could have determined this without doing a mega study?

You could have asked me, "Hey Scott, is there any situation in which exercise is ever neutral or bad for brains?" And I would say, "No, no, there is not.

It's always good for your brain because your body and your brain are the same thing.

It's the same tool." Um, yep.

But uh the thing they added that they think is new is that it's every every um every kind of exercise and every kind of brain in every situation.

So the intensity did not matter.

Yoga and dance just as good which I might have known.

I'm not sure.

All right.

Uh, here's another one.

Let's see if you can uh get this one first.

Um, do Democrats dislike Republicans the same amount as Republicans dislike Democrats?

Do you know this one?

It's a new study.

Uh, well, it turns out, this is also a side post, Eric Dolan again.

Uh it turns out that Democrats do dislike Republicans more than Republicans dislike Democrats according to a study.

How many of you did not know that?

You all knew that?

Every one of you.

Uh the reason seems to be that uh uh Democrats believe that Republicans have a more negative opinion of uh people who are, you know, minorities or have some kind of issues, trouble.

Um all right.

But I would argue the Republicans just have a bigger picture.

Meaning if uh if he said to a Democrat um I need to remove this benefit from this one person but it will save the whole world.

The Democrat would say you monster.

You can't you can't take that benefit away from that one person.

And then the Republican would say no you missed the part where I said that would save the entire world.

and the Democrat would say, "I I don't even know what you're talking about.

You would be mean to this person." So, sort of like that.

All right.

Here's another one.

Do you think that a Tik Tok video um if it's edited for, you know, persuasion uh can change how voters see politicians?

What do you think?

a Tik Tok video.

Could it be influential in uh changing how you see a politician?

Yes.

Again, it's Eric Nolan and Cypos.

Yes, obviously.

So, but apparently they did a study and they found out that uh not only can you change how people see politicians, you know, their your favorability, but it's uh especially strong for Donald Trump.

So, Trump is right that Tik Tok works in his favor.

So, visuals are influential.

Well, in the bad news, um Boeing Dreamliner had a horrible crash um Air India.

It went down and killed u many of the 242 on board.

Now, the reason it wasn't all of them is they had just taken off.

But uh let me give you some advice about that story which is I saw a warning that the video is especially hard to look at and I said to myself how hard can it be?

And I watched the video.

Um let me give you some advice.

Don't watch the videos.

There were lots of videos of people who got to the crash site when it was fresh.

Do not watch them.

Do do not.

It will not make your day better.

Do not watch them.

All right.

Um Trump and uh Melania went to the uh what is it?

The Kennedy Center and they watched Le Miserab.

That's my French.

Excuse my French.

Um, and uh, they had a good time.

Apparently, it's the president's favorite favorite play or musical or whatever.

Now, um it reminded me of the balance that the president is trying to find between austerity because, you know, we don't have infinite money and making sure that America doesn't, you know, just um rot basically.

So, I don't love it when he wants to spend extra on Air Force One, but I understand that it's a symbol of the country and you want to keep the president safe and you know, it makes sense.

I didn't love it when Trump said he was going to build a ballroom at the White House because again, we've got these these big deficits.

But on the other hand, it is a a symbol of the the country's health.

It's like the the beating heart of the country.

So, making sure the beating heart of the country is not only working, but it's extra.

You know, it's got a ballroom.

I can say it's good for the, you know, the mind of the country.

and he's he's going to put some money into fixing up the Kennedy Center.

And I thought to myself, I'll never go to the Kennedy Center.

Why do I care?

And then I thought, oh, okay, it's a high visibility kind of a situation.

And uh yeah, and I definitely don't like the idea of a military parade.

I I just don't like anything about that.

it's spending money, it's probably damaging the streets.

Um, you know, it just doesn't look right.

But on the other hand, it does make the country look like it's powerful and, you know, nobody should mess with it.

So, even though some of my instincts um sort of argue against these Trump-like expenses, I feel like he's right.

And, you know, my instinct is wrong because you got to protect the symbols.

You know, that the United States is more than you know, just the people in the money and the military.

It's also a, you know, it's an idea and uh Trump keeping the idea of America strong by making sure these these symbols don't rot.

Um, he he's right.

Yeah, that's that's the right play.

Meanwhile, according to Newsmax, I didn't see this anywhere else, but Newsmax says that the DNC has voted to oust Vice Chair David Hog.

So, um, and also Malcolm Kenyatta, I don't know who that is, but I guess they were both vice chairs.

And, uh, it's over a technical complaint.

um that that was the excuse they made, but they uh slaughtered their hog finally.

Now, I've been telling you before that I think David Hog should not be underestimated because like AOC, he does have skill and if you free him from the confines of being in the DNC, which you know has a limited role, it might might make him stronger.

So, keep an eye on him.

Keep an eye on him.

Um, in good news, PJ Media is reporting that uh GM is going to invest $4 billion in US-based manufacturing plants.

Um, I guess that's because of a a response to tariffs on Mexico.

So that would be a win for President Trump as he's trying to uh financially incentivize companies to move to US for production and that's exactly what's happening.

So good for you President Trump.

Uh meanwhile there's a story in futurism by Victor Tangerman who says that um CEOs of major companies are trying to make AI copies of themselves um so that the AI copy can answer the you know sort of routine questions the CEO is always asked.

But they have a problem with hallucinations.

So, uh, the main problem with AI is hallucinations and nobody's figured out how to get past that.

But I thought I would solve that today.

Um, because all these CEOs need it and I needed to.

I guess uh some of the startups they've used would be like uh personal AI.

These are startups that allow you to clone a person.

And unfortunately, they all have the problem of hallucination.

Deli, which I've tested, and Tavis, I've never heard of.

But anyway, um, each one of those and any other AI as well is going to give you a hallucinations.

But would you like me to solve that problem right now?

All right.

Okay.

If you demand it, I will.

Um, all you need is to have three AIs, you know, three, not three models, but three completely different AIs.

And you have one AI that's in charge of speaking, but you have everything it says tested first on the other AIs.

So you have two AIs that fact check the third AI, and the third AI is the only one that gets to talk.

Now, what are the odds that three different AIs would have the same hallucination?

I think the odds would be close to zero, right?

Unless the models were also coincidentally trained exactly the same way in the same order on the same data, which I don't think happens.

But you tell me, what are the odds that all three AIs would hallucinate the same thing?

I feel like it wouldn't.

So, I'm wondering if the real the real problem is that people don't want to pay for three AIS.

You know, if you had Grock and Chad GBT and Anthropic, would they all agree on the hallucination?

Now, doesn't that seem too simple?

Are any of you uh AI experts when when you hear my idea, do you say to yourself, you idiot?

You you forgot the you know most important thing about AI.

I don't know.

Did I?

I might have.

But doesn't it seem to you like that would work like every time?

It I don't see how it wouldn't work.

But anyway, so if you wanted AI to be solved, there you go.

I just fixed it maybe.

All right.

The uh Trump administration, according to RSBN, is evacuating the Middle East embassies, at least the non-critical people, um over concerns about Iran.

Now, here's my question.

If we're evacuating our Middle East embassies, the only reason is we think there's a too much risk that Iran will attack them.

Now, what would make Iran attack a US embassy?

Well, the only thing I can think of is if uh Israel attacked Iran.

So, didn't we always have that risk?

you know, for months and months and months if not years.

Why are we why are we drawing down the staff now?

I can only think of one reason where well two one we know that an attack is coming.

That would be the most obvious.

or two, it's part of negotiations because it it suggests that an attack is imminent and maybe that's what we need to get Iran to agree.

But I've been watching Iran for, you know, much of my adult life and um they don't seem really susceptible to threats.

It's sort of the opposite.

Uh, very much the opposite actually.

So, are we being told that there's a military action that's imminent?

And how imminent?

Would we be evacuating, you know, a week before it happens?

Or maybe we did it months before it happens because we don't want to give away too much.

I don't know.

It looks to me like there's going to be some military action.

Um, speaking of Iran, uh, according to the Wall Street Journal, the IAEA board, so the weird thing about Iran is that we're having all these, you know, nuclear energy, nuclear weapon um, negotiations.

But at the same time, this IAEA has been u monitoring their activity.

Now, it's not enough of a monitor to make a difference.

It doesn't stop them from doing what they're doing, apparently.

But the uh the AEA just found that Iran is in non-compliance um for the first time in 20 years.

First time in 20 years.

Really?

There's nothing non-compliant they've done in the nuclear category for 20 years.

What's all this talk about then?

All right.

Well, so apparently it has to do with uh what is it?

There's something unexplained that Iran is not explaining.

So this uh this board is saying if you can't explain this then you're in non-compliance.

So what did Iran do being in non-compliance?

Well, it said it would open a new uranium enrichment facility.

Um so it's going to do more of whatever we don't like.

Okay.

Um, according to um, experts, Iran is already producing enough highlyenriched uranium for one nuclear weapons worth a month.

That doesn't mean they're making weapons.

It means they have enough enriched uranium.

Anyway, so uh the IAEA um might uh lead to some kind of UN security council action and uh there could be some repercussions there but things are heating up and uh so my question is this um Iran's entire approach is saying oh no we don't want a nuclear weapon No, no, no.

We need all this uranium enrichment for, you know, peaceful purposes for medical devices and, you know, just ordinary business.

But why would anybody act this way if they had only peaceful intentions?

Nobody would, right?

You know, in in your wildest imagination, can you imagine anybody going to the brink of war and in all likelihood actual war over their insistence that uh there's going to be, you know, totally peaceful non-military uh work on nuclear.

Nobody would do that.

Nobody would do that.

So they've signaled as strongly as they can that they plan to have nuclear weapons or at least the ability to very quickly have nuclear weapons which would be you know pretty dangerous on its own.

So given that um I think Trump said his uh optimism about a deal is kind of low right now.

Um we're pretty much guaranteed to have military action, aren't we?

The only thing that's a mystery is how much involvement the US might have.

But it does look to me like Israel is going to act and maybe maybe the uh the UN action where they're finding them, you know, being in non-compliance, maybe that's the trigger.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if uh you see some war happening this summer.

Um meanwhile, Newsmax is reporting that the US budget deficit fell 9% in May and the reason is that tariffs boosted uh boosted our revenue.

So all right.

So apparently there would have been a $316 billion budget deficit.

Um, but it's down 31 billion because of um tariffs.

All right.

I didn't know that tariffs would make a difference.

And I think some of these tariffs are temporary, so don't get too excited.

Meanwhile, there is alleg allegedly a China trade deal.

And uh so I was looking at the Wall Street Journal to report on what the trade deal is all about and I cannot tell if the trade deal is good or bad for America.

Can you?

Is there any way to tell if the trade deal is good or bad for America?

I mean, I look at it and I say, "All right, so so China is going to loosen up on their uh the rare earth minerals um hold back." To which I say, wouldn't that be just going back to where we were, but a little bit worse because there's some kind of limit on it or, you know, now we know they can pull it anytime they want.

So, it's nice to have our rare earth mineral source back, but that didn't put us ahead.

That's sort of where we were before.

Then there's uh let's see what else we got.

Uh we're going to restrict the most advanced AI chips from China, which is where we already were.

Okay.

Um, we're going to allow Chinese student visas so they can go to college in the United States, which is where we were, right?

There's nothing new about that.

We're just going back to where we were.

And then there's something about tariffs, but neither China nor the US seem to be um mad about the tariffs they've agreed to, which sort of suggests that we're just going back to where we were.

So, can anybody give me an argument about how we came out ahead?

Did we come out ahead on anything?

Did we get a commitment on fentinel?

No.

Even Lutnik didn't try to bluff that.

He just changed the subject.

Did we get an agreement on u the theft of IP?

No, not that I'm aware of.

Um and uh are we going to start reselling them?

jet engines and ethane, which is a necessary part of making plastic, I guess.

Yes.

Which is exactly what it used to be, right?

So, uh, the, um, the Wall Street Journal summarized it as, um, we just are moving back to where we were, but the deal is leaning a little bit in China's direction now.

So, even our hometown newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, is saying that we came out behind.

What do you think?

So I'd love to hear an argument where we came out ahead on anything on even one thing.

Nothing on fentinel nothing.

Are we coming out ahead because uh or we've got a little bit extra tariff on them?

I don't know.

It's a little uh unclear to me that anything happened except that China said we're not going to basically not negotiate anything.

That's what it looks like.

Well, I had a question uh this week about the Home Depot deportations.

So, as you know, um it's fairly common for um illegal immigrants to stand near the Home Depot, usually on public property, but near the Home Depot, and to be available for Americans to drive up and say, "Hey, I need somebody to work for a day to help me dig a ditch or build a wall or something." And then you take a few day workers with you and you pay them cash and um you're both happy.

Now, um I didn't understand that because I didn't understand why the Home Depot workers would be the worst first because were we not promised that the the order of the deportations would be the the criminals and the worst of them first.

And the Home Depot employees, not employees, but the Home Depot day workers, the illegal ones, they would be maybe the opposite.

They would be the ones who are trying to work, you know, trying to claw their way into some kind of a a life, but there's no really indication that they're especially criminal.

So why would we reverse from the thing that I've been telling people, you know, just calm down, don't worry, you know, we're going to do the worst first and that will we'll basically never get to the end of the worst.

So the way I rationalized that I was okay with very aggressive um deportation is that I didn't think it was entirely real.

meaning I'm very much in favor of getting rid of people who were criminals and the gangs etc.

But I didn't think that ICE would have enough resources to ever get to the bottom of that well.

So, in my view, you know, those Home Depot people and your your gardener and your uh your housekeeper, if you have a housekeeper, um to me, they all seem kind of safe because it would take, you know, five years to to get rid of the bad people and then we'd probably have adjusted and we'd say, "All right, well, you know, we we thought we wanted to get rid of everyone, but it turns don't, you know, maybe we're better economically to keep the people who have jobs and they're paying taxes and they've been good citizens and they've, you know, they've assimilated.

So, while I completely understand the argument that says no, everybody has to go back.

Uh, that wasn't the deal.

That was the deal.

The deal was there would be an order to it.

And that's the deal I signed up for.

Meaning, when I said, you know, I support President Trump and I'm in favor of his border policies, I wasn't talking about picking up people at Home Depot.

So, I feel like I got stabbed in the back because I'm a public figure who has publicly supported very strongly the uh President Trump's approach to immigration.

And the worst first was very clearly a central part of that plan and that is now reversed.

So I got screwed by my own side.

Do you think I can let that go?

Now I understand the argument.

Oh, but Scott, it's really better to deport everybody who is illegal.

I understand your argument, but my argument is that's not what I was promised and it's not what I put my face on and it's not what I backed.

That's not what I voted for.

All right.

So, I feel like I got stabbed in the back by the Trump administration.

And I don't know exactly how to turn that off, but at the moment I feel totally screwed because I, you know, was sort of out front saying, "Yeah, this is fine.

Don't worry about it." But it's not what they promised.

Now, um, so I did a little research on why the change.

As far as I can tell, the change is because the ICE couldn't get the numbers that we wanted.

So if they had focused on the worst first, especially in the context of these sanctuary cities, the uh the difficulty in getting enough people.

So it looked like uh deportation was even working uh was just too high because you know you get caught up in the court cases and the protests and you know the cities would fight everything and that's where all the bad people are you know mostly the the blue cities.

So I feel as though there was a political reason that Steven Miller sort of pressured ICE to go after the less dangerous people.

It was because of sanctuary cities.

Is that your understanding that if sanctuary cities did not exist that they could do worst first all day long and they would never run out of the worst because they would go to the city, they'd say, you know, do you have anybody in your jail who's illegal?

And they'd say, oh yeah, we got, you know, five more this morning.

And then ICE would say, all right, we got five more criminals.

And they would send them away.

So, here's my request.

If if the reason that Home Depot is being targeted, and I'm using Home Depot as a standin for, you know, just more casual deportations as opposed to going after hardened criminals.

Um, if that's the reason, then the administration needs to be saying that really loudly, you know, separately.

I understand that, you know, there's plenty of complaints about sanctuary cities and then separately there's, you know, the targeting of the Home Depot noncriminal beyond, you know, the crime of coming into the country.

um you need to tie those together because if the reason that the Home Depot people are getting scooped up is that ICE is um you know unable to find anybody in the sanctuary cities, then that needs to be like right right at the top of the messaging.

It's like that as long as we're sanctuary cities, we can't do worst first.

Do do you feel me?

As long as there are sanctuary cities, we don't have the option of doing the worst first.

If you tell me that and then I see that some of the Home Depot people are being deported, I'm not going to love it because it's not worse first, but I'm going to at least understand it.

And that's better than having a knife in your back and not understanding it.

But either way, I'm getting by my own side.

So, let me let me be clear about that.

I don't like it.

I I feel like I have been, you know, personally personally abused by this process.

I feel lied to.

I feel lied to.

It's sort of promises made, promises not kept.

And uh I'm not going to ignore that.

Not going to ignore that at all.

Now, one of the things I love about having a Republican audience is that, as we talked about, you know, the Democrats dislike the Republicans more than the Republicans dislike the Democrats.

The Republicans are willing to uh listen to an argument.

And so I gave you an argument.

Some of you loved it and some of you hated it.

But you're still willing to to let me talk, right?

You're you're not hating on me.

You might not like that opinion.

You might disagree with it, but that doesn't make us enemies.

We're still on the same side, right?

So, you know, the the positive message here is that you can have pretty strong disagreements, but as long as you're, you know, pro America, America first, and we're we're sort of all aiming in the right direction, but some of us have a difference of how to get there.

That's all good.

That's all fine.

We're not Democrats, right?

So, we're going to talk about something else in a minute that will be a similar thing where you might not like what I say, but it won't make much difference in terms of the size of my, you know, my audience or anything else because you're you allow that, which I appreciate a lot.

Anyway, so I'd love some answers on that question.

Meanwhile, let's uh check out the photo op competition.

Um you call them riots, some call them protests, but uh apparently there are now 19 states with 200 riders busted in LA.

So the uh according to the New York Post, the uh the rioting slashprotesting is going to uh Atlanta, Chicago, and Seattle.

Hundreds of protesters here and there, thousands of stormed the streets in 35 cities in 19 states, blah blah blah.

But I see it all as a photo op competition.

So, the the game that's being played is about who can get the best video or iconic photo that will get burnt into people's minds as the, you know, the brand of what happened this summer.

And so far, Trump is winning because he's done the most clever thing.

You know, if you assume that people who watch the news are mostly just casual watchers, you know, maybe 5% of the public like really digs in and, you know, figures out the context and knows the numbers and stuff like that, but 95% of the country is just looking at the pictures.

And if they see a strong picture and it they see it a lot, then that will change their opinion.

But what Trump has done cleverly is he sent in the Marines, but they haven't been deployed.

So I've seen no picture of any Marines.

Um secondly, he's deployed the National Guard sort of over the over the complaints of the governors and they've been um as far as I know they've only been deployed to protect federal buildings which don't appear to be under any special kind of attack.

And then having deployed two branches of the military with no connection whatsoever to the to the protest like not one of them has touched a protester or been in a conflict or arrested anybody that they're all just sort of staying out of the way you know with the what does Trump do after deploying two two branches of the military?

and then having them do basically nothing.

Now, guarding guarding federal buildings is not nothing, but if it causes the protesters to go somewhere else, well, then it ends up looking like nothing.

So, there there's no pictures.

So, you've got zero pictures of of uh Trump's military doing anything, you know, bad or uh illegal.

Somebody's saying that the Home Depot thing is a hoax.

Um, I'm not gonna read that, Andy, because while I know the the story about the individual Home Depot stuff is is not necessarily true.

I'm using the Home Depot as a example of people who are not criminals who might get picked up.

So, it's it's an example.

It's it's not based on specific Home Depot situation, but let me finish.

Um, so so Trump says, I've been laughing about this all morning.

He says, "If I didn't send in the troops to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great city would be burning to the ground right now.

But what exactly did the Marines and the National Guard do in Los Angeles?

Were they putting out the fires?

It's sort of perfect.

He he can claim uh he can claim success without any visible without any visible evidence whatsoever.

And at the same time, the pictures that are being produced are still of, you know, the the flag waving people in fires.

So, he's winning he's winning the photo op competition hard, but also he's winning the, you know, did you respond quickly and with enough vigor to meet the situation?

And almost anybody watching would say, "Well, yeah.

I mean, if you've already, you know, pre-deployed the the military, two branches, but they haven't done anything dangerous.

You they they haven't hurt anybody.

They haven't really gotten involved in the action." Um, but they could they could, right?

So, uh, it's sort of perfect for Trump.

Anyway, the longer it goes, the better for Trump.

Um, I saw Chris Cuomo say the news is sort of the best case scenario for for Trump, but I've also seen um I've seen dueling polls.

I think it was uh Jessica Tarlov on the five on Fox News um was saying that some of the uh support for Trump's immigration policies have plunged.

But at the same time, I've heard there are polls which say that uh support for Trump's um handling of the the protest/ riiots is uh you know above average.

In other words, there are more people support it than don't.

So I think we've got two separate things happening which is the polls are all over the place.

I think it depends what they ask and how they ask and exactly when they asked it.

But, uh, in the end, I think that, uh, as long as Trump's military doesn't hurt anybody or do anything ridiculous, um, I think Trump wins in the end.

Yeah.

All right.

uh FBI director Cash Patel um he told uh just the news that they're going to investigate the people behind um the protests.

So the people behind it would be the money people.

So FBI will look at the money trail.

Um, I don't know that that means that any of them are breaking the law necessarily depending on what they're doing or funding, but uh, Representative Andy Biggs from Arizona, he wants to see those activist organizations um, who are committing crimes um, have them investigated and criminally prosecuted.

But again, I don't know exactly what the crime would be because is it illegal to organize a protest and fund it?

Um because they would not be the people who were throwing the rocks.

But if you funded people that you know 1% of them might throw rocks, have you broken the law?

I don't know.

But if they have broken the law, of course, something needs to be done.

All right, let's talk about the flag burning.

Uh, whenever this comes up, I like to add my opinion to it.

Um, Thomas Massie posted on X.

He said, "Burning your own American flag is narded." So, he's, you know, I guess intentionally misspelling Uh, but it's not illegal, nor should it be.

He says, "No one should want a federal government so powerful that it can lock you up for a year for burning your own stuff." Now, remember that Trump is in favor of uh jail for burning a flag, but Thomas Massie is not.

He goes, "Thankfully, your constitution prohibits Congress from making such stupid laws." All right.

So, I posted my opinion on this.

You've heard it before, but I'll put it in different words this time.

So, one reason I respect the American flag, and it's just one reason that I respect the American flag is that it gets stronger when protesters burn it.

And that's a feature, not a bug.

It gets stronger when you burn it.

Now, that's the kind of flag I want.

I don't want any weak, wimpy flag that if you burn it, if somehow has destroyed the country or weakened the country.

No.

No.

Um, and then I want you to know that like most of you, I'm also offended when I see an American flag being burned.

like you I can feel it, you know, like a a person who loves their country.

I just feel it like, "Oh god, are you burning my flag right in front of me?" So I feel it, but that feeling is also when I most vividly feel the power of the flag.

And I like having a flag that can make me feel something and can make me feel the power of the country that it represents.

So, for my for my money, um, if you've got a wimpy, stupid flag you can burn and it's causes so much trouble that somebody thinks they need to lock you up for it, that is a inadequate flag.

I want a flag that you can burn right in front of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will say, "There you go, free speech." And that's it.

And then the more you burn it, the more it reminds people that America is a place where you get to have unpleasant opinions and you can express them in public.

And you can do it all day long.

And the And what happens is the country doesn't get weaker.

It just reminds us every day that we've got this uh flag that gets stronger when you try to burn it.

So that's that's my take.

That's my reframe.

Uh meanwhile, uh exABC News correspondent Terry Moran, that poor bastard who's having the worst month of anybody ever.

So, he gets put on leave and then he gets fired from ABC for having some, you know, uh, hard to explain, uh, bad opinions about, uh, Steven Miller and Trump.

I guess he has announced on a video that he's going to be a Substack blogger, but not right away because it's going to take some time for him to figure it out.

And I thought to myself, um, that's sort of embarrassing after 28 years doing a job for ABC News and then you get fired and you're announcing you're a Substack blogger.

That's not going to work for a lot of people, but good luck.

Um meanwhile the uh publication called futurism is talking about a college let's see what it is Ohio State so Ohio State University has just announced uh that starting this fall every single one of its students will be forced to use AI in class.

So instead of banning AI, you know, because it's a way that students can cut corners or, you know, potentially cheat, um, they're going the other direction and they're saying that it's a requirement that you know how to use AI and that you know how to use it in every single class.

Now, what do you think of that?

Do you think the colleges should ban AI because then you don't learn the same or should it encourage people to become experts in not only the class but how to use AI within that domain.

Uh I'm going to go hard in favor of Ohio State.

I think this might be one of the smartest things I've seen because in the real world, everybody's going to use AI for everything.

And every one of their subjects from math to biology to history, there's going to be an AI tool that helps them understand it.

Now, I've used Grock almost every day for I don't know, months.

And when I use Grock, I get some context that I didn't know.

And I usually remember it.

But it's easier, it's way easier to look it up with AI than it is to, you know, Google things and look at every source.

Um, so I feel in my own experience that AI makes me smarter faster than any technology I've ever been associated with.

Now I don't forget the things I look up on AI and it's not like I could just take its writing and you know read it to you on this podcast.

I have to understand it and then I put it in my own words and that's the only model that works.

If I if I were to just read a script that AI wrote or Grock wrote, you would know it was a script and you wouldn't you wouldn't love it.

So I'm I I think this is a very uh uh what would I call it?

forwardthinking and aware.

Uh Ohio State University has at least one person there who is very smart and understands, you know, what's coming.

So yeah, I think all the colleges should adapt to AI or maybe we should get rid of colleges and just use AI.

That's coming.

Well, let's talk about our nuclear power policy.

Um, apparently according to um I didn't see where the source was, but uh China plans to build 100 new uh nuclear power plants in the next 10 years.

So 10 nuclear power plants per year for 10 years till they have 100 of them.

The US uh has built only three power plants since 1995.

And I can't name them.

I I didn't know we even built three since 1995.

I thought it was zero, but all right, I guess there are three.

Um, so we're way behind, but the good news and a real test of the Adams uh the the Adam's law of slowmoving disasters.

Now, the Adams law of slowmoving disasters says that if we all recognize the problem coming, uh, we got lots of time.

We're really good at dealing with the problem.

And the problem coming is that AI is going to use way more electricity than we have.

If we don't do the best in AI, we'll fall behind militarily, economically, and every other way.

to China and maybe other countries.

So really we really understand the the risk and we see it coming and we kind of agree what the problem is and we also agree on the solution which is if you don't make nuclear work and fast there's probably not a second way to you know handle all the electrical needs.

I think Elon Musk would say you could get there with solar panels and batteries, but uh probably we need all of it.

So, um the good news according to The Hill is that uh Trump has proposed getting rid of all climate rules for power plants.

So, that there will be any kind of power plant.

But uh a lot of the rules were really allegedly not really helping the uh the atmosphere or anything else.

The the rules were mostly, you know, don't pollute and don't add this or that to the atmosphere.

But apparently those rules might have been overdone.

So those might get rolled back.

That would make a big difference.

And apparently we've opened, we the United States, a uranium enrichment facility in Oakidge, Tennessee.

Um because it turns out that we currently import 99% of our US nuclear fuel.

What?

When did that happen?

When did we get to the point?

Um, Scott, you were falling for the Home Depot hoax.

Now, did you hear me explain that when I talk about Home Depot, I'm not talking about a specific Home Depot and any specific thing happening at Home Depot.

I'm using it as a general holder for noncriminal immigrants who were being picked up.

Now, are you arguing that no noncriminals are being picked up because otherwise you're just being an All right.

So, I accept that the stories, the specific stories about the Home Depot um are not representative of anything.

So, we're both on the same page, right?

Whatever story there is about any specific Home Depot or even more than one has nothing to do with my opinion.

Everybody everybody understand that?

I use it just as a you know like a holding place basically to talk about people who are not criminals.

All right, you got that?

Can you handle that?

All right.

It's not an analogy, Oh god.

So, I'm going to have to block you.

All right.

Um so most of our uh uranium enrichment comes from places like uh Russia not exactly the best source for uranium enrichment.

Uh Canada, okay, Australia, Kazakhstan, and use use Beckistan anyway.

But uh apparently we've got some sanctions on the Russian stuff, but you can you can get around it.

So, at least we're doing all the right things, at least on paper, to get our nuclear facility going.

Anyway, the uh Hungarian government um has apparently they're going to release a documentary they made exposing the US uh aid scandal.

That's what they call according to the the British Patriot is retweeting this on or reposting it.

Now, apparently this is something we've known since April, but uh it's getting more attention just cuz somebody's posting it around.

Um apparently, uh the film is going to highlight how millions of dollars have been directed towards supporting left-wing political movements in Hungary.

You know, at this point, I don't know that the Hungarian documentary will tell us anything we didn't know.

Um, but, uh, it might be for people who are not following, you know, Mike Benz.

If you follow Mike Benz, this will probably look like your repeat, but if you don't, you might find out some stuff you didn't know.

But watch out for the documentary effect which makes everything look persuasive.

All right.

Um, according to the register, uh, DARPA is testing a device the soldiers can swallow to make them less stressed.

So apparently it would be an electronic device.

It wouldn't be a chemical.

And the electronics that were in the let's say pill form that you swallow would uh somehow interact with your your gut and would make you less um less stressed because it would affect your gut.

Now remember I tell you that uh your brain and your body are the same tool.

Well, here you go.

there.

Here's a perfect example.

If you could control your gut environment, it would change how your brain is processing your experience.

Now, that's a that's a really good example of your brain and your body being the same tool right there.

So, anyway, that's just uh they're just getting ready to study the possibilities here.

So, it's not like it's close to being a product.

Um, maybe they should just skip the robots, but I guess they want to make super soldiers first.

I don't know how long it will be before robots are doing all the fighting, but in the short run, in the short run, it looks like we'll have some, you know, super soldiers.

In other news, the new outlet says that uh they figured out how to grow a new tooth uh to replace one that fell out or was removed.

Now, this would be different than an implant.

So implants have existed for a long time, but instead of an implant, it would be an actual um an actual tooth that would not be organic by itself, but apparently would merge with your organic mouth and it would grow nerves and and act like a real tooth.

That's kind of amazing.

Who's doing that?

Um I don't know somebody's doing that and then I talk about this a lot but when it gets uh when it's done by MIT it feels like uh it's closer to reality.

So MIT has a windowsized device that turns uh that turns air into drinking water with no power source.

So you don't have to plug it in.

You just put it there and it sucks uh moisture out of the air even in the desert and creates water.

And if you had a rack of them, you know, more than one of these windowsized things, you could have enough of water for your entire family.

Now, um I've talked about this technology before, but apparently the other ones have some issues or they create water that's a little too salty.

So, there's some other issues, but apparently the MIT version has uh solved those problems.

Now, it makes me ask this question, what keeps us from living on the sea?

You know what?

What is preventing us from living on basically, you know, floating gigantic boats that just stay at the sea all the time.

And uh the answer is quite a bit, but we're getting closer and closer to a time when you could live on the ocean.

All right, let me tell you my design for ocean living.

Uh there should be a special barge.

So basically I would imagine a an island that's created by a number of barges that you could connect together.

So you could walk from one to the other, but also that each of them would be built so it could be part of the navigation.

So, in other words, if your island of boats needed to avoid a typhoon, you could just relocate.

Um, now in many cases, you wouldn't need to relocate it at all, but maybe in most cases, you would because you'd want your weather to be perfect.

So, I imagine a bunch of barges that could somewhat easily be connected and then disconnected.

You would want your utility barges to be on the outer perimeter.

So if there's a problem with one, you could move to another.

For example, one of your barges could be a garbage barge.

But the garbage barge would need to float away and you know dispose of its garbage in a appropriate way.

But during that time, maybe a replacement garbage barge can connect.

Uh likewise, you'd want an indoor, you'd want some kind of a garden barge, maybe indoor.

Um so that you could grow vegetables.

Then you might have a fake uh fish growing barge or maybe a fishing barge.

Imagine a barge that's optimized with robots to just fish and they they can tell like they caught a fish and they can prepare it and you can eat all kinds of fish all day.

So that'd be cool if your AI and your robot were doing all the work.

And what about uh let's see what else would you need?

Yeah, you'd also need a self sailing ship.

So we would need would need to figure out using AI probably how to sail to the you know the best weather and the you know in just in time etc.

So here's what I think yeah your biggest problem would be pirate ships.

Sergio says you're right.

Your biggest problem would be security.

So you'd probably need some kind of a security arrangement with a established country like the United States.

But imagine if you will u a city that's built on barges that are connected together and only the outer ring is the utility ones that that might need to be replaced or there might need some maintenance etc.

Um I think it'd be pretty cool.

I think it's coming.

It's coming.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes my comments for the day.

Thanks for joining.

Hope you're not too angry at me.

And uh hurricanes, no problem.

Well, they wouldn't be a problem because we can see them coming, but also you could relocate where they rarely if ever happen.

So yeah, as long as you can relocate, you're in pretty good shape.

Tsunamis, it's a good question.

You could probably find a place where there's never been a recorded tsunami.

Um, so there's that.

All right.

Uh, I'm going to say a few words privately to the people on locals.

the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

I will see you same time tomorrow, same place and and

Here I am. So, what do you want to do?

Do a show? Do a podcast?

Yes, we will. But first,

uh, stock market is kind of flat.

Kind of flat. Kind of boring.

Let's do a podcast.

[Music]

Almost ready.

Everything's working today. Look at

that.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of Cuban civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams

because that's what it is. But if you'd

like to take your experience up to

levels that no one can even understand,

whether they're tiny shiny human brains,

all you need for that

is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or

chalice or stein, a canteen jug or

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 hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it

happens right now. Go.

Oh, that was good.

Oh, freshly bathed coffee.

All right. And I wonder

I wonder wonder if uh there's any

science that could have been avoided by

just asking me. Oh, here's one.

According to Eric Dolan and Cypost,

it's always Eric. Um, there's this mega

study that shows, and I know this will

be surprising,

that exercise boosts cognitive function

across all ages and health conditions.

That's right. Exercise is good for your

brain.

You know how else you could have

determined this without doing a mega

study?

You could have asked me, "Hey Scott, is

there any situation

in which exercise is ever neutral or bad

for brains?" And I would say, "No,

no, there is not. It's always good for

your brain because your body and your

brain are the same thing. It's the same

tool."

Um, yep. But uh the thing they added

that they think is new is that it's

every every

um every kind of exercise and every kind

of brain in every situation.

So the intensity did not matter. Yoga

and dance just as good which I might

have known. I'm not sure.

All right. Uh, here's another one. Let's

see if you can uh get this one first.

Um, do Democrats dislike Republicans

the same amount as Republicans dislike

Democrats?

Do you know this one? It's a new study.

Uh, well, it turns out, this is also a

side post, Eric Dolan again. Uh it turns

out that Democrats do dislike

Republicans more than Republicans

dislike Democrats according to a study.

How many of you did not know that? You

all knew that? Every one of you. Uh the

reason seems to be that uh

uh Democrats believe that Republicans

have a more negative opinion of uh

people who are, you know, minorities or

have some kind of issues, trouble.

Um all right. But I would argue the

Republicans just have a bigger picture.

Meaning

if uh if he said to a Democrat

um I need to remove this benefit

from this one person but it will save

the whole world. The Democrat would say

you monster. You can't you can't take

that benefit away from that one person.

And then the Republican would say no you

missed the part where I said that would

save the entire world.

and the Democrat would say, "I I don't

even know what you're talking about. You

would be mean to this person."

So, sort of like that.

All right. Here's another one. Do you

think that a Tik Tok video

um if it's edited for, you know,

persuasion

uh can change how voters see

politicians?

What do you think? a Tik Tok video.

Could it be influential in uh changing

how you see a politician?

Yes.

Again, it's Eric Nolan and Cypos. Yes,

obviously.

So, but apparently they did a study and

they found out that

uh not only can you change how people

see politicians, you know, their your

favorability,

but it's uh especially strong for Donald

Trump.

So, Trump is right that Tik Tok works in

his favor.

So, visuals are influential.

Well, in the bad news,

um Boeing Dreamliner had a horrible

crash

um Air India.

It went down and killed u many of the

242 on board. Now, the reason it wasn't

all of them is they had just taken off.

But uh let me give you some advice about

that story

which is I saw a warning that the video

is especially hard to look at and I said

to myself how hard can it be? And I

watched the video.

Um let me give you some advice. Don't

watch the videos. There were lots of

videos of people who got to the crash

site when it was fresh.

Do not watch them.

Do do not. It will not make your day

better. Do not watch them.

All right. Um Trump and uh Melania

went to the uh what is it? The Kennedy

Center and they watched Le Miserab.

That's my French. Excuse my French.

Um,

and uh, they had a good time.

Apparently, it's the president's

favorite

favorite play or musical or whatever.

Now,

um it reminded me of the balance that

the president is trying to find between

austerity because, you know, we don't

have infinite money and making sure that

America doesn't,

you know, just um rot basically. So, I

don't love it when he wants to spend

extra on Air Force One, but I understand

that it's a symbol of the country and

you want to keep the president safe and

you know, it makes sense. I didn't love

it when Trump said he was going to build

a ballroom at the White House because

again, we've got these these big

deficits. But on the other hand, it is a

a symbol of the the country's health.

It's like the the beating heart of the

country. So,

making sure the beating heart of the

country is not only working, but it's

extra. You know, it's got a ballroom.

I can say it's good for the, you know,

the mind of the country.

and he's he's going to put some money

into fixing up the Kennedy Center. And I

thought to myself, I'll never go to the

Kennedy Center. Why do I care? And then

I thought, oh, okay, it's a high

visibility

kind of a situation.

And uh yeah, and I definitely don't like

the idea of a military parade.

I I just don't like anything about that.

it's spending money, it's probably

damaging the streets.

Um,

you know, it just doesn't look right.

But on the other hand, it does make the

country look like it's powerful and, you

know, nobody should mess with it. So,

even though some of my instincts

um sort of argue against these

Trump-like expenses,

I feel like he's right. And, you know,

my instinct is wrong because you got to

protect the symbols. You know, that the

United States is more than you know,

just the people in the money and the

military. It's also a, you know, it's an

idea

and uh Trump keeping the idea of America

strong by making sure these these

symbols don't rot.

Um, he he's right. Yeah, that's that's

the right play.

Meanwhile, according to Newsmax,

I didn't see this anywhere else, but

Newsmax says that the DNC has voted to

oust Vice Chair David Hog. So, um, and

also Malcolm Kenyatta,

I don't know who that is, but I guess

they were both vice chairs.

And, uh, it's over a technical

complaint.

um that that was the excuse they made,

but they uh slaughtered their hog

finally.

Now, I've been telling you before that I

think David Hog should not be

underestimated

because like AOC, he does have skill and

if you free him from the confines of

being in the DNC, which you know has a

limited role, it might might make him

stronger.

So, keep an eye on him. Keep an eye on

him.

Um,

in good news, PJ Media is reporting

that uh GM is going to invest $4 billion

in US-based manufacturing plants. Um, I

guess that's because of a a response to

tariffs on Mexico.

So that would be a win for President

Trump as he's trying to uh financially

incentivize companies to move to US for

production and that's exactly what's

happening.

So good for you President Trump.

Uh meanwhile

there's a story in futurism by Victor

Tangerman

who says that um CEOs of major companies

are trying to make AI copies of

themselves

um so that the AI copy can answer the

you know sort of routine questions the

CEO is always asked. But they have a

problem with hallucinations.

So,

uh, the main problem with AI

is hallucinations

and nobody's figured out how to get past

that. But I thought I would solve that

today. Um, because all these CEOs need

it and I needed to. I guess uh some of

the startups they've used

would be like uh personal AI. These are

startups that allow you to clone a

person. And unfortunately, they all have

the problem of hallucination.

Deli, which I've tested, and Tavis, I've

never heard of.

But anyway, um, each one of those and

any other AI as well is going to give

you a hallucinations.

But would you like me to solve that

problem right now?

All right. Okay. If you demand it, I

will. Um, all you need is to have three

AIs,

you know, three, not three models, but

three completely different AIs. And you

have one AI that's in charge of

speaking, but you have everything it

says tested first on the other AIs. So

you have two AIs that fact check the

third AI, and the third AI is the only

one that gets to talk. Now, what are the

odds that three different AIs

would have the same hallucination?

I think the odds would be close to zero,

right? Unless the models were also

coincidentally trained exactly the same

way in the same order on the same data,

which I don't think happens.

But you tell me, what are the odds that

all three AIs would hallucinate the same

thing?

I feel like it wouldn't. So, I'm

wondering if the real the real problem

is that people don't want to pay for

three AIS.

You know, if you had Grock and Chad GBT

and Anthropic,

would they all agree on the

hallucination?

Now, doesn't that seem too simple?

Are any of you uh AI experts

when when you hear my idea, do you say

to yourself, you idiot? You you forgot

the you know most important thing about

AI. I don't know. Did I? I might have.

But doesn't it seem to you like that

would work

like every time?

It I don't see how it wouldn't work.

But anyway, so if you wanted AI to be

solved,

there you go. I just fixed it

maybe.

All right.

The uh Trump administration, according

to RSBN,

is evacuating the Middle East embassies,

at least the non-critical people,

um over concerns about Iran.

Now, here's my question.

If we're evacuating our Middle East

embassies,

the only reason is we think there's a

too much risk that Iran will attack

them. Now, what would make Iran attack a

US embassy?

Well, the only thing I can think of is

if uh Israel attacked Iran.

So,

didn't we always have that risk? you

know, for months and months and months

if not years.

Why are we

why are we drawing down the staff now?

I can only think of one reason

where well two one we know that an

attack is coming. That would be the most

obvious. or two, it's part of

negotiations

because it it suggests that an attack is

imminent and maybe that's what we need

to get Iran to agree. But

I've been watching Iran for, you know,

much of my adult life and um they don't

seem really susceptible to threats.

It's sort of the opposite. Uh, very much

the opposite actually. So, are we being

told that there's a military action

that's imminent?

And how imminent?

Would we be evacuating, you know, a week

before it happens?

Or maybe we did it months before it

happens because we don't want to give

away too much.

I don't know. It looks to me like

there's going to be some

military action.

Um, speaking of Iran,

uh, according to the Wall Street

Journal, the IAEA board, so the weird

thing about Iran is that we're having

all these, you know, nuclear energy,

nuclear weapon

um, negotiations.

But at the same time, this IAEA

has been u monitoring their activity.

Now, it's not enough of a monitor to

make a difference. It doesn't stop them

from doing what they're doing,

apparently. But the uh the AEA

just found that Iran is in

non-compliance

um for the first time in 20 years.

First time in 20 years. Really? There's

nothing non-compliant they've done in

the nuclear category for 20 years.

What's all this talk about then? All

right. Well, so apparently it has to do

with uh

what is it? There's something

unexplained that Iran is not explaining.

So

this uh this board is saying if you

can't explain this then you're in

non-compliance.

So what did Iran do being in

non-compliance?

Well, it said it would open a new

uranium enrichment facility.

Um

so it's going to do more of whatever we

don't like. Okay.

Um,

according to um, experts, Iran is

already producing enough highlyenriched

uranium for one nuclear weapons worth a

month. That doesn't mean they're making

weapons. It means they have enough

enriched uranium.

Anyway, so uh the IAEA

um might uh lead to some kind of UN

security council action and

uh there could be some repercussions

there but things are heating up

and uh so my question is this

um Iran's entire approach is saying oh

no we don't want a nuclear weapon

No, no, no. We need all this uranium

enrichment for, you know, peaceful

purposes for medical devices and, you

know, just ordinary business.

But why would anybody act this way if

they had only peaceful intentions?

Nobody would, right?

You know, in in your wildest

imagination,

can you imagine anybody going to the

brink of war and in all likelihood

actual war

over their insistence

that uh there's going to be, you know,

totally peaceful non-military

uh work on nuclear.

Nobody would do that. Nobody would do

that. So they've signaled as strongly as

they can that they plan to have nuclear

weapons or at least the ability to very

quickly have nuclear weapons which would

be you know pretty dangerous on its own.

So given that um I think Trump said his

uh optimism about a deal is kind of low

right now.

Um we're pretty much guaranteed to have

military action, aren't we? The only

thing that's a mystery is how much

involvement the US might have. But it

does look to me like Israel is going to

act and maybe

maybe the uh the UN action where they're

finding them, you know, being in

non-compliance,

maybe that's the trigger.

So, I wouldn't be surprised

if uh you see some war happening this

summer.

Um

meanwhile, Newsmax is reporting that the

US budget deficit fell 9% in May and the

reason is that tariffs boosted uh

boosted our revenue.

So all right.

So apparently there would have been a

$316 billion budget deficit. Um, but

it's down 31 billion because of um

tariffs.

All right.

I didn't know that tariffs would make a

difference. And I think some of these

tariffs are temporary, so don't get too

excited.

Meanwhile,

there is alleg allegedly a China trade

deal.

And uh

so I was looking at the Wall Street

Journal to report on what the trade deal

is all about and I cannot tell if the

trade deal is good or bad for America.

Can you?

Is there any way to tell if the trade

deal is good or bad for America? I mean,

I look at it and I say, "All right, so

so China is going to loosen up on their

uh the rare earth minerals um hold

back." To which I say, wouldn't that be

just going back to where we were, but a

little bit worse

because there's some kind of limit on it

or, you know, now we know they can pull

it anytime they want. So, it's nice to

have our rare earth mineral source back,

but that didn't put us ahead.

That's sort of where we were before.

Then there's uh

let's see what else we got. Uh we're

going to restrict the most advanced AI

chips from China,

which is where we already were. Okay.

Um, we're going to allow Chinese student

visas

so they can go to college in the United

States,

which is

where we were,

right?

There's nothing new about that. We're

just going back to where we were.

And then there's something about

tariffs,

but neither China nor the US seem to be

um mad about the tariffs they've agreed

to,

which sort of suggests that we're just

going back to where we were.

So, can anybody give me an argument

about how we came out ahead?

Did we come out ahead on anything?

Did we get a commitment on fentinel?

No. Even Lutnik didn't try to bluff

that. He just changed the subject.

Did we get an agreement on u the theft

of IP?

No, not that I'm aware of.

Um

and uh are we going to start reselling

them? jet engines and ethane, which is a

necessary part of making plastic, I

guess. Yes.

Which is

exactly what it used to be,

right?

So,

uh, the, um, the Wall Street Journal

summarized it as, um, we just are moving

back to where we were, but the deal is

leaning a little bit in China's

direction now.

So, even our hometown newspaper, the

Wall Street Journal, is saying that we

came out behind.

What do you think?

So I'd love to hear an argument where we

came out ahead

on anything

on even one thing. Nothing on fentinel

nothing. Are we coming out ahead because

uh or we've got a little bit extra

tariff on them? I don't know. It's a

little uh unclear to me that anything

happened except that China said we're

not going to basically not negotiate

anything. That's what it looks like.

Well, I had a question uh this week

about the Home Depot deportations.

So, as you know, um it's fairly common

for um illegal immigrants to stand near

the Home Depot,

usually on public property, but near the

Home Depot, and to be available for

Americans to drive up and say, "Hey, I

need somebody to work for a day to help

me dig a ditch or build a wall or

something." And then you take a few day

workers with you and you pay them cash

and um you're both happy. Now,

um I didn't understand that because I

didn't understand why the Home Depot

workers would be the worst first

because were we not promised that the

the order of the deportations would be

the the criminals and the worst of them

first. And the Home Depot

employees, not employees, but the Home

Depot day workers, the illegal ones,

they would be maybe the opposite.

They would be the ones who are trying to

work, you know, trying to claw their way

into some kind of a a life, but there's

no really indication that they're

especially criminal.

So why would we reverse

from the thing that I've been telling

people, you know, just calm down, don't

worry, you know, we're going to do the

worst first and that will we'll

basically never get to the end of the

worst. So

the way I rationalized

that I was okay with very aggressive um

deportation is that I didn't think it

was entirely real.

meaning I'm very much in favor of

getting rid of people who were criminals

and the gangs etc. But I didn't think

that ICE would have enough resources to

ever get to the bottom of that well.

So, in my view, you know, those Home

Depot people and your your gardener and

your uh your housekeeper, if you have a

housekeeper,

um to me, they all seem kind of safe

because it would take, you know, five

years to to get rid of the bad people

and then we'd probably have adjusted and

we'd say, "All right, well, you know, we

we thought we wanted to get rid of

everyone, but it turns don't, you know,

maybe we're better economically to keep

the people who have jobs and they're

paying taxes and they've been good

citizens and they've, you know, they've

assimilated.

So, while I completely understand the

argument that says no, everybody has to

go back. Uh, that wasn't the deal.

That was the deal. The deal was there

would be an order to it. And that's the

deal I signed up for. Meaning, when I

said, you know, I support President

Trump and I'm in favor of his border

policies, I wasn't talking about picking

up people at Home Depot.

So, I feel like I got stabbed in the

back

because I'm a public figure who has

publicly supported very strongly the uh

President Trump's approach to

immigration.

And the worst first was very clearly

a central part of that plan and that is

now reversed.

So

I got screwed

by my own side.

Do you think I can let that go?

Now I understand the argument. Oh, but

Scott, it's really better to deport

everybody who is illegal. I understand

your argument,

but my argument is that's not what I was

promised and it's not what I put my face

on and it's not what I backed.

That's not what I voted for.

All right. So, I feel like I got stabbed

in the back by the Trump administration.

And I don't know exactly

how to turn that off, but at the moment

I feel totally screwed because I, you

know, was sort of out front saying,

"Yeah, this is fine. Don't worry about

it."

But it's not what they promised.

Now, um, so I did a little research on

why the change.

As far as I can tell, the change is

because the ICE couldn't get the numbers

that we wanted. So if they had focused

on the worst first, especially in the

context of these sanctuary cities, the

uh the difficulty in getting enough

people. So it looked like uh deportation

was even working uh was just too high

because you know you get caught up in

the court cases and the protests and you

know the cities would fight everything

and that's where all the bad people are

you know mostly the the blue cities. So

I feel as though there was a political

reason that Steven Miller sort of

pressured ICE to go after the less

dangerous people. It was because of

sanctuary cities.

Is that your understanding

that if sanctuary cities did not exist

that they could do worst first all day

long and they would never run out of the

worst because they would go to the city,

they'd say, you know, do you have

anybody in your jail who's illegal? And

they'd say, oh yeah, we got, you know,

five more this morning. And then ICE

would say, all right, we got five more

criminals. And they would send them

away.

So, here's my request.

If if the reason that Home Depot is

being targeted, and I'm using Home Depot

as a standin for, you know, just more

casual deportations as opposed to going

after hardened criminals.

Um, if that's the reason,

then the administration needs to be

saying that really loudly,

you know, separately. I understand that,

you know, there's plenty of complaints

about sanctuary cities

and then separately

there's, you know, the targeting of the

Home Depot noncriminal

beyond, you know, the crime of coming

into the country. um you need to tie

those together

because if the reason that the Home

Depot people are getting scooped up is

that ICE is um you know unable to find

anybody in the sanctuary cities, then

that needs to be like right right at the

top of the messaging. It's like that as

long as we're sanctuary cities, we can't

do worst first.

Do do you feel me?

As long as there are sanctuary cities,

we don't have the option of doing the

worst first. If you tell me that and

then I see that some of the Home Depot

people are being deported,

I'm not going to love it

because it's not worse first, but I'm

going to at least understand it.

And that's better than having a knife in

your back and not understanding it.

But either way, I'm getting

by my own side. So,

let me let me be clear about that. I

don't like it. I I feel like I have

been, you know, personally

personally abused by this process. I

feel lied to. I feel lied to. It's sort

of promises made, promises not kept.

And uh I'm not going to ignore that. Not

going to ignore that at all. Now, one of

the things I love about

having a Republican audience

is that, as we talked about, you know,

the Democrats dislike the Republicans

more than the Republicans dislike the

Democrats. The Republicans

are willing to uh listen to an argument.

And so I gave you an argument. Some of

you loved it and some of you hated it.

But you're still willing to to let me

talk, right?

You're you're not hating on me. You

might not like that opinion. You might

disagree with it, but that doesn't make

us enemies. We're still on the same

side, right?

So,

you know, the the positive message here

is that you can have pretty strong

disagreements,

but as long as you're, you know, pro

America, America first, and we're we're

sort of all aiming in the right

direction, but some of us have a

difference of how to get there. That's

all good. That's all fine. We're not

Democrats,

right? So, we're going to talk about

something else in a minute that will be

a similar thing where you might not like

what I say, but it won't make much

difference in terms of the size of my,

you know, my audience or anything else

because you're you allow that, which I

appreciate a lot.

Anyway, so I'd love some answers on that

question. Meanwhile, let's uh check out

the photo op competition.

Um you call them riots,

some call them protests, but uh

apparently there are now 19 states with

200 riders busted in LA. So the uh

according to the New York Post, the uh

the rioting slashprotesting is going to

uh Atlanta, Chicago, and Seattle.

Hundreds of protesters here and there,

thousands of stormed the streets in 35

cities in 19 states, blah blah blah.

But I see it all as a photo op

competition. So, the the game that's

being played is about who can get the

best video or iconic photo that will get

burnt into people's minds as the, you

know, the brand of what happened this

summer. And so far, Trump is winning

because he's done the most clever thing.

You know, if you assume that people who

watch the news are mostly just casual

watchers, you know, maybe 5% of the

public like really digs in and, you

know, figures out the context and knows

the numbers and stuff like that, but 95%

of the country is just looking at the

pictures. And if they see a strong

picture and it they see it a lot,

then that will change their opinion. But

what Trump has done cleverly is he sent

in the Marines, but they haven't been

deployed. So I've seen no picture of any

Marines.

Um secondly, he's deployed the National

Guard sort of over the over the

complaints of the governors and they've

been um as far as I know they've only

been deployed to protect federal

buildings which don't appear to be under

any special kind of attack.

And then having deployed two branches of

the military

with no connection whatsoever to the

to the protest like not one of them has

touched a protester or been in a

conflict or arrested anybody that

they're all just sort of staying out of

the way you know with the

what does Trump do after deploying two

two branches of the military?

and then having them do basically

nothing.

Now, guarding guarding federal buildings

is not nothing, but if it causes the

protesters to go somewhere else,

well, then it ends up looking like

nothing. So, there there's no pictures.

So, you've got zero pictures of of uh

Trump's military doing anything, you

know, bad or uh illegal. Somebody's

saying that the Home Depot thing is a

hoax. Um, I'm not gonna read that, Andy,

because

while I know the the story about the

individual Home Depot

stuff is is not necessarily true. I'm

using the Home Depot as a example of

people who are not criminals

who might get picked up.

So, it's it's an example. It's it's not

based on specific Home Depot situation,

but let me finish. Um, so so Trump says,

I've been laughing about this all

morning. He says, "If I didn't send in

the troops to Los Angeles the last three

nights, that once beautiful and great

city would be burning to the ground

right now.

But what exactly did the Marines and the

National Guard do in Los Angeles?

Were they putting out the fires?

It's sort of perfect. He he can claim uh

he can claim success

without any visible

without any visible evidence whatsoever.

And at the same time, the pictures that

are being produced are still of, you

know, the the flag waving people in

fires. So, he's winning he's winning the

photo op competition hard, but also he's

winning the, you know, did you respond

quickly and with enough vigor to meet

the situation?

And almost anybody watching would say,

"Well, yeah. I mean, if you've already,

you know, pre-deployed the the military,

two branches, but they haven't done

anything dangerous. You they they

haven't hurt anybody. They haven't

really gotten involved in the action."

Um, but they could they could, right?

So, uh,

it's sort of perfect for Trump.

Anyway, the longer it goes, the better

for Trump. Um, I saw Chris Cuomo say the

news is sort of the best case scenario

for for Trump, but I've also seen um

I've seen dueling polls.

I think it was uh Jessica Tarlov on the

five on Fox News um was saying that some

of the uh support for Trump's

immigration policies

have plunged.

But at the same time, I've heard there

are polls which say that uh support for

Trump's um handling of the the protest/

riiots is uh you know above average. In

other words, there are more people

support it than don't. So I think we've

got two separate things happening which

is the polls are all over the place. I

think it depends what they ask and how

they ask and exactly when they asked it.

But, uh, in the end, I think that, uh,

as long as Trump's military doesn't hurt

anybody or do anything ridiculous,

um, I think Trump wins in the end.

Yeah.

All right. uh FBI director Cash Patel

um he told uh just the news that they're

going to investigate the people behind

um the protests. So the people behind it

would be the money people. So FBI will

look at the money trail. Um, I don't

know that that means that any of them

are breaking the law necessarily

depending on what they're doing or

funding, but uh, Representative Andy

Biggs from Arizona, he wants to see

those activist organizations

um, who are committing crimes

um, have them investigated and

criminally prosecuted. But again, I

don't know exactly what the crime would

be because is it illegal

to organize a protest and fund it?

Um because they would not be the people

who were throwing the rocks. But if you

funded people that you know

1% of them might throw rocks, have you

broken the law? I don't know. But if

they have broken the law, of course,

something needs to be done.

All right, let's talk about the flag

burning. Uh, whenever this comes up, I

like to add my opinion to it. Um, Thomas

Massie posted on X. He said, "Burning

your own American flag is narded." So,

he's, you know, I guess intentionally

misspelling Uh, but it's not

illegal, nor should it be.

He says, "No one should want a federal

government so powerful that it can lock

you up for a year for burning your own

stuff." Now, remember that Trump is in

favor of uh jail for burning a flag, but

Thomas Massie is not. He goes,

"Thankfully, your constitution prohibits

Congress from making such stupid laws."

All right.

So, I posted my opinion on this. You've

heard it before, but I'll put it in

different words this time. So, one

reason I respect the American flag,

and it's just one reason that I respect

the American flag is that it gets

stronger when protesters burn it.

And that's a feature, not a bug. It gets

stronger when you burn it. Now, that's

the kind of flag I want. I don't want

any weak, wimpy flag that if you burn

it,

if somehow has destroyed the country

or weakened the country. No. No. Um, and

then I want you to know that like most

of you, I'm also offended

when I see an American flag being

burned. like you I can feel it, you

know, like a a person who loves their

country. I just feel it like, "Oh god,

are you burning my flag right in front

of me?"

So I feel it, but that feeling is also

when I most vividly feel the power of

the flag.

And I like having a flag that can make

me feel something and can make me feel

the power of the country that it

represents.

So, for my for my money,

um, if you've got a wimpy, stupid flag

you can burn and it's causes so much

trouble that somebody thinks they need

to lock you up for it, that is a

inadequate flag.

I want a flag that you can burn right in

front of the Supreme Court and the

Supreme Court will say, "There you go,

free speech."

And that's it.

And then the more you burn it, the more

it reminds people that America is a

place where you get to have unpleasant

opinions and you can express them in

public.

And you can do it all day long.

And the And what happens is the country

doesn't get weaker.

It just reminds us every day that we've

got this uh flag that

gets stronger when you try to burn it.

So that's that's my take. That's my

reframe.

Uh meanwhile, uh exABC News

correspondent Terry Moran, that poor

bastard who's having the worst month of

anybody ever.

So, he gets put on leave and then he

gets fired from ABC for having some, you

know, uh, hard to explain, uh, bad

opinions about, uh, Steven Miller and

Trump. I guess he has announced on a

video that he's going to be a Substack

blogger, but not right away because it's

going to take some time for him to

figure it out.

And I thought to myself,

um,

that's sort of embarrassing after 28

years doing a job for ABC News and then

you get fired and you're announcing

you're a Substack blogger.

That's not going to work for a lot of

people, but good luck.

Um meanwhile the uh publication called

futurism is talking about a college

let's see what it is Ohio State so Ohio

State University has just announced uh

that starting this fall every single one

of its students will be forced to use AI

in class.

So instead of banning AI,

you know, because it's a way that

students can cut corners or, you know,

potentially cheat, um, they're going the

other direction and they're saying that

it's a requirement that you know how to

use AI and that you know how to use it

in every single class.

Now, what do you think of that?

Do you think the colleges should ban AI

because then you don't learn the same or

should it encourage people to become

experts in not only the class but how to

use AI within that domain.

Uh I'm going to go hard in favor of Ohio

State.

I think this might be one of the

smartest things I've seen because in the

real world, everybody's going to use AI

for everything.

And every one of their subjects from

math to biology to history,

there's going to be an AI tool that

helps them understand it. Now, I've used

Grock

almost every day for I don't know,

months.

And when I use Grock, I get some context

that I didn't know. And I usually

remember it.

But it's easier, it's way easier to look

it up with AI than it is to, you know,

Google things and look at every source.

Um, so I feel in my own experience

that AI makes me smarter faster than any

technology I've ever been associated

with.

Now I don't forget the things I look up

on AI and it's not like I could just

take its writing and you know read it to

you on this podcast. I have to

understand it and then I put it in my

own words and that's the only model that

works. If I if I were to just read a

script that AI wrote or Grock wrote, you

would know it was a script and you

wouldn't you wouldn't love it.

So I'm I I think this is a very uh

uh what would I call it? forwardthinking

and aware.

Uh Ohio State University has at least

one person there who is very smart and

understands, you know, what's coming. So

yeah, I think all the colleges should

adapt to AI or maybe we should get rid

of colleges and just use AI. That's

coming. Well, let's talk about our

nuclear power policy.

Um, apparently according to

um I didn't see where the source was,

but

uh China plans to build 100 new uh

nuclear power plants in the next 10

years. So 10 nuclear power plants per

year for 10 years till they have 100 of

them. The US uh has built only three

power plants since 1995.

And I can't name them.

I I didn't know we even built three

since 1995. I thought it was zero, but

all right, I guess there are three. Um,

so we're way behind, but

the good news and a real test of the

Adams

uh the the Adam's law of slowmoving

disasters.

Now, the Adams law of slowmoving

disasters

says that if we all recognize the

problem coming,

uh, we got lots of time.

We're really good at dealing with the

problem. And the problem coming is that

AI is going to use way more electricity

than we have. If we don't do the best in

AI, we'll fall behind militarily,

economically, and every other way. to

China and maybe other countries. So

really we really understand the the risk

and we see it coming and we kind of

agree what the problem is and we also

agree on the solution which is if you

don't make nuclear work and fast there's

probably not a second way to you know

handle all the electrical needs. I think

Elon Musk would say you could get there

with solar panels and batteries, but uh

probably we need all of it.

So, um the good news according to The

Hill is that uh Trump has proposed

getting rid of all climate rules for

power plants. So, that there will be any

kind of power plant. But uh a lot of the

rules were really allegedly not really

helping the uh the atmosphere or

anything else. The the rules were

mostly, you know, don't pollute and

don't add this or that to the

atmosphere.

But apparently those rules might have

been overdone.

So those might get rolled back. That

would make a big difference. And

apparently we've opened, we the United

States, a uranium enrichment facility in

Oakidge, Tennessee.

Um because it turns out that we

currently import 99% of our US nuclear

fuel.

What?

When did that happen?

When did we get to the point?

Um, Scott, you were falling for the Home

Depot hoax. Now, did you hear me explain

that when I talk about Home Depot, I'm

not talking about a specific Home Depot

and any specific thing happening at Home

Depot. I'm using it as a general holder

for noncriminal immigrants who were

being picked up. Now, are you arguing

that no noncriminals are being picked up

because otherwise you're just being an

All right.

So, I accept that the stories, the

specific stories about the Home Depot

um are not representative of anything.

So, we're both on the same page, right?

Whatever story there is about any

specific Home Depot or even more than

one has nothing to do with my opinion.

Everybody everybody understand that? I

use it just as a you know like a holding

place basically to talk about people who

are not criminals.

All right, you got that? Can you handle

that?

All right.

It's not an analogy,

Oh god. So, I'm going to have to block

you.

All right.

Um so most of our uh uranium enrichment

comes from places like

uh Russia

not exactly the best source for uranium

enrichment. Uh Canada, okay, Australia,

Kazakhstan, and use use Beckistan

anyway. But uh apparently we've got some

sanctions on the Russian stuff, but you

can you can get around it.

So, at least we're doing all the right

things, at least on paper, to get our

nuclear facility going.

Anyway, the uh Hungarian government

um has apparently they're going to

release a documentary they made exposing

the US uh aid scandal. That's what they

call according to the the British

Patriot is retweeting this on or

reposting it. Now, apparently this is

something we've known since April, but

uh it's getting more attention just cuz

somebody's posting it around. Um

apparently, uh the film is going to

highlight how millions of dollars have

been directed towards supporting

left-wing political movements in

Hungary.

You know, at this point, I don't know

that the Hungarian documentary will tell

us anything we didn't know. Um,

but, uh, it might be for people who are

not following, you know, Mike Benz. If

you follow Mike Benz, this will probably

look like your repeat, but if you don't,

you might find out some stuff you didn't

know. But watch out for the documentary

effect which makes everything look

persuasive.

All right. Um,

according to the register,

uh, DARPA is testing a device the

soldiers can swallow to make them less

stressed. So

apparently it would be an electronic

device. It wouldn't be a chemical. And

the electronics that were in the let's

say pill form that you swallow would uh

somehow interact with your your gut

and would make you less um less stressed

because it would affect your gut.

Now remember I tell you that uh your

brain and your body are the same tool.

Well, here you go. there. Here's a

perfect example. If you could control

your gut

environment, it would change how your

brain is processing your experience.

Now, that's a that's a really good

example of your brain and your body

being the same tool right there. So,

anyway, that's just uh they're just

getting ready to study the possibilities

here. So, it's not like it's close to

being a product.

Um, maybe they should just skip the

robots, but I guess they want to make

super soldiers first.

I don't know how long it will be before

robots are doing all the fighting, but

in the short run,

in the short run, it looks like we'll

have some, you know, super soldiers.

In other news, the new outlet says that

uh they figured out how to grow a new

tooth

uh to replace one that fell out or was

removed. Now, this would be different

than an implant. So implants have

existed for a long time, but instead of

an implant, it would be an actual um an

actual tooth

that would not be organic by itself, but

apparently would merge with your organic

mouth and it would grow nerves and and

act like a real tooth.

That's kind of amazing.

Who's doing that? Um

I don't know somebody's doing that

and then I talk about this a lot but

when it gets uh when it's done by MIT it

feels like uh it's closer to reality. So

MIT has a windowsized

device that turns uh that turns air into

drinking water with no power source. So

you don't have to plug it in. You just

put it there and it sucks uh moisture

out of the air even in the desert and

creates water. And if you had a rack of

them, you know, more than one of these

windowsized things, you could have

enough of water for your entire family.

Now, um I've talked about this

technology before, but apparently the

other ones have some issues or they

create water that's a little too salty.

So, there's some other issues, but

apparently the MIT version has uh solved

those problems.

Now, it makes me ask this question, what

keeps us from living on the sea?

You know what? What is preventing us

from living on

basically, you know, floating gigantic

boats that just stay at the sea all the

time.

And uh the answer is quite a bit,

but we're getting closer and closer to a

time when you could live on the ocean.

All right, let me tell you my design for

ocean living.

Uh there should be a special barge.

So basically I would imagine a

an island that's created by a number of

barges that you could connect together.

So you could walk from one to the other,

but also that each of them would be

built so it could be part of the

navigation.

So, in other words, if your island of

boats needed to avoid a typhoon,

you could just relocate. Um, now in many

cases, you wouldn't need to relocate it

at all, but maybe in most cases, you

would because you'd want your weather to

be perfect.

So, I imagine a bunch of barges that

could somewhat easily be connected and

then disconnected. You would want your

utility barges to be on the outer

perimeter. So if there's a problem with

one, you could move to another. For

example, one of your barges could be a

garbage barge.

But the garbage barge would need to

float away and you know dispose of its

garbage in a appropriate way. But during

that time, maybe a replacement garbage

barge can connect.

Uh likewise, you'd want an indoor, you'd

want some kind of a garden barge, maybe

indoor. Um so that you could grow

vegetables.

Then you might have a fake uh fish

growing barge or maybe a fishing barge.

Imagine a barge that's optimized with

robots to just fish and they they can

tell like they caught a fish and they

can prepare it and you can eat all kinds

of fish all day. So that'd be cool if

your AI and your robot were doing all

the work. And what about uh let's see

what else would you need? Yeah, you'd

also need a self sailing ship. So we

would need would need to figure out

using AI probably how to sail to the you

know the best weather and the you know

in just in time etc. So

here's what I think yeah your biggest

problem would be pirate ships.

Sergio says you're right. Your biggest

problem would be security. So you'd

probably need some kind of a security

arrangement

with a established

country like the United States. But

imagine if you will

u a city that's built on barges that are

connected together and only the outer

ring is the utility ones that that might

need to be replaced or there might need

some maintenance etc. Um I think it'd be

pretty cool. I think it's coming. It's

coming. All right, ladies and gentlemen,

that concludes my comments for the day.

Thanks for joining. Hope you're not too

angry at me. And uh hurricanes, no

problem. Well, they wouldn't be a

problem because we can see them coming,

but also you could relocate where they

rarely if ever happen.

So yeah, as long as you can relocate,

you're in pretty good shape.

Tsunamis,

it's a good question. You could probably

find a place where there's

never been a recorded tsunami.

Um,

so there's that.

All right. Uh, I'm going to say a few

words privately to the people on locals.

the rest of you. Thanks for joining. I

will see you same time tomorrow, same

place and and