Episode 2871 CWSA 06/17/25

Not looking so good.

So, forget about that.

Let's uh do a show.

Don't think about your stocks.

No, don't.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But for those of you who would like to take this experience up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or ste a canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparallel pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous.

It happens.

Now go sublime.

So good.

Well, I need a fact check on this.

I saw online somebody was printing what was allegedly Elon Musk's medical report showing that he had no drug use.

Is that real?

Does anybody know if that's real?

Because it wasn't on his account.

It was somebody else's account.

I don't know.

But we'll uh we'll put a pin in that.

I don't know if that's real.

Well, according to live science, uh there's now an EV battery, thanks to the Brits, that can recharge in 18 seconds.

And apparently, it's been approved for mass production.

So, it's actually coming.

It doesn't say how what kind of u you know, distance you get, but imagine fully recharging your battery in 18 seconds.

That's current technology.

I'll tell you this.

This battery stuff is going to change everything.

In other power news, uh obviously we'll talk about Israel and Iran in a moment, but uh Trump uh fired Biden's nuclear regulator.

I guess there was a nuclear regulator according to the Daily Color News Foundation.

and uh Trump got rid of him.

So uh apparently that one person might have been slowing down approvals.

That's just my guess.

But uh Trump is very serious about making nuclear power work.

So, uh, I don't know how many regulations he has to get rid of or how many people he has to fire, but there does seem to be some some will and ability to do both.

So, nuclear, it's coming.

Here's a problem we wish we had.

All right.

If you think of all the problems that the United States has or whatever country you're in, um, apparently over in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, there are major protests against over tourism.

Over tourism.

Now, I get it because you don't want too much traffic and, you know, it interferes with your life.

But I wouldn't mind living in a country where your biggest problem is too many people want to visit because it's so nice.

That'd be a good problem.

So, uh, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, I feel your pain, but not very much.

You've got you've got a pretty good problem there.

All right, let's talk about Trump and Iran.

All right.

Today's goal is I'm going to teach you how hypnotists um analyze people's speech.

So, I'm going to talk about all the things that Trump has said and done and signaled and then we're going to figure out what comes next because prediction is the closest you can get to reality if you're good at it.

All right.

So, here are the things we know.

We know that Trump left early from the G7.

Some people are saying it was an excuse to get out of some awkward meetings at the G7, but I don't think that Trump would do that.

So my guess is that the reason he left is exactly what they said it was, which is uh there's something that's going to go down in Iran and it's big and he needed to be fully engaged in that.

So that's your first hint.

Second hint, um Trump said the other day to evacuate Thran.

Now, is Tan where the Ford nuclear facility is?

No.

Um, how many of the nuclear facilities are in Thyron?

Well, I don't know, but it's not going to whatever happens in Thran would not directly destroy the nuclear capacity of Iran.

So, what is it that would be happening in Thran?

H.

All right, that's your second clue.

So, one clue, Trump left early, got all of his people together in the situation room, something big is going down.

And something about Tran.

Um, and when asked why he was calling for the evacuation of Tran, he gave his uh his usual Trumpian answer.

uh he wants people to be safe.

Well, obviously um Trump is filled in on some plans that Israel has for Tran.

So, that much we know.

He He's not guessing.

He He didn't randomly pick a city and say you should evacuate.

Obviously, Trump has been filled in on some plans for Thran.

Um, according to uh Mcronone of France and Trump says this is not true.

Um, Mcronone said that Trump left the G7 to work on a ceasefire agreement, a ceasefire.

But Trump uh called out Mcronone and said that he doesn't want a ceasefire.

He's he's going for something much bigger.

Now, what would be bigger than a ceasefire?

Well, um he says over and over again, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.

So, here are the things we know.

Something big is going to happen fairly soon.

It involves Thran or Tehran, am I saying it right?

Um, which would only indirectly be about the nuclear program because it's not really it's not like all in Tran.

And it's not about his ceasefire, which you'd expect if he planned to have negotiations.

Um, and a reporter asked uh Trump on the plane, uh, what are you looking for here?

And Trump said, "An end." A real end.

Not a ceasefire.

An end.

An end.

An end to what?

An end to the regime.

An end to the danger.

An end to the nuclear program.

Well, an end.

Um, and we know that uh Trump has now taken a opposite position from Tulsi Gabbard who had recently said that uh according to the CIA that Iran was not that close to a nuclear weapon.

But uh Trump has adopted the uh Netanyahu messaging that uh Iran was very close, very close.

So that's a difference.

Um, and then Trump said about Iran, who apparently Iran has been trying to contact the United States via other indirect um, channels and wants to talk, but Trump says they'd like to talk, but they should have done that before.

So is Trump saying very clearly that something's going to happen and it's going to happen with or without talking because the talking it's too late.

Looks like it.

So there's something going to happen and it looks like u Iran's apparent willingness to talk is not going to affect Trump too much.

Um and then Trump said uh that if there's any injury to our troops, we'll come down so hard.

If they do anything to our people, I think they know not to touch our troops.

Now, as you know, there have been uh lots of wars that were started with fake provocations.

So now that Trump has laid down this red line and said if you do anything to our troops then we would get involved in the war.

Is that a trick?

Because we can always claim that they did something that endangered our troops.

Doesn't it feel like there's enough fuzziness there that we could say, "Oh, this one missile came really close to this embassy or something." So, we're starting to put it all together, but there's more.

Um, according to Axios, um, that according to Axios, uh, having a meeting with the Iranians would be a makeorb breakak moment for whether the US will join the war against Iran.

So, Axios is suggesting there might be some kind of a meeting.

But if Iran doesn't give up everything, as in its nuclear program, um, then that would be the go time for the US to join the war.

Now, that's Axios.

Do you think Axios knows that Trump has planned to join the war in a way that would, you know, pretty much require Iran to attack American interests?

I don't know.

Um, and uh, what else?

Trump sees uh, the bunker buster decision as an inflection point.

So Trump is still considering the question of providing bunker busters according to Axios.

We don't know if that's true.

And uh apparently Trump has asked VP Vance and the Middle East envoy to offer to meet with the Iranians next week for the New York Times.

So do you think the offers to meet and to talk are real?

because he already said you better evacuate to run because it sounds like something's going to happen with or without those conversations and he's not going to wait till next week because remember Israel wanted to be done in two weeks.

So they're not going to say, "Hey, how about next week we have a meeting?" I don't think that will change much action.

Well, Bill O'Reilly said that uh earlier today he had texted with Trump and he says Trump doesn't want to use American air power at this point and that would be the bunker busters.

Um because that would cause some problems with China and Putin, would it?

And he'd rather have the Iranians surrender, which he believes they will.

Surrender.

Huh.

Now, surrender is not a word that I've heard before in this context.

Um, so here's a reframe.

It seems like Trump is reframing it so that Iran gets to decide if the US enters the war.

um which might not be a big change to anybody's thinking, but it does kind of put Iran in the decision-making seat.

Um so the current decision is the US is not in the war or at least in in the most aggressive way that it could be.

And now the decision kind of comes down to Iran if they don't give up their nuclear program like right away.

Um, it looks like Trump is willing, at least in terms of the messaging.

We don't know what he's thinking, but in terms of the messaging, he would be willing to enter.

All right.

So, what would make Iran surrender?

That hasn't happened already.

So, if you put it all together, here's my prediction.

Um, I don't think Trump wants to use the bunker busters because that would look like we enter the war and you know that would be bad for his base.

He would lose support in the US etc.

But it does seem that Trump is willing to um let's say I don't want to say allow but not stop Israel from doing what Israel wants to do.

So, how could Israel um dismantle the uh Iranian nuclear program if they do not have access to the bunker buster bombs?

And I can only think of one way and I think this is the heest technique that the uh word that tells you what's happening is surrender.

So my guess is that Israel is getting ready to pound Thran and take out each pillar of the government's power until there's nothing left.

And I think that might work because if he wants the administration to surrender, he's going to have to put pressure on him that's different from just bombing some things and then waiting to see what happens.

So, um, my guess, and this is just my speculation at this point, my prediction is that the plan is not to do boner busters, but it's to get the Iranian regime to surrender.

Now, would the current regime surrender?

Not likely.

Not likely at all.

So, how could Israel get a surrender if the current regime is unwilling to surrender?

Well, um I would call it the chewing from below decapitation strike.

If they go right to decapitation and they take out the leadership with the next set of bombs, that's going to look too aggressive.

and uh might set a precedent etc.

But what Israel's been doing so far is getting rid of all the lower level people all well the top level people in the military but in terms of the um domestic non-military leadership I think they're just going to start chewing them up from the bottom up.

So you get rid of, you know, an institution.

You'll get rid of a, you know, a minor leader, another minor leader, another minor leader, and you just start working your way up to the top because apparently they know where everybody is somehow, and they know how to kill them all because they've they've assassinated a tremendous number of leaders.

So my guess is that tan will become sort of a killing field for Iranian leadership, but it will start at the bottom of what they can get to and they'll just start slowly working their way up until either the top people are overthrown, which might happen, but I wouldn't bet on it, or the top people say, "All right, we're out.

we surrender.

Um, we're going to give up all of our nuclear weapons.

Well, nuclear facilities, not weapons.

And so, I would argue that there's exactly one path.

If you rule out the bunker busters, which I think would be bad idea for Trump to use the bunker busters, but you you don't rule out that under all conditions, Israel will get rid of the nuclear threat, which I think is the case.

What's that leave?

All it leaves is decapitation.

But like I said, starting from the top would be too big of a shock to the system.

I think they'll start chewing them up from the bottom up.

So you should see strategic hits in Thran against, you know, government sources of power.

Um, and it will just keep going and there will be no end to it.

And the entire time Trump will say, you know, you shouldn't negotiate it.

But if at any time the Iranian leadership says, "All right, all right.

We agree in advance before we even sit down that we will dismantle our entire nuclear program." At that point, maybe the bombs will stop.

Maybe.

But I'm not even sure if Israel would trust them to, you know, it would just look like they're it's a delay tactic.

So that's my uh that's my prediction.

A chew them up from the bottom decapitation.

Sort of a slow decapitation until they get a surrender.

What else could it be?

That's that's all that's left.

Apparently, according to uh some news, uh Iran has been urgently signaling that they want an end to the hostilities.

Of course, they do.

Um but probably, we assume they're just stalling.

That's what Israel would say.

And I think they're probably right based on history.

So, um yeah.

So, that's what's going to happen.

Um, according to uh a retired colonel, Lieutenant Colonel on Fox News, uh, the Iranian missiles are overwhelming the US defense systems, you know, our Iron Dome.

And it looks like there's a uh the Iranians have a strategy that seems to be pretty good, which is they launch a whole bunch of missiles at the same time and some of them are the good kind and some of them are the cheap kind, but the uh the defensive systems get kind of overwhelmed and then the good kind can snick through.

So the question would be, will Iran continue going as hard as they can with as many missiles as they can shoot until they run out, which would be pretty devastating?

Uh or do they have to save them because they might be running low?

Well, we don't know.

It's fog of war and it's hard to know what's true.

But uh I would guess that the more the more the Iranians send missiles into Israel, the more damage Israel can do to Thran and to their leadership with something that looks like justification.

So Iran doesn't have too many good options here.

All right, so that's enough on that.

Um, the Minnesota shooter, as you know, got caught.

But if you don't mind, I'm not really going to talk about that Minnesota shooter guy because that looks like crazy guy.

Um it does look like he might have been a little bit more right leaning than left, but he had a long list of people he wanted to get to and they weren't all Democrats and you know, so to me that's just crazy guy and that's that's the whole story there.

All right, but as you know, the uh pro.

Trump um what would you call it?

the pro.

Trump supporters are having a uh tough time because the the anti-war people and the let's go get them people on different sides.

So among the u no war no way would be Steve Bannon.

He would be the most prominent one.

Doesn't want a war with Iran.

Tucker Carlson who's going hard at Mark Leven.

He's got a real problem with Mark Lean on Fox News.

I guess Mark Leven is more pro-war.

Uh M.

Gates wants to avoid uh further war with Iran.

Marjgery Taylor Green.

Um and then of course Thomas Massie, you would not be surprised, wants a resolution to require Congress to approve the war.

And he's already got three Democrats to sign up.

Bernie, Roana, and AOC.

So whatever Trump does is either going to make um one half of his coalition hate him or the other half hate him because his two choices are get involved in the war and then he loses, you know, half of his support or don't get involved in the war and then he loses half of his support.

So if you're Trump, how do you play that?

Well, that goes back to my prediction.

If he if he simply says, "All we're doing is um you know, maybe helping helping Israel avoid some missiles, but Israel goes wild in Tehran and just keeps murdering um and assassinating leaders." I feel like in the end that might be enough to keep his coalition together because it would not be the United States jumping into the war, but also it would not be avoiding the war.

It would be allowing uh I keep saying allowing as if as if they work for us, but they don't.

it would be, let's say, standing back while Israel does what Israel thinks it needs to do.

So, I feel like the only way he can wiggle out of this, you know, there's there's no way to win is by letting Israel carry the entire load and just sort of, you know, being a let's say a bad cop.

Somebody said uh you know is Israel being the the bad cop and Trump is a good cop.

Kind of kind of Trump Trump is still the one who's saying you know you just have to negotiate and you just have to surrender and then everything's fine.

So there's a little bit of a good cop bad cop thing going on which might be productive.

So here's my question for you.

If uh if Trump managed to pull this off, and pulling it off would be stepping back while Israel does what it needs to do.

And there's no bunker buster, but they get um Iran to say, "Look, we'll we'll unlock Ford and we'll let you watch while we dismantle it." Would that be enough to keep uh Trump's um coalition together?

I think it would be because it would look like we got away with um something we wanted strategically but we would get away with it on the cheap.

So I feel like there's only one path and it's through the leadership of the uh Iranian people and I don't see any other path.

All right.

Um, I I just want to give a compliment to comic Dave Smith.

Um, one of the things that's fascinating about this whole podcasting world is that some people have made a name for themselves and become, you know, they became relevant in these top level conversations simply by force of will, I guess.

So why would we listen to comic Dave Smith's opinion about geopolitical uh stuff?

And the answer is it doesn't make sense on the surface, but he did such a good job comic David Smith did of inserting himself in the conversation and debating people who wanted to debate and you know making his his views known that he is actually relevant.

Um and I have to admit I'm very impressed with that.

Um he's not the only one.

I mean a number of podcasters and I'm one of them have through just hard work and showing up every day and you know trying to add something to the process have made themselves um not the most important thing in the conversation but relevant relevant and I was wondering are there more humorous that are supporting Trump than there have been supporting Republicans in the past cuz I was thinking, you know, um you've got Tim Dylan, you've got Roseanne, you've got me, uh comic Dave Smith.

I feel like I feel like there are a whole bunch of people who are humorists first who have become relevant in the the Trump era.

And it feels like Yeah.

Joe Rogan, right?

Yeah.

Obviously Joe Rogan and a number of the other comedians as well.

Uh Adam Corolla.

Exactly.

Yeah.

I'm forgetting a few others, but that's is that new that there would be so many humorists who were sort of pro.

Trump.

I guess comic Dave Smith has made a turn.

He's not Oh, yeah.

Shane Gillis.

Um, I guess he's not pro.

Trump.

He's asking for Trump's uh impeachment over over the Israel stuff, I guess.

But anyway, so uh I would give my compliments to all of the people I mentioned for Yeah.

Greg Guffeld.

Um because they all made themselves relevant and they didn't do it by having terrible opinions.

The van, yeah, he's more in the gray area, but yes.

So, you know, Theo is not in the category of a person who is trying to make serious um geopolitical comments that change the world, but a number of us do.

We're we're literally trying to, you know, make sure the country is steering in the right direction as best we can.

Um, so I'm very impressed at all the people who just carve down a space for themselves by being useful and having an opinion that people could either debate with or uh agree with.

So very impressed.

Um, let's see what else.

Um, according to Axios and some reporting by Barack Ravid, uh, Netanyahu has, well, this is Axios's take on it, effectively endorsed the idea of regime change in Iran in a string of media appearances.

Um, but Trump, they say, has remained unconvinced.

But do we really know what Trump is convinced of or not?

We don't, do we?

We, you know, it might be that Trump is going to act unconvinced while at the same time stepping aside and letting Israel do whatever it needs to do.

Um, all right.

And I guess it was a Israeli air strike in Iran overnight that uh took out some Iranian military top top base.

Um I can't imagine that there would be any humans in the uh Iranian military who would be going to work in the office.

Wouldn't wouldn't all of the military um structures be empty by now because they're such obvious targets?

Now, the other thing I wonder about is I assume that u Israel got on top of Iran's communication devices, meaning that uh meaning that the Iranians probably don't have a secure means of communicating even if they wanted to.

Um, which would tell me that the Israelis know where everybody is all the time and they know what they're up to all the time.

So, um, I would get out of Tran if I were if I were in the military.

I would run because it looks like it's just sending ducks at this point.

Well, in related news, um, speaking of immigration, uh, one of the questions people had is, you know, why are all the protesters over 65?

And, um, I had speculated is because they're easier to scare you and especially if they're watching the mainstream media.

So elderly people make up a lot of the protesters on the streets for the gokings and the anti- ICE protests.

But part of it is because they have a lot of time on their hands.

Part of it is because they're exhippies.

So they're reliving their, you know, their exciting youth being protesters.

Some of it is maybe because the elderly are on fixed incomes, so they feel more vulnerable, so they feel like there's more they have to protest about.

Um, but I would argue that we should see it as a mental disorder and that the elderly are just more prone to it, you know, just like Alzheimer's and other stuff.

And uh I saw a a post by Meg Brock who was asking the question on X um when is Trump derangement syndrome going to be officially added to the DSM5 to make it an official diagnosis?

And I wondered if it was already there cuz I've heard uh lots of reports of therapists who treat it like it's real.

Uh because it is and they've got a lot of clients who come in and say I've got some form of TDS or at least they exhibit it.

And so I went to Gro to find out is it already in the literature cuz why wouldn't it be?

Wouldn't you expect that by now Trump derangement syndrome would be a legitimate diagnosis?

Because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of individual therapists who consider it a legitimate diagnosis.

So I I looked and apparently no.

And Grock says that there's the reason it's not, you know, an official disorder is that there's a lack of clinical basis.

There is no peer-reviewed studies uh or psychological research or professional mental health organizations recognizing it as a diagnosible condition.

And then Grock says it lacks defined symptoms, diagnostic criteria, or empirical evidence required for a legitimate disorder.

To which I say, well, wait a minute.

Isn't it a lot like addiction?

If I said to you, um, you have a drinking problem, knowing that drinking is a legal activity for adults, how would you define it as a problem versus a hobby?

And the answer is usually if it interferes with your life.

So if your drinking has an impact on your life, as in you lose your job, you lose your relationships, you spend all your money, you wake up in a ditch, well then you've got a drinking problem.

If you had two drinks on the weekend with your friends and then took a Uber home, we would mostly say you're just somebody who has a hobby and you don't have a problem.

But don't you think TDS is exactly like that?

If somebody simply prefers uh a Democrat over Trump, I would say, "Oh, well, that's just a political preference." But if somebody is crying and shaking and and they feel like he's going to become a king and he's going to lock people up in prison camps, isn't that interfering with your actual life and happiness?

And wouldn't that be super easy to diagnose if you were a therapist?

So in my opinion, we have everything we need, which is uh it's easy to diagnose.

You know, do you have a worry that Trump is president and that he'll do terrible things?

Do you believe things that are real or do you believe things that are imaginary?

And you don't even need that part.

You could just you could just say, um, does it does it affect your life?

you know, do you wake up in the morning shaking and crying?

If the answer is yes, then you've got a, you know, a mental health disorder, I would think.

So, I feel like that really needs to be a legitimate mental health disorder.

It would help.

Uh we'll say so speaking of the Trump coalition um Trump also has trouble with the immigration um issue because Trump had started out being you know as hardline as you could possibly be on immigration and that was keeping his coalition together because they were hardline on immigration too.

But then when Trump said, "Well, maybe not the farm workers and the the hotel hospitality people because they would be hard to replace." Then he lost a bunch of his followers who said, "What do you mean?

There's no exceptions.

If they're here illegally, they got to go." So apparently Trump has um veered back to yes there will be raids on farms and hospitality places including I suppose Trump hotels I don't know but uh you remember the uh food company was it valley foods or somebody where uh the immigration people basically arrested half of the workforce or some big percentage and apparently they immediately got lots of job applicants for from uh Americanborn people.

So if you were worried that there were no Americans who would apply for you know jobs if the uh foreignb born people who are not citizens get shipped or deported.

Um, we have one one uh data point that says that it might not be a problem.

I would argue that probably will depend a lot on where you are.

So, if you're living out, what state was that?

Was it Iowa or something?

I can't remember what state it was.

But it could be that, you know, if you're in a rural situation, it's easier to fill those jobs.

Maybe.

I don't know.

So, we'll we'll see about that.

But, uh Trump has a big problem.

So, he's either going to put farming and uh and uh the hotel business out of business or maybe not out of business, but deeply inconvenienced.

Um, but as long as there are people who are American citizens who want to apply for those jobs immediately upon the openings, that need to be in pretty good shape.

So whether you're in favor of it or not in favor of it, it might be practical.

So, you know, take that for what it's worth.

According to the uh Postmillennial, there's a poll that says a majority of Hispanic voters support Trump's deportation policies, which we've heard before, but it's good that it's consistent.

Uh this is the uh survey by the League of American Workers and Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics.

53% of Hispanic voters say they somewhat or strongly support increasing deportations.

Uh especially ones with criminal records, but that that part's easy.

So overall, six and 10 registered voters back the Trump um deportation plans.

So he's still in good shape there.

Um, according to Blaze Media, and I guess this comes from the Trump administration, there are 1 million illegal aliens who have reportedly self-deported.

Now, my question would be this.

Is there anything about the group that is self-epporting that would be uh some kind of a common theme?

So my question is would the would the worst let's say the people who have done more crimes than just coming into the country illegally uh do you think they would be the ones who would be self- deepporting because they wouldn't want to go to jail or would it be the ones who want to have the highest odds of coming in legally because apparently if you self-epport you maintain your ability to come back through a legal process.

So, do you think the million people who allegedly self-epported are the the worst people, you know, the criminal types who are trying to avoid getting arrested?

Or are they the most law-abiding types who are using a process that keeps all their options open?

I don't know, but I'm sure most of you don't care.

It would be great if it was mostly the criminals who left, but that would be a lot to ask.

In other news, uh FBI Director Cash Patel is reporting that the FBI has located documents that detail uh allegations that China um tried to print a bunch of fake mailin ballots for our 2020 US election.

Now, Just the News has has this story if you want to read up on it.

John Solomon But they say that newly declassified intelligence reports partially corroborate um but but it was recalled before it was fully investigated.

So, we don't have um confirmation, but there's a strongest strong suggestion that China might might have been involved in trying to rig our elections and that China allegedly had mass-roduced fake US drivers licenses as part of their scheme to get the fake mailin ballots and then vote for Joe Biden.

Now, do you think China would have uh cared enough about who was president that they would think about uh rigging our election?

I don't know.

It feels like something like this would be um too big a risk because imagine imagine if we caught them.

That would be pretty big problem for China.

So, I'm not I would say that the odds of this um being confirmed at some point are less than 50%.

So, maybe it's true, you know, and we kind of want to believe it's true, but I'm going to say that probably the reason it was only partially corroborated and it was dropped is that maybe there wasn't enough.

It just wasn't credible enough.

But we'll see.

We'll see.

I could be wrong.

Um, but it doesn't feel like the the type of thing that China would do because it would be too easy to detect their presence like that the risk of getting caught would be beyond whatever the the benefit would be.

So, I don't know.

I'm not I'm not buying this one entirely.

Well, as you know, the uh Fed has been holding tight on interest rates when a lot of people want them to be cut.

Uh the Wall Street Journal says that the reason that uh the Fed is not cutting rates is that they're still waiting on combination of inflation numbers and job numbers and they want to see how the tariffs play out in terms of the public's expectation that the tariffs will increase prices.

That would be part of inflation.

So, according to the Wall Street Journal, the only thing keeping the Fed um from lowering interest rates is the uncertainty around jobs and inflation and tariffs.

Maybe that that could be the entire answer.

But um if you if you like the all-in pod and you follow Chamath who uh I believe should be known only by his first name, you know, like uh Madonna or Sher.

Um but Chimath said uh he thinks that the only reason is political and he could be right about that too because there's always a reason.

You know, you could always say, well, you know, that inflation number, well, those tariffs, oh, well, we don't know about the jobs number.

So, you could always make up a reason for why you're either moving the rates or not moving them, but it does feel political, doesn't it?

It does feel like uh Powell is not the biggest fan of Trump.

And there's a lot at there's a lot at uh at risk as Chimath points out.

Um just the savings in um in interest that we pay on our debt could be like $300 billion a year with just a interest rate change.

So it's really big.

It could be the difference between, you know, the United States stays a viable country and it doesn't.

So, we'll see.

Um, apparently Open AI just got a big old contract with the government, a $200 million US defense contract.

Now, uh, Mike Ben points out in a post on X, uh, that, uh, he goes, "And now you know why OpenAI recruited the head of the NSA to its board last year, the biggest money in quote private business is always in losing the Pentagon's infinite taxpayer money glitch." So the uh the implication is that uh open AI is uh let's say cooperating with the government and the government is cooperating back.

Now, remember how uh we heard that the CIA had said that they were only going to allow a few big AI companies to succeed and that would be easier to control and manage and obviously open AI would be at the top of the list of ones that our government wants to succeed.

So, do you think it's a total accident that they get a gigantic government contract?

Well, they might be the most capable of fulfilling the contract because it is open AI after all.

So, they're sort of a a leader in the field.

But uh this is one of those things where you have to you kind of scratch your head and you say, "Huh, is this all connected or is it just that open AI has the best AI?" And the government looked at all of them and said, "Oh, this is the best one.

We will never know.

We'll never know." Um, in other news, Randy Weingarden, who is the head of the biggest uh teachers union, um, announced that she's quitting the DNC, the Democratic National Committee.

Now, as Corey D'Angelos asks on an expost, why didn't the media ever mention there Randy Weingarten had a position at the Democratic National Committee?

And more to the point, if Corey D'Angelus didn't know that Randy Weingarden was on the Democrat National Committee, who would?

I mean, he's he's about as plugged into the whole uh, you know, school choice teachers union situation as anybody could be.

He didn't know.

So, it makes me uh wonder was Randy Weingarten mostly a Democrat who was also the head of the teachers union or was she on the teachers union and also a Democrat?

H it does seem to me that the head of the teachers union should probably not be on the Democratic National Committee, but uh I guess she she had a reason to leave, so it doesn't matter now.

It it's kind of a bother that we didn't know it though.

Doesn't it bother you that we didn't know that?

That was pretty important to know and uh we didn't.

Um, according to uh the postmillennial, the OMG group, O'Keefe Media Group, uh has determined that uh some of the protesters for the No Kings protest were being paid uh by some communist group.

They were being paid to protest, but they were paid 20 bucks.

$20.

So, here's the problem with a communist plot.

The communists don't have enough money to to buy anything good.

They're like, "Hey, how would you like to spend the entire day out in the sun protesting something that doesn't even exist, kings?

Uh, a totally imaginary problem, and we'll give you $20." How many of you would protest all day in the sun for $20?

I feel like the communists have have a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of a model problem there.

I don't know what it would take, but I'm thinking $200, you know, might get somebody to walk around in the sun for an afternoon, but $20.

What What would you do for $20?

Not much.

Anyway, communists do not pay competitive fees.

Well, the uh the publication Nature, that's a science publication, um is going to now require that the peer-reviewed papers um show not just that they're peer-reviewed, but that uh show the communication back and forth between the peer reviewer and the submitter.

So, that feels like a good upgrade.

So you could see just how close they were, you know, what changes they had to make to get uh published.

I don't know if that's the answer, but at the moment something like 50% of all peer-reviewed papers turn out to be not reproducible, as in not really science.

Um so if they can if they can improve on the coin flip nature of it, which is what it is now, then it's worth a try.

So, I don't know if this will work, but definitely worth a worth a shot.

All right, in other news, Texas is apparently going to invest $50 million in a psychedelic drug research to treat addiction.

Medical Express has this story.

And uh I guess Greg Abbott, Governor Abbott is all all in on this.

And the uh specific psychedelic is something called Ibo gain.

Ibo gain.

I don't know much about that, but apparently it causes powerful hallucinations that can last for hours.

And there are some studies that suggest it might help people stop using opioids or other drugs even after just one session.

One session.

All right.

Now, how many times have I told you a story that had to do with psychedelics um improving either your mental status of depression or anxiety or addiction?

Um it's very very consistent.

It doesn't seem to matter too much which hallucinogen you're using.

There's something about hallucinogens that uh just improve your brain process.

And I would argue that I've said this before, but I haven't said it in a while.

Those people who have experienced hallucinogens at least once, I believe they can recognize other people who also have.

How many of you would agree with that?

Now, you can only agree with that if you've yourself experienced hallucinations, but I believe you can just tell in about 10 seconds, you know, of interaction with another person that you can tell if they've ever had a hallucinogen.

And look in the comments, you'll see a lot of people saying, "Oh, yeah, you can tell." Because I think one experience changes you forever.

And I also think and and I have no backing for this whatsoever that you can tell by the eyes.

I think you can look in somebody's eyes and you can tell if they've had that experience and if they're at operating at that level of awareness.

Now, not every time, of course, but I'll bet you more than guessing.

I'll bet you could tell.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I had for you today.

Uh, thanks for joining.

We'll see if my predictions about, uh, what's going to happen in Thran are correct.

Uh, I remind you that I'm not backing Israel or not backing them.

I'm observing and predicting.

And, uh, you know, my country is America, so that's the one I care about.

Um, I'm going to say a few words privately to the uh people on locals and the rest of you.

I will see you tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

I hope hope you enjoyed it.

All right, locals coming at you in 30 seconds.

Not looking so good. So, forget about

that.

Let's uh do a show. Don't think about

your stocks.

No, don't.

[Music]

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But

for those of you who would like to take

this experience up to levels that no one

can understand with their tiny shiny

human brains, all you need for that is a

cup of mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice

or ste a canteen jug or flask vessel of

any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparallel pleasure, the

dopamine hit of the day. The thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous. It happens. Now go

sublime.

So good. Well,

I need a fact check on this. I saw

online somebody was printing what was

allegedly Elon Musk's medical report

showing that he had no drug use. Is that

real?

Does anybody know if that's real?

Because it wasn't on his account. It was

somebody else's account.

I don't know. But we'll uh we'll put a

pin in that. I don't know if that's

real.

Well, according to live science,

uh there's now an EV battery,

thanks to the Brits, that can recharge

in 18 seconds. And apparently, it's been

approved for mass production.

So, it's actually coming. It doesn't say

how what kind of u you know, distance

you get, but imagine fully recharging

your battery in 18 seconds.

That's current technology.

I'll tell you this. This battery stuff

is going to change everything.

In other power news, uh obviously we'll

talk about Israel and Iran in a moment,

but uh Trump uh fired Biden's nuclear

regulator. I guess there was a nuclear

regulator according to the Daily Color

News Foundation.

and uh Trump got rid of him. So uh

apparently that one person might have

been slowing down approvals. That's just

my guess. But uh Trump is very serious

about making nuclear power work. So, uh,

I don't know how many regulations he has

to get rid of or how many people he has

to fire, but there does seem to be some

some will and ability to do both. So,

nuclear, it's coming.

Here's a problem we wish we had. All

right. If you think of all the problems

that the United States has or whatever

country you're in, um, apparently over

in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, there are

major protests against over tourism.

Over tourism.

Now, I get it because you don't want too

much traffic and, you know, it

interferes with your life. But

I wouldn't mind living in a country

where your biggest problem is too many

people want to visit because it's so

nice.

That'd be a good problem. So, uh, Italy,

Portugal, and Spain, I feel your pain,

but not very much.

You've got you've got a pretty good

problem there.

All right, let's talk about Trump and

Iran. All right. Today's goal is I'm

going to teach you how hypnotists

um analyze people's speech. So, I'm

going to talk about all the things that

Trump has said and done and signaled and

then we're going to figure out what

comes next

because prediction is the closest you

can get to reality if you're good at it.

All right. So, here are the things we

know. We know that Trump left early from

the G7.

Some people are saying it was an excuse

to get out of some awkward meetings at

the G7, but I don't think that Trump

would do that. So my guess is that the

reason he left is exactly what they said

it was, which is uh there's something

that's going to go down in Iran and it's

big and he needed to be fully engaged in

that.

So that's your first hint. Second hint,

um Trump said the other day to evacuate

Thran.

Now, is Tan where the Ford nuclear

facility is? No. Um, how many of the

nuclear facilities are in Thyron? Well,

I don't know, but it's not going to

whatever happens in Thran would not

directly destroy the nuclear capacity of

Iran.

So, what is it that would be happening

in Thran?

H. All right, that's your second clue.

So, one clue, Trump left early, got all

of his people together in the situation

room, something big is going down. And

something about Tran.

Um, and when asked why he was calling

for the evacuation of Tran, he gave his

uh his usual Trumpian answer.

uh he wants people to be safe.

Well, obviously

um Trump is filled in on some plans that

Israel has for Tran.

So, that much we know. He He's not

guessing.

He He didn't randomly pick a city and

say you should evacuate. Obviously,

Trump has been filled in on some plans

for Thran.

Um,

according to uh Mcronone of France and

Trump says this is not true. Um,

Mcronone said that Trump left the G7 to

work on a ceasefire agreement, a

ceasefire.

But Trump uh called out Mcronone and

said that he doesn't want a ceasefire.

He's he's going for something much

bigger.

Now, what would be bigger than a

ceasefire?

Well,

um he says over and over again, Iran

can't have a nuclear weapon.

So, here are the things we know.

Something big is going to happen fairly

soon. It involves Thran or Tehran, am I

saying it right? Um, which would only

indirectly

be about the nuclear program because

it's not really it's not like all in

Tran.

And it's not about his ceasefire,

which you'd expect if he planned to have

negotiations.

Um, and a reporter asked uh Trump on the

plane, uh, what are you looking for

here?

And Trump said, "An end." A real end.

Not a ceasefire. An end.

An end. An end to what? An end to the

regime. An end to the danger. An end to

the nuclear program. Well, an end.

Um, and we know that uh Trump has now

taken a opposite position from Tulsi

Gabbard who had recently said that uh

according to the CIA

that Iran was not that close to a

nuclear weapon. But uh Trump has adopted

the uh Netanyahu

messaging that uh Iran was very close,

very close.

So that's a difference.

Um, and then Trump said about Iran, who

apparently Iran has been trying to

contact the United States via other

indirect

um, channels and wants to talk, but

Trump says they'd like to talk, but they

should have done that before.

So is Trump saying very clearly

that something's going to happen and

it's going to happen with or without

talking because the talking it's too

late.

Looks like it. So there's something

going to happen and it looks like u

Iran's apparent willingness to talk

is not going to affect Trump too much.

Um and then

Trump said uh that if there's any injury

to our troops, we'll come down so hard.

If they do anything to our people, I

think they know not to touch our troops.

Now,

as you know, there have been uh lots of

wars that were started with fake

provocations.

So now that Trump has laid down this red

line and said if you do anything to our

troops then we would get involved in the

war.

Is that a trick? Because we can always

claim

that they did something that endangered

our troops. Doesn't it feel like there's

enough fuzziness there that we could

say, "Oh, this one missile came really

close to

this embassy or something."

So,

we're starting to put it all together,

but there's more.

Um, according to Axios,

um,

that according to Axios, uh, having a

meeting with the Iranians would be a

makeorb breakak moment for whether the

US will join the war against Iran. So,

Axios is suggesting there might be some

kind of a meeting. But if Iran doesn't

give up everything, as in its nuclear

program,

um, then that would be the go time for

the US to join the war. Now, that's

Axios.

Do you think Axios knows

that Trump has planned to join the war

in a way that would, you know, pretty

much require Iran to attack American

interests? I don't know.

Um,

and uh, what else? Trump sees uh, the

bunker buster decision as an inflection

point. So Trump is still considering the

question of providing bunker busters

according to Axios. We don't know if

that's true. And uh apparently Trump has

asked VP Vance and the Middle East envoy

to offer to meet with the Iranians next

week for the New York Times.

So do you think the offers to meet and

to talk are real?

because he already said you better

evacuate to run because it sounds like

something's going to happen with or

without those conversations and he's not

going to wait till next week because

remember Israel wanted to be done in two

weeks. So they're not going to say,

"Hey, how about next week we have a

meeting?" I don't think that will change

much action.

Well, Bill O'Reilly said that uh earlier

today he had texted with Trump and he

says Trump doesn't want to use American

air power at this point and that would

be the bunker busters. Um because that

would cause some problems with China and

Putin, would it? And he'd rather have

the Iranians surrender, which he

believes they will. Surrender. Huh. Now,

surrender is not a word that I've heard

before in this context.

Um, so here's a reframe. It seems like

Trump is reframing it so that Iran gets

to decide if the US enters the war.

um which might not be a big change to

anybody's thinking, but it does kind of

put Iran in the decision-making seat. Um

so the current decision is the US is not

in the war or at least in in the most

aggressive way that it could be. And now

the decision kind of comes down to Iran

if they don't give up their nuclear

program like right away.

Um, it looks like Trump is willing, at

least in terms of the messaging. We

don't know what he's thinking, but in

terms of the messaging,

he would be willing to enter. All right.

So, what would make Iran surrender?

That hasn't happened already. So, if you

put it all together, here's my

prediction. Um, I don't think Trump

wants to use the bunker busters because

that would look like we enter the war

and you know that would be bad for his

base. He would lose support in the US

etc. But

it does seem that Trump is willing to

um let's say I don't want to say allow

but not stop Israel from doing what

Israel wants to do.

So, how could Israel

um dismantle the uh Iranian nuclear

program if they do not have access to

the bunker buster bombs?

And I can only think of one way and I

think this is the heest

technique

that the uh word that tells you what's

happening is surrender.

So my guess is that Israel is getting

ready to pound Thran and take out each

pillar of the government's power

until there's nothing left.

And I think that might work because if

he wants the administration to

surrender,

he's going to have to put pressure on

him that's different from just bombing

some things and then waiting to see what

happens. So,

um, my guess,

and this is just my speculation at this

point, my prediction is that the plan is

not to do boner busters, but it's to get

the Iranian regime to surrender.

Now, would the current regime surrender?

Not likely.

Not likely at all. So, how could Israel

get a surrender if the current regime is

unwilling to surrender?

Well, um I would call it the chewing

from below decapitation strike. If they

go right to decapitation and they take

out the leadership with the next set of

bombs,

that's going to look too aggressive.

and uh might set a precedent etc. But

what Israel's been doing so far is

getting rid of all the lower level

people all well the top level people in

the military but in terms of the um

domestic non-military leadership I think

they're just going to start chewing them

up from the bottom up. So you get rid

of, you know, an institution. You'll get

rid of a, you know, a minor leader,

another minor leader, another minor

leader, and you just start working your

way up to the top because apparently

they know where everybody is somehow,

and they know how to kill them all

because they've they've assassinated a

tremendous number of leaders.

So my guess is that tan will become sort

of a killing field for Iranian

leadership, but it will start at the

bottom of what they can get to and

they'll just start slowly working their

way up until either the top people are

overthrown, which might happen, but I

wouldn't bet on it, or the top people

say, "All right, we're out. we

surrender. Um, we're going to give up

all of our nuclear weapons. Well,

nuclear facilities, not weapons.

And so, I would argue that there's

exactly one path.

If you rule out the bunker busters,

which I think would be bad idea for

Trump to use the bunker busters, but you

you don't rule out that under all

conditions,

Israel will get rid of the nuclear

threat, which I think is the case.

What's that leave? All it leaves is

decapitation.

But like I said, starting from the top

would be too big of a shock to the

system. I think they'll start chewing

them up from the bottom up. So you

should see strategic hits in Thran

against, you know, government sources of

power. Um, and it will just keep going

and there will be no end to it. And the

entire time Trump will say, you know,

you shouldn't negotiate it. But if at

any time the Iranian leadership says,

"All right, all right. We agree in

advance before we even sit down that we

will dismantle our entire nuclear

program." At that point,

maybe the bombs will stop. Maybe. But

I'm not even sure if Israel would trust

them to, you know, it would just look

like they're it's a delay tactic. So

that's my uh

that's my prediction. A chew them up

from the bottom decapitation. Sort of a

slow decapitation

until they get a surrender.

What else could it be? That's that's all

that's left.

Apparently, according to uh some news,

uh Iran has been urgently signaling that

they want an end to the hostilities. Of

course, they do. Um

but probably, we assume they're just

stalling. That's what Israel would say.

And I think they're probably right based

on history.

So, um yeah. So, that's what's going to

happen.

Um,

according to uh a retired colonel,

Lieutenant Colonel on Fox News,

uh, the Iranian missiles

are overwhelming the US defense systems,

you know, our Iron Dome. And it looks

like there's a uh the Iranians have a

strategy that seems to be pretty good,

which is they launch a whole bunch of

missiles at the same time and some of

them are the good kind and some of them

are the cheap kind, but the uh the

defensive systems get kind of

overwhelmed and then the good kind can

snick through. So the question would be,

will Iran continue going as hard as they

can with as many missiles as they can

shoot until they run out, which would be

pretty devastating? Uh or do they have

to save them because they might be

running low? Well, we don't know. It's

fog of war and it's hard to know what's

true. But uh I would guess that the more

the more the Iranians send missiles into

Israel, the more damage Israel can do to

Thran and to their leadership

with something that looks like

justification.

So Iran doesn't have too many good

options here. All right, so that's

enough on that.

Um, the Minnesota shooter, as you know,

got caught. But if you don't mind, I'm

not really going to talk about that

Minnesota shooter guy because that looks

like crazy guy. Um it does look like he

might have been a little bit more right

leaning than left, but he had a long

list of people he wanted to get to and

they weren't all Democrats and you know,

so to me that's just crazy guy and

that's that's the whole story there. All

right, but as you know, the uh proTrump

um

what would you call it? the proTrump

supporters are having a uh tough time

because the the anti-war people and the

let's go get them people on different

sides. So among the u no war no way

would be Steve Bannon. He would be the

most prominent one. Doesn't want a war

with Iran.

Tucker Carlson

who's going hard at Mark Leven.

He's got a real problem with Mark Lean

on Fox News. I guess Mark Leven is more

pro-war. Uh M. Gates

wants to avoid uh further war with Iran.

Marjgery Taylor Green. Um and then of

course Thomas Massie, you would not be

surprised, wants a resolution to require

Congress to approve the war. And he's

already got three Democrats to sign up.

Bernie, Roana, and AOC.

So whatever Trump does is either going

to make um one half of his coalition

hate him or the other half hate him

because his two choices are get involved

in the war and then he loses, you know,

half of his support or don't get

involved in the war and then he loses

half of his support. So if you're Trump,

how do you play that?

Well, that goes back to my prediction.

If he if he simply says, "All we're

doing is um you know, maybe helping

helping Israel avoid some missiles, but

Israel goes wild in Tehran and just

keeps murdering

um and assassinating leaders."

I feel like in the end

that might be enough to keep his

coalition together because it would not

be the United States jumping into the

war, but also it would not be avoiding

the war. It would be allowing uh I keep

saying allowing as if as if they work

for us, but they don't. it would be,

let's say, standing back while Israel

does what Israel thinks it needs to do.

So, I feel like the only way he can

wiggle out of this, you know, there's

there's no way to win is by letting

Israel carry the entire load and just

sort of, you know, being a let's say a

bad cop.

Somebody said uh you know is Israel

being the the bad cop and Trump is a

good cop. Kind of kind of Trump Trump is

still the one who's saying you know you

just have to negotiate and you just have

to surrender and then everything's fine.

So there's a little bit of a good cop

bad cop thing going on which might be

productive. So here's my question for

you. If uh if Trump managed to pull this

off, and pulling it off would be

stepping back while Israel does what it

needs to do. And there's no bunker

buster, but they get um Iran to say,

"Look, we'll we'll unlock Ford and we'll

let you watch while we dismantle it."

Would that be enough to keep uh Trump's

um coalition together?

I think it would be

because it would look like we got away

with um something we wanted

strategically but we would get away with

it on the cheap.

So I feel like there's only one path and

it's through the leadership of the uh

Iranian people

and I don't see any other path.

All right. Um, I I just want to give a

compliment to comic Dave Smith.

Um, one of the things that's fascinating

about this whole podcasting world is

that some people have made a name for

themselves and become, you know, they

became relevant in these top level

conversations

simply by

force of will, I guess. So why would we

listen to comic Dave Smith's opinion

about geopolitical

uh stuff?

And the answer is it doesn't make sense

on the surface,

but he did such a good job comic David

Smith did of inserting himself in the

conversation and debating people who

wanted to debate and you know making his

his views known that he is actually

relevant.

Um and I have to admit I'm very

impressed with that. Um he's not the

only one. I mean a number of podcasters

and I'm one of them have through just

hard work and showing up every day and

you know trying to add something to the

process have made themselves

um not the most important thing in the

conversation but relevant relevant and I

was wondering

are there more humorous

that are supporting Trump than there

have been supporting Republicans in the

past cuz I was thinking, you know, um

you've got Tim Dylan, you've got

Roseanne, you've got me, uh comic Dave

Smith. I feel like I feel like there are

a whole bunch of people who are

humorists first who have become relevant

in the the Trump era. And it feels like

Yeah. Joe Rogan, right? Yeah. Obviously

Joe Rogan and a number of the other

comedians as well. Uh Adam Corolla.

Exactly.

Yeah. I'm forgetting a few others,

but that's is that new that there would

be so many humorists who were sort of

proTrump. I guess comic Dave Smith has

made a turn. He's not Oh, yeah. Shane

Gillis. Um, I guess he's not proTrump.

He's asking for Trump's uh impeachment

over over the Israel stuff, I guess.

But anyway, so uh I would give my

compliments

to all of the people I mentioned

for Yeah. Greg Guffeld. Um because they

all made themselves relevant and they

didn't do it by having terrible

opinions.

The van, yeah, he's more in the gray

area, but yes. So, you know, Theo is not

in the category of a

person who is trying to make serious um

geopolitical

comments that change the world, but a

number of us do. We're we're literally

trying to, you know, make sure the

country is steering in the right

direction as best we can. Um, so I'm

very impressed at all the people who

just carve down a space for themselves

by being useful and having an opinion

that people could either debate with or

uh agree with. So very impressed.

Um, let's see what else.

Um, according to Axios and some

reporting by Barack Ravid, uh, Netanyahu

has, well, this is Axios's take on it,

effectively endorsed the idea of regime

change in Iran in a string of media

appearances.

Um, but Trump, they say, has remained

unconvinced.

But do we really know what Trump is

convinced of or not? We don't, do we?

We, you know, it might be that Trump is

going to act unconvinced

while at the same time stepping aside

and letting Israel do whatever it needs

to do.

Um,

all right.

And I guess it was a Israeli air strike

in Iran overnight

that uh took out some Iranian military

top top base. Um I can't imagine that

there would be any humans

in the uh Iranian military who would be

going to work in the office.

Wouldn't wouldn't all of the military um

structures be empty by now because

they're such obvious targets? Now, the

other thing I wonder about

is I assume that u Israel got on top of

Iran's communication devices,

meaning that

uh meaning that the Iranians probably

don't have a secure means of

communicating

even if they wanted to.

Um, which would tell me that the

Israelis know where everybody is all the

time and they know what they're up to

all the time. So,

um, I would get out of Tran if I were if

I were in the military. I would run

because it looks like it's just sending

ducks at this point.

Well, in related news,

um, speaking of immigration,

uh, one of the questions people had is,

you know, why are all the protesters

over 65?

And, um, I had speculated is because

they're easier to scare you and

especially if they're watching the

mainstream media. So elderly people make

up a lot of the protesters on the

streets for the gokings and the anti-

ICE protests.

But part of it is because they have a

lot of time on their hands.

Part of it is because they're exhippies.

So they're reliving their, you know,

their exciting youth being protesters.

Some of it is maybe because the elderly

are on fixed incomes, so they feel more

vulnerable, so they feel like there's

more they have to protest about.

Um, but I would argue that we should see

it as a mental disorder

and that the elderly are just more prone

to it, you know, just like Alzheimer's

and other stuff.

And uh

I saw a a post by Meg Brock who was

asking the question on X um when is

Trump derangement syndrome going to be

officially added to the DSM5

to make it an official diagnosis?

And I wondered if it was already there

cuz I've heard uh lots of reports of

therapists who treat it like it's real.

Uh because it is and they've got a lot

of clients who come in and say I've got

some form of TDS or at least they

exhibit it.

And so I went to Gro to find out is it

already in the literature cuz why

wouldn't it be? Wouldn't you expect that

by now Trump derangement syndrome would

be a legitimate diagnosis?

Because I'm pretty sure there are a lot

of individual therapists who consider it

a legitimate diagnosis.

So I I looked and apparently no. And

Grock says that there's the reason it's

not, you know, an official disorder

is that there's a lack of clinical

basis. There is no peer-reviewed studies

uh or psychological research or

professional mental health organizations

recognizing it as a diagnosible

condition. And then Grock says it lacks

defined symptoms, diagnostic criteria,

or empirical evidence required for a

legitimate disorder. To which I say,

well, wait a minute. Isn't it a lot like

addiction?

If I said to you, um, you have a

drinking problem,

knowing that drinking is a legal

activity for adults,

how would you define it as a problem

versus a hobby? And the answer is

usually if it interferes with your life.

So if your drinking has an impact on

your life, as in you lose your job, you

lose your relationships, you spend all

your money, you wake up in a ditch, well

then you've got a drinking problem.

If you had two drinks on the weekend

with your friends and then took a Uber

home,

we would mostly say you're just somebody

who has a hobby and you don't have a

problem. But don't you think TDS is

exactly like that?

If somebody simply prefers

uh a Democrat over Trump, I would say,

"Oh, well, that's just a political

preference." But if somebody is crying

and shaking and and they feel like he's

going to become a king and he's going to

lock people up in prison camps,

isn't that interfering with your actual

life and happiness? And wouldn't that be

super easy to diagnose if you were a

therapist? So in my opinion, we have

everything we need, which is uh it's

easy to diagnose. You know, do you have

a worry that Trump is president and that

he'll do terrible things? Do you believe

things that are real or do you believe

things that are imaginary?

And you don't even need that part. You

could just you could just say, um, does

it does it affect your life? you know,

do you wake up in the morning shaking

and crying? If the answer is yes,

then you've got a, you know, a mental

health disorder, I would think. So, I

feel like that really needs to be a

legitimate mental health disorder. It

would help.

Uh we'll say so

speaking of the Trump coalition

um Trump also has trouble with the

immigration

um issue because Trump had started out

being you know as hardline as you could

possibly be on immigration

and that was keeping his coalition

together because they were hardline on

immigration too. But then when Trump

said, "Well, maybe not the farm workers

and the the hotel hospitality people

because they would be hard to replace."

Then he lost a bunch of his followers

who said, "What do you mean? There's no

exceptions. If they're here illegally,

they got to go." So apparently Trump has

um veered back to yes there will be

raids on farms and hospitality places

including I suppose Trump hotels

I don't know

but uh you remember the uh food company

was it valley foods or somebody where uh

the immigration people basically

arrested half of the workforce or some

big percentage and apparently they

immediately got lots of job applicants

for from uh Americanborn people. So if

you were worried that there were no

Americans who would apply for you know

jobs if the uh foreignb born people who

are not citizens get shipped or

deported. Um, we have one

one uh data point that says that it

might not be a problem. I would argue

that probably will depend a lot on where

you are. So, if you're living out, what

state was that? Was it Iowa or

something? I can't remember what state

it was. But it could be that, you know,

if you're in a rural situation, it's

easier to fill those jobs. Maybe. I

don't know. So, we'll we'll see about

that. But, uh Trump has a big problem.

So, he's either going to put farming and

uh

and uh the hotel business out of

business or maybe not out of business,

but deeply inconvenienced.

Um, but as long as there are people who

are American citizens who want to apply

for those jobs immediately upon the

openings,

that need to be in pretty good shape. So

whether you're in favor of it or not in

favor of it, it might be practical.

So,

you know, take that for what it's worth.

According to the uh Postmillennial,

there's a poll that says a majority of

Hispanic voters support Trump's

deportation policies,

which we've heard before, but it's good

that it's consistent. Uh this is the uh

survey by the League of American Workers

and Technometrica Institute of Policy

and Politics.

53% of Hispanic voters say they somewhat

or strongly support increasing

deportations.

Uh especially ones with criminal

records, but that that part's easy.

So overall, six and 10 registered voters

back the Trump um deportation plans. So

he's still in good shape there.

Um, according to Blaze Media, and I

guess this comes from the Trump

administration, there are 1 million

illegal aliens who have reportedly

self-deported.

Now, my question would be this. Is there

anything about the group that is

self-epporting

that would be uh some kind of a common

theme?

So my question is would the would the

worst

let's say the people who have done more

crimes than just coming into the country

illegally uh do you think they would be

the ones who would be self- deepporting

because they wouldn't want to go to jail

or would it be the ones who want to have

the highest odds of coming in legally

because apparently if you self-epport

you maintain your ability to come back

through a legal process. So, do you

think the million people who allegedly

self-epported

are the the worst people, you know, the

criminal types who are trying to avoid

getting arrested? Or are they the most

law-abiding types who are using a

process that keeps all their options

open? I don't know, but I'm sure most of

you don't care.

It would be great if it was mostly the

criminals who left, but that would be a

lot to ask.

In other news,

uh FBI Director Cash Patel is reporting

that the FBI has located documents that

detail uh allegations that China

um tried to print a bunch of fake mailin

ballots for our 2020 US election. Now,

Just the News has has this story if you

want to read up on it. John Solomon

But they say that newly declassified

intelligence reports partially

corroborate

um but but it was recalled before it was

fully investigated. So, we don't have um

confirmation,

but there's a

strongest strong suggestion

that China might might have been

involved in trying to rig our elections

and that China allegedly had

mass-roduced

fake US drivers licenses

as part of their scheme to get the fake

mailin ballots

and then vote for Joe Biden.

Now, do you think China

would have uh cared enough about who was

president that they would think about uh

rigging our election?

I don't know. It feels like something

like this would be um too big a risk

because imagine imagine if we caught

them.

That would be pretty big problem for

China. So, I'm not I would say that the

odds of this um being confirmed at some

point are less than 50%.

So, maybe it's true, you know, and we

kind of want to believe it's true, but

I'm going to say that probably the

reason it was only partially

corroborated and it was dropped is that

maybe there wasn't enough. It just

wasn't credible enough. But we'll see.

We'll see. I could be wrong. Um, but it

doesn't feel like the the type of thing

that China would do because it would be

too easy to detect their presence like

that the risk of getting caught would be

beyond whatever the the benefit would

be. So, I don't know. I'm not I'm not

buying this one entirely.

Well, as you know, the uh Fed has been

holding tight on interest rates when a

lot of people want them to be cut. Uh

the Wall Street Journal says that the

reason that uh the Fed is not cutting

rates is that they're still waiting on

combination of inflation numbers and job

numbers and they want to see how the

tariffs play out in terms of the

public's expectation that the tariffs

will increase prices. That would be part

of inflation. So, according to the Wall

Street Journal,

the only thing keeping the Fed um from

lowering interest rates is the

uncertainty around jobs and inflation

and tariffs. Maybe

that that could be the entire answer.

But um if you if you like the all-in pod

and you follow Chamath who uh I believe

should be known only by his first name,

you know, like uh Madonna or Sher. Um

but Chimath said uh he thinks that the

only reason is political

and he could be right about that too

because there's always a reason. You

know, you could always say, well, you

know, that inflation number, well, those

tariffs, oh, well, we don't know about

the jobs number. So, you could always

make up a reason for why you're either

moving the rates or not moving them, but

it does feel political, doesn't it? It

does feel like uh Powell is not the

biggest fan of Trump. And there's a lot

at there's a lot at uh at risk

as Chimath points out. Um just the

savings in um in interest that we pay on

our debt could be like $300 billion a

year with just a interest rate change.

So it's really big. It could be the

difference between, you know, the United

States stays a viable country and it

doesn't. So, we'll see.

Um,

apparently Open AI just got a big old

contract with the government, a $200

million US defense contract.

Now, uh, Mike Ben points out in a post

on X, uh, that, uh, he goes, "And now

you know why OpenAI recruited the head

of the NSA to its board last year, the

biggest money in quote private business

is always in losing the Pentagon's

infinite taxpayer money glitch."

So the uh the implication

is that uh open AI is uh let's say

cooperating with the government and the

government is cooperating back. Now,

remember how uh we heard that the CIA

had said that they were only going to

allow a few big AI companies to succeed

and that would be easier to control and

manage and obviously open AI would be at

the top of the list of ones that our

government wants to succeed. So, do you

think it's a total accident that they

get a gigantic government contract?

Well, they might be the most capable of

fulfilling the contract because it is

open AI after all. So, they're sort of a

a leader in the field. But uh this is

one of those things where you have to

you kind of scratch your head and you

say, "Huh, is this all connected

or is it just that open AI has the best

AI?" And the government looked at all of

them and said, "Oh, this is the best

one. We will never know. We'll never

know."

Um, in other news, Randy Weingarden, who

is the head of the biggest uh teachers

union, um, announced that she's quitting

the DNC, the Democratic National

Committee.

Now, as Corey D'Angelos asks on an

expost, why didn't the media ever

mention there Randy Weingarten had a

position at the Democratic National

Committee?

And more to the point, if Corey

D'Angelus didn't know that Randy

Weingarden was on the Democrat National

Committee,

who would? I mean, he's he's about as

plugged into the whole uh, you know,

school choice teachers union situation

as anybody could be. He didn't know. So,

it makes me uh wonder was Randy

Weingarten mostly a Democrat who was

also the head of the teachers union or

was she on the teachers union and also a

Democrat?

H it does seem to me that the head of

the teachers union should probably not

be on the Democratic National Committee,

but uh I guess she she had a reason to

leave, so it doesn't matter now.

It it's kind of a bother that we didn't

know it though. Doesn't it bother you

that we didn't know that?

That was pretty important to know and uh

we didn't.

Um,

according to uh the postmillennial, the

OMG group, O'Keefe Media Group, uh has

determined that uh some of the

protesters for the No Kings protest were

being paid

uh by some communist group. They were

being paid to protest, but they were

paid 20 bucks.

$20.

So, here's the problem with a communist

plot. The communists don't have enough

money to to buy anything good. They're

like, "Hey, how would you like to spend

the entire day out in the sun protesting

something that doesn't even exist,

kings? Uh, a totally imaginary problem,

and we'll give you $20."

How many of you would protest all day in

the sun for $20?

I feel like the communists have have a

little bit of a, you know, a little bit

of a model problem there.

I don't know what it would take, but I'm

thinking $200,

you know, might get somebody to walk

around in the sun for an afternoon, but

$20.

What What would you do for $20?

Not much.

Anyway,

communists do not pay competitive fees.

Well, the uh the publication Nature,

that's a science publication,

um is going to now require that the

peer-reviewed papers

um show not just that they're

peer-reviewed, but that uh show the

communication back and forth between the

peer reviewer and the submitter.

So, that feels like a good upgrade. So

you could see just how close they were,

you know, what changes they had to make

to get uh published. I don't know if

that's the answer, but at the moment

something like 50% of all peer-reviewed

papers turn out to be not reproducible,

as in not really science. Um so if they

can if they can improve on the coin flip

nature of it, which is what it is now,

then it's worth a try. So, I don't know

if this will work, but definitely worth

a worth a shot.

All right, in other news, Texas is

apparently going to invest $50 million

in a psychedelic drug research to treat

addiction. Medical Express has this

story. And uh I guess Greg Abbott,

Governor Abbott is all all in on this.

And the uh specific psychedelic is

something called Ibo gain. Ibo gain. I

don't know much about that, but

apparently it causes powerful

hallucinations that can last for hours.

And there are some studies that suggest

it might help people stop using opioids

or other drugs even after just one

session.

One session. All right. Now, how many

times have I told you a story that had

to do with psychedelics

um improving either your mental status

of depression or anxiety or addiction?

Um it's very very consistent. It doesn't

seem to matter too much which

hallucinogen you're using. There's

something about

hallucinogens

that uh just improve your brain process.

And I would argue that I've said this

before, but I haven't said it in a

while.

Those people who have experienced

hallucinogens at least once, I believe

they can recognize other people who also

have.

How many of you would agree with that?

Now, you can only agree with that if

you've yourself experienced

hallucinations,

but I believe you can just tell in about

10 seconds, you know, of interaction

with another person that you can tell if

they've ever had a hallucinogen.

And look in the comments, you'll see a

lot of people saying, "Oh, yeah, you can

tell." Because I think one experience

changes you forever.

And I also think and and I have no

backing for this whatsoever that you can

tell by the eyes.

I think you can look in somebody's eyes

and you can tell if they've had that

experience and if they're at operating

at that level of awareness.

Now, not every time, of course, but I'll

bet you more than guessing. I'll bet you

could tell.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's

what I had for you today. Uh, thanks for

joining. We'll see if my predictions

about, uh, what's going to happen in

Thran are correct. Uh, I remind you that

I'm not backing Israel or not backing

them. I'm observing

and predicting.

And, uh, you know, my country is

America, so that's the one I care about.

Um, I'm going to say a few words

privately to the uh people on locals and

the rest of you. I will see you

tomorrow. Same time, same place. I hope

hope you enjoyed it. All right, locals

coming at you in 30 seconds.