Episode 2880 CWSA 06/27/25

Well, there you are.

Come on in, everybody.

Come on in.

It's time for your favorite part of the day.

Let's check your stocks while everybody flows in.

Uh Tesla's down a little bit.

The S&P is up a little bit.

Snap is up a lot.

Interesting.

Nvidia is up a little bit.

All right, let's uh get your comments going and then we got something.

Come on.

There we go.

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 if you'd like to take a chance on improving the way you feel from levels that are hard to even understand and with our tiny shiny human brains, well, what you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tankered shell, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, and 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 now.

Go.

So good.

Well, I finally found a uh really satisfying use for AI.

Uh yesterday I was just playing around with a Grock and I told it to make me a photo of Dilbert riding on a dog.

It just you know first thing that popped in my head and so it makes this picture but it it uh it knew that if a humansized Dilber were riding on a dog that would be bad for the dog.

So, it turned the Dilbert into a little stuffed look like, you know, a stuffed uh stuffed animal and made it small and put it on a big dog.

And I posed it because I thought it was just interesting picture.

And AI wants to give Dilbert a mouth because everybody in the world except Dilbert has a mouth.

Dilbert has no mouth, by the way, if you didn't know that.

and no eyeballs, but it wanted to give him eyeballs with some of the AIS and not others.

And he had a necktie, but it didn't seem to understand that it would be an upturn necktie.

So, it was definitely Dilbert, but uh yeah, the AI version.

And then, uh people saw my version and they tried different AIs.

So, next thing I know, there's more than one Dilbert riding on a dog.

And the next thing I know, um, it starts morphing from Dilbert riding on a dog to me riding on a dog and then Dilbert riding on God's shoulders.

And then there was the baby Jesus Dilbert.

And then somebody used the midjourney which takes a static picture and turns it into a video and somebody improved the background.

So, so the picture started as, you know, just a little thing I thought was funny and it it took on a life of its own and it evolved into all these different directions.

And uh there was even a dog riding Dilbert.

But my favorite was a picture of me uh the AI created of me riding a giant cat, a house cat, but it was a a dog.

It was a horsesized uh cat.

And I came away from the experience thinking, "Oh my god, do I want a horse-sized cat?

Would that be awesome?

One you could, you know, put a saddle on and ride." Imagine if you could just say, "Hey," and call your cat, and your cat would run over and you just jump on it like a like a horse and ride around.

Okay, maybe it's just me.

Well, I wonder if there's uh any new research that could have been skipped if they had just asked me.

Oh, here's something from the University of Bath.

Now, you probably didn't know there was a university of bath, but a lot of people try to take a bath without any education whatsoever, and they'll be like drowning, and you know, they won't even get wet because they've never gone to the University of Bath where I believe everybody majors in ba bathing, I assume.

Anyway, but beyond that, they've also done a study in which they determined that people with higher IQs make better decisions.

And the reason is the reason is the people with higher IQs uh can predict the results of their decisions more accurately.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, that would be pretty much right in the middle of what a person with a high IQ can do.

Predict what's going to happen next.

So, uh, University of Bath, you should stick to your strengths, which is teaching people how to bathe.

And, uh, next time you want to know if high IQ people are smarter than low IQ people, just ask me.

Just ask.

I got answers.

All right.

Um, according to the Washington Times, uh, there's a federal employee who managed to do work at home and get paid for three different jobs.

So, it was Chrissy Monnique Baker.

So, she was working at HUD uh as a full-time uh management and program analyst, but she also had two separate jobs beyond that, and she was getting paid for three jobs, and she's pleading guilty to fraud.

Now, does that seem like fraud to you?

Do you think people should go to jail for having three jobs at the same time when they sign something that said they wouldn't do that?

So, I guess that's the fraud part.

Yeah.

So, none of those employers got her full-time work.

So, I guess it is fraud.

It reminded me of Wall-E in the Dilbert comic.

You know, I've heard of people who had two jobs, which I think was really common during the pandemic, people having two remote jobs, but this is the first one where somebody had three and made it work.

I don't know how they caught her.

Probably wasn't based on her work performance.

Well, can you believe it?

Today is the one-year anniversary from Biden uh debating and showing the world that his brain was not working.

Does that feel like only one year ago?

Is it my imagination?

Or does it feel like it was 3 years ago that the Biden debate with Trump happened?

Does that feel like it could possibly be only one year ago?

Oh my god, how much stuff has happened in the last year?

You know, just political stuff.

Forget about your life.

But one year ago, are you having the same the same impression I have?

That there's no way that's just one year ago.

That that had to be at least three years ago.

Nope.

One.

And so that a post from end wokenness, one of my favorite follows.

According to Ben Weeden, who's writing for just the news, um Trump won uh I guess this is based on new Pew survey.

Who is this?

Uh yeah, Pew Research.

So, according to Pew Research, um, and if you don't know what Pew Research is, uh, they research when you shoot your toy gun.

Pew, pew, pew, pew.

And then they research that and then they go to the University of Bath and wash it all off.

No, no, no.

Pew research researches very serious things.

And one of the things they found out is that uh Latinos were the ones who moved the most right during the uh period between 2020 and 2024 or was it possible that 2020 wasn't exactly the most accurate election if you know what I mean?

So maybe maybe measuring the change from 2020 where many people I'm not saying me but many of you believe the results were complete of the election itself.

So I would first of all question the concept of looking how things changed in the vote from 2020 to 2024.

It feels to me like maybe there's a reason those numbers don't look as similar as you thought they would look.

Maybe.

But that's not me.

That's you.

That's what you think.

Anyway, um and maybe sometimes I think it too.

But apparently, according to Pew Research, I and I don't believe this is true.

How could this possibly be true?

um that Trump outright won Hispanic men.

Does Does that Have you heard it that way before?

I I've heard a number of times he did better than you know anybody's ever done with Hispanic voters.

But did you know that he won outright uh Hispanic men by 50 to 48% against Harris?

That is freaking incredible.

if it's real.

He he lost narrowly with Hispanic women and uh I guess there must have been more women voting or well no the numbers look right and but overall he was just close.

So he had 48% of the Hispanic vote compared to Harris's 51.

But the fact that he won outright the male Hispanic vote, he won it outright at the same time that uh the news was telling us all of his rhetoric was, you know, racist against exactly that category of people.

in that category of people, as I've been telling you for a long time, they're way more conservative than maybe you thought was coming.

So, it doesn't doesn't surprise me that it eventually got there, but it happened faster than I thought.

Well, as you know, the uh cover up of Biden's brain um is was considered worse than Watergate.

How many of you would agree with that?

That the cover up of Biden as president being, you know, mentally deficient, how many of you think that was worse than Watergate?

Well, a lot of people the news reports like quite a bit that there's one expert after another saying, "Oh, that's worse than Watergate." So, I would like to propose the following.

Instead of asking if something is worse than Watergate since Watergate is now no longer the high high bar mark, we should be forced to say, "Is it worse than Biden's brain coverup?

So the next time there's a gigantic controversy, do not say is it worse than Watergate.

That is no longer the high high water mark.

Is it worse than Biden brain cover up?

And when you add the auto pen part to it, it really is worse than a Watergate by a lot.

So as you know um at least one person has admitted to having access to the auto pen.

Uh I think there were more and we'll learn more about that.

But Nerra Tandon said that she uh I guess she told Congress when asked that she would use the autopipen without actually verifying from Joe Biden uh that he gave the order.

Now wait a minute.

Let let me say that again.

that the person operating the auto pen apparently would not check directly with Biden, but would take it from some other staff member who was not mentioned.

Would she take the word of anyone who asked?

Could anyone who had access to the president walk in and say, "Hey, Nerra, uh, Joe Biden totally wants you to pardon this hardened criminal for no reason that you could tell." Would she then pardon a hardened criminal because somebody who was not Biden said, "Oh, yeah, Biden's totally behind this." Uh, I got questions.

I have many questions.

But if she was not verifying with Biden himself or at least you know some way knowing that he had given the order, we really don't know who was running the country.

You know, I suppose that's the most ordinary observation, but I have to admit I was I was holding out some kind of belief that maybe Biden would sign a little document or give somebody the word in person.

So they at the very least the person who operates the auto pen had direct knowledge that the president wanted something signed.

But apparently not.

Apparently not.

So the person doing the autopen literally did not know if it came from the president.

Does that seem like a problem?

Yeah, that seems like a problem.

It's bigger than Watergate.

Anyway, according to um Newsmax, uh the gross domestic product did not look good for this quarter, but the special case or reason for it is because people were buying a bunch of foreign goods um in anticipation of tariffs.

So, you can't really look at the uh GDP for this quarter, this most recent quarter that they're reporting.

um that would that would be sort of a you know non-standard number this time, but they think it will bounce back to a good number next time we see it.

And uh whatever happened in the April to June quarter is unlikely to be repeated.

So that's good.

Um, so there's a post on X by uh Constantine Kissen, who if you're on Axis, you probably know him.

So he's uh what would I call him?

Um he has one of the biggest podcasts, Trigonometry.

He's one of the two who do that.

and uh he's often, you know, debating people on other podcasts and he's very active on social media, but he's very well-informed and very smart, but he's the only person reporting that there's some kind of maybe deal coming up with Gaza and Israel and the Middle East.

So, I'm going to say I don't believe this is true, but he says that there are reports that Trump and Netanyahu have made a deal and it hasn't been announced yet.

Now, I'm going to I'll read you what Constantine says is reportedly a deal, but I'll tell you in advance, I don't believe any of it.

So I checked with Grock and Grock could not find any, you know, independent reporting that agreed, but um only because Constantine Kesson is a um I'll say a highly credible, you know, commentator.

Uh if it were someone else, I probably wouldn't even read it, but I'll let you know what he thinks, you know, based on sources that he has that are unnamed.

So he thinks that there might be a deal to end the Gaza war in two weeks, which is possible.

It's possible because you could certainly imagine that Trump would want to take the goodwill he's, you know, he's garnered in the Iran situation and maybe use it to, you know, put a little pressure on Israel or, you know, get something done.

So that part, I doubt it.

just because the Gaza situation seems so intractable.

But maybe maybe it's entirely possible that they might announce some kind of a framework.

You know, they would take a long time to implement, but maybe next thing that Constantine reports says is being reported is that Gaza would be governed by four neighboring countries.

To which I say maybe because that does make sense in terms of how in the world would you ever solve this problem.

You would almost certainly need some non-Israel, non US, non Hamas leadership.

And it does make sense that having only one of them would create a whole new problem.

So if you said uh let's say um Saudi Arabia is going to you know monitor or uh manage Gaza well immediately that would turn into you know Saudi Arabia would become a target and you know there'd be bad will there but suppose you said four of the closest neighbors were all going to jointly be part of it maybe they would be helping economically.

Um, but if there were four of them, you'd feel like, oh, okay, that that really is neighbors helping out a difficult situation.

Now, again, I'm not predicting any of this is going to happen, but it's possible.

It's within the realm of possible.

Uh, then the third part, if any of this turns out to be true, is that Hamas leaders would be exiled.

I don't see any anything else you could do with them, right?

You'd have you'd have to exile them.

Otherwise, they stay underground in Gaza and you can never solve anything.

So, while I don't love the idea of them staying alive, and Israel wouldn't love it either, it's entirely possible.

It's the only way you could make a deal.

So, is it possible?

Yeah, it's possible.

Again, I'm going to bet against it because I'm a little bit pessimistic on this particular topic, but it's possible.

Uh here's the part that I think is the red flag for this not being real.

That uh the fourth element would be a two-state solution that would be agreed by uh Israel and uh for the West Bank.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that Netanyahu would agree to a two-state solution with all of those is Israeli settlements that are in the West Bank?

Does that sound real?

So, that's the part that tells me uh maybe, but that seems really unlikely to me.

You know, maybe like a 2% chance, something like that.

And then the last one is that several new countries would join the Abraham Accords and recognize Israel.

Certainly, if there were an agreed upon, reasonable conclusion for Gaza, that would lead to more people joining the Abraham Accords, that'd be a big deal.

So, that's possible.

But um there's no word about hostages or where do the refugees live for the many years it would take to make Gaza livable again and do they all get to move back and who exactly is going to pay for the rebuilding of Gaza and all that.

So I'm going to say that there's some details missing that obviously would have to be there if there were a deal such as the hostages.

And I don't think the two-stage solution is likely enough that the entire reporting could be accurate.

So that's that's my red flag on that one.

Anyway, um it's interesting.

It it the only thing it does, I think, is it helps you understand what what is possible.

All right.

Um and CNN is reporting um I think news banks is reporting on this too that uh the US is kicking around the idea of helping Iran become a peaceful nuclear energy country without the ability to make a bomb.

And that part of that might be making available to them as much as $30 billion to build a civilian nuclear program that doesn't have any, you know, enriched uranium access or anything uh except for what goes into the uh nuclear energy for domestic use.

And the that money would not necessarily come from America, but rather from other Middle Eastern countries.

Does that seem Does that seem like something that might happen?

I always like the uh Trump approach of saying you've got two choices.

We will either attack you militarily or we'll help you develop your economy so you can make a lot of money.

I love that that, you know, I always tell you about one of the one of the uh principles of uh persuasion is that you lay out a really big gap between doing what you want them to do and not doing what you want them to do.

And that's a pretty big gap.

If you try to make your own nukes again, we will bomb your country again.

Very, very bad.

But if you work with us for domestic nuclear power, we'll help you get funding for $30 billion from your neighbors.

And that's pretty good.

So, I like that.

I like that.

That's even a conversation.

Well, according to Trump, the US and China have quote signed a trade deal.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that the US and China have signed a trade deal?

I don't believe that.

There there may be some elements that they've agreed upon or have a framework for, but I don't believe there's an overall China trade deal.

Uh I'm pretty sure there will be nothing about protecting intellectual property and probably nothing about fentinol.

So is there I mean there there might be, you know, some crawling forward on some things like, you know, the rare minerals.

There might be a rare mineral deal, but no, I don't believe there's any signed comprehensive China trade deal, but the market might.

And uh we'll see.

And I guess Lnik says the US is going to drop some some counter measures against China because China is loosening up uh about rare earth materials.

But we'll see if any of that matters.

But uh Trump's team says that uh by July 9th, which I guess is the new deadline for all the countries to to make a deal.

Um he said that there will be a tariff hammer coming down for any nation that doesn't look like they're negotiating in good faith.

So basically just more tariffs.

So they do think that there are a lot of tariff deals coming.

Now, do you remember do you remember when the tariffs were first announced?

Um, this would be a good time to see who was right and who was wrong.

And there were some people who said, "Oh, these threats of tariffs will never get you anything good.

It will just all be bad." And by now, the stock market has fully recovered.

So, we're all all the way back before Trump even announced the uh tariffs, which means the people who have the most money to invest, including the professionals, believe that the tariff thing will not be a big destructive force for the economy.

They might believe it will be additive.

Um, we don't know yet, but certainly there's every reason to believe that our new trade deals will be a little better than the old ones.

So, if you were one of the people like me who said, "Hold on, hold on.

There is no way to know if this is good or bad, but it is certainly a smart way to negotiate." and all of this uncertainty which you think is bad.

It is bad but temporarily if you're objective is to get a trade deal.

Maybe a little bit of uncertainty and flip-flopping and jumping back and forth and keeping your um your negotiating partners off balance might be exactly what Trump does for every negotiation.

It might be he does it because it works.

And the persuasion reason that that would work is that if you get other people frightened that if they don't make a deal there's, you know, there's going to be really bad consequences, well then they're going to make a deal that they wouldn't have otherwise made.

So yes, keeping all of our trading partners in a very precarious, uncertain, not sure about their own political futures because it'd be such a big deal to their country if they don't get a trade deal.

That's exactly where he would want the other leaders to be.

And he put him there.

And now he says that over the summer, which is about what he predicted, they'll be uh, you know, cleaning up these trade deals one at a time.

It'll probably take longer than they want, longer than you want, but it's all doable.

So, it went from, oh my god, he's he's a crazy man who's ruining the economy.

And in what, 4 months, it turned into, huh, well, looks like that's going to work out.

Trump is on the verge of having the best summer that any president ever had.

uh if he if Trump gets the the big trade deals done and he continues to be, you know, lauded for his uh you know, successful conclusion to the Iran situation, if nothing else happened, that would be the best summer any president ever had, basically.

And if if a miracle happens and somehow we get something done with Gaza andor Ukraine and I would bet against both of those but even if he got one of them to go the way he wants and then and then let's say the Abraham Accords goes to the next level that could all happen in one summer.

Oh my god.

Oh my god.

like no no no president's going to be able to touch that for just sheer persuasive you know leadership policies you know and that's not even without the the big beautiful bill which is in trouble at the moment let's talk about that so remember when I've talked about the budget process in Congress um I act like I don't understand it.

And it's not an act.

I really don't understand it.

And I I read the, you know, the messages from Steven Miller who's trying to explain, oh no, this is not a budget bill.

It's a recision bill.

Recision.

Is that the way you say it?

And they're they're very different.

If it were a budget bill, then you would need to get u I think 60% of the Senate to agree.

And nobody believes that that's possible in today's environment.

But if it's one of these weird recision things, apparently you can cut the budget on stuff uh with only a 50% majority, you know, 51%.

And so the entire reason that there were not a lot of Doge cuts in this one is that the the the place you would do that would be in the larger one.

But they did have a bunch of cuts.

And now it turns out that there's something called a parliamentarian.

How many of you knew that Congress even had a parliamentarian?

I guess the parliamentarian just makes sure that Congress is following its own its own guidelines and only and follows the law.

And guess what?

The parliamentarian just told the creators of the big beautiful bill.

The parliamentarian just explained that the only thing they could do is some minor budget tweaks.

They can't have in the big beautiful bill changes in policy because if you want to change policy according to something called the the bird rule B yd based on you know uh ex congressperson bird um that if you follow the rules you can't change policy with a recision bill.

And there were a number of things that were policy changes.

So I asked uh Grock, you know, what the hell what what kind of changes they are and most of them I don't understand.

Uh but it's stuff like changing the EPA's uh multi-pollutant vehicle emission standards, blah blah blah blah blah.

So, a lot of these budget changes are directly connected to policy changes, and we found out this week that they can't do that.

Now, try to hold that in your head for a moment.

Does it make sense that you and I did not know that there was a parliamentarian?

Yeah, of course.

Yeah, we're we're not that deep into it.

So most of us never heard of this parliamentarian thing.

If you had heard of it, would you have known that the recision process would be different from the budget process and that if you tried to conflate the two, the parliamentarian would would shut you down.

Well, I didn't know that.

But I'm not a member of Congress who just spent five months trying to negotiate this thing.

Are you telling me that nobody behind the big beautiful bill was understanding that the parliamentarian was going to shoot a bullet through the middle of its heart as soon as it was almost done?

Are you telling me that nobody involved in that process saw this coming?

Are you telling me that they never once talked to her in advance and said, "We don't want to get too far with this unless we know that it can get past the parliamentarian because we're, you know, mixing some policy with some some funding." Nobody Nobody knew this was coming.

Are you kidding me?

Right.

And again, you and I can be excused, right?

You know, we we like to be well-informed citizens who can, you know, with our opinions maybe help move things in one direction or another in small ways, but we're not supposed to know that.

Everyone who is going to vote on this big, beautiful bill, every one of them should have definitely known this was coming.

and to suddenly act like they're all surprised and people are calling for the firing of the parliamentarian.

No, no, don't fire the parliamentarian.

Fire every single person who didn't know that they should check with the parliamentarian before they got this far.

All of them.

Every one of them should be removed from Congress.

If you don't know this most basic thing about your own job, how are you how how do we expect you to get anything done?

So, I don't know what the fate is of the big beautiful bill, but it's looking like it's going to be totally gutted of, you know, some substantial percentage of the things that the Republicans were trying to get done.

Somebody says that Vance can override her.

Vance can override her.

You mean if there's a if there's a vote of a majority?

All right.

Well, I guess there there might be more we'll find out about this.

I don't know if that's true.

The part about Vans, but I mean, it's just such a head shaker.

I definitely do not feel at this point there, you know, something might change my mind, but I definitely don't feel like the parliamentarian is the bad person.

It's a woman, so I was going to say bad guy, but the bad person.

I think the parliamentarian is just doing the parliamentarian job.

So, good luck with the big beautiful bill.

Anyway, but it'd be amazing if if Trump got that through without it being, you know, totally gutted.

Um, his summer would be looking pretty amazing.

Well, there's a Chinese doctor who fled his home country and uh this is according to just the news and is doing some whistleblowing on China.

Sorry.

Excuse me.

Um and says that China makes um makes the Chinese people who come to America sign a contract.

Not all the Chinese people but the you know the the scientific people and uh anybody who's coming to the US and working in science they have to sign a contract with China to help steal US intellectual property and research and anything else of value and bring it back to the communist uh Chinese Communist Party.

Now, why is there never a story about Russia doing this?

Have you ever noticed that?

If if Russia is our big enemy, why is it only the Chinese are stealing our intellectual property?

Or is Russia doing it, too, but they're better at it, so we don't catch them?

Like, why would it only be China?

It it's not like Russia is doing its own Silicon Valley.

You know, aren't they just as much in need of stealing our intellectual property?

And do you think that Russia has, let's say, some moral or ethical reason not to steal from us?

Why would it only be China?

I don't know.

But uh I guess uh the Trump administration is launching a vetting process for the hundreds of foreign scientists.

So we're going to try to catch them.

But how weird that China is doing that but not Iran, Venezuela, the Mexican cartels.

Um but well, how many how many sleep our cells do we and spies do we have in this country now?

Is it more than a residence?

Because allegedly Iran has sleeper cells.

China has all these spies and sleeper cells and buying them farmland to do god knows what.

Venezuela is sending us the Trendo Ragua or have the Mexican cartels have already made, you know, inroads into the mainland US and they've all got these sleeper cells and spies and stuff.

But when was the last time you heard that Russia was doing any of those things, like trying to put a lot of Russian immigrants into the country so they could become sleeper cells or steal our IP?

Are they not doing it or do they just not get caught or do we just not mention them for some reason?

Isn't that weird?

If it works, everybody would be doing it.

You know, Mexico would be sending their scientists and Venezuela would be I don't know.

There's something weird about the fact that only China is doing this thing.

If it works, I mean, if it works, they should all be trying it.

Well, Laura Loomer has another exclusive.

And uh I I have to compliment her for carving out a valuable space in the internet world.

Um and what she seems the best at in terms of her scoops is finding out whose uh sibling whose children andor spouses are involved in things that the politician might be making decisions about.

And here's another one.

So according to Laura Loomer the um John Cornin who's a Texas senator his daughter lobbies lobbies for China um related to Alibaba at the same time that um the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is targeting Alibaba for privacy violations.

But so the daughter of the US senator for Texas is working working for a Chinese company and not just a Chinese company but you know one of the biggest or is it the biggest?

I don't know.

Now does that seem like a problem to you?

It does to me.

Yeah, does to me.

So another Laura Loomer exclusive.

She's really got that category nailed down.

And um according to Blaze Media, Carlos Garcia is writing about this.

Um there was a Democratleaning group called Code Pink that's now threatening um an internet user named Data Republican.

I've talked about Data Republican.

It's a woman who is very good at data analysis and especially linked to uh political events.

So Code Pink is threatening her because she uh apparently suggested that they got some funding from Chinese sources.

So, Code Bank um is threatening a lawsuit and they they say that they uh um they do not get money from China or the Chinese Communist Party or any foreign government.

So, that's what code banking says.

They don't get money from China, Chinese Communist Party or any foreign country.

So, do you think data Republican is wrong?

What do you think?

Do you think Code Pink is telling you the truth and Data Republican is wrong?

Well, Data Republican decided that the best approach to this threat of lawsuit is simply to dump everything she knew and you can make up your own mind.

So, here's what here's what we've learned.

Uh apparently Code Pink is getting some significant funding from a rich guy who uh uh a social activist and businessman Neville Singum.

Um he's a billionaire who is already under congressional investigation for possibly violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act that be FAR on behalf of the Chinese government.

Oh, so it didn't come from China, the funding, and it didn't come from the Chinese Communist Party, and it didn't come from a foreign country.

True, but it might have come from a billionaire who likes to do things on behalf of China.

So, how do you score that one?

Do you score that one as yeah that's Chinese funding or is it Chinese funding that's deniable because when Code Pink denied it they did not say and we don't take money from any billionaires who are who are connected to China's government.

They left that part out.

So I don't know maybe they'll come back.

Um and then apparently one of the things that Code Pink has done um is push some propaganda saying that uh the Weaguers um were not the weaguers were basically dangerous.

So total Chinese propaganda that nobody would do unless some Chinese force was giving them money.

In other China versus US news, uh Elon Musk pointed to a chart on X and said, "Remember this chart?" And what it was was a chart that showed how much electricity uh China is pulling online, you know, with new power plants, etc., versus the US.

And if you look at the US's number since the '9s, it's up a little bit, but it's almost a flat line.

We have about as much electricity in the US as we had at the end of the '9s.

And that's been a while.

Now, you might say, "But Scott, that's good news because we've learned to conserve on electricity." But then you look at the uh the China line and it's it's not quite straight up but it's pretty close and it has passed us you know by a lot.

So, China is adding electricity like crazy and the US is still just getting ready to add electricity, you know, by making it easier to build nuclear power plants and reducing regulations and stuff.

It'll make a difference, but we're way behind.

If you're trying to predict the future, like which countries will succeed, um, one of the best ways to predict the future is how much energy they can produce domestically.

That is really predictive of how your country is going to go.

So, China's got a big advantage there.

Uh, but they also have a big country, so they need a lot of electricity.

So, you know, there there's a there's a reason that they're just also meeting basic needs.

But, uh, that's worrisome.

And then the other thing would be, uh, birth rate.

So, if you asked Elon Musk what are the big uh, risks, you know, sort of geopolitical risks and country risks, etc., He would probably say low birth rate is a gigantic problem in every developed country apparently.

And uh not having enough electricity for AI might be the other gigantic variable that it would be easy to overlook if you don't follow the news pretty closely.

So yeah, have more babies and more electricity and you're going to be in good shape.

According to the free beacon, Hunter Biden is being sued by one of his probably there were a lot of them uh law firms that work for him and say he owes in excess of $50,000 in fees and interests.

And uh I guess he has paid them a little bit in the past, but hasn't paid them everything.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to think that Hunter Biden's uh art career was not 100% legit.

H cuz I feel like he could have solved that problem by selling just one painting.

Just one.

So now I'm starting to suspect that that painting operation was not exactly what it looked like.

H anyway, let's talk about uh New York City's future mayor.

This is Zoran Mdani, who's a who's a overt socialist.

uh Republicans were trying to paint him as a communist but more more socialist than communist I would say and I realized I had not uh evaluated him on persuasion.

Um I talked about him and his policies and the fact he's a socialist and he wants things like uh rent control and government grocery stores and free transportation and stuff.

bunch of socialist things.

And um everybody who knows anything about economics and history knows that too much socialism will destroy just about anything.

So New York City, if he wins, and it looks like he might probably actually, um New York City is sort of looking doomed because of his socialist policies.

But to be fair, since I I have in the past reviewed Trump just as how persuasive he is, you know, that's how I got started doing this political stuff.

And I've done the same with AOC.

So I've said, you know, I don't like AOC's policies.

I wouldn't want her to be my president, but definitely she has some persuasion skills.

And so I decided to look at Zoran Mamani just as a persuasion filter.

And I don't think there's any question about why he's doing well.

If you look at him, if you forget policies, because voters don't even understand policies for the most part, and you just look at persuasion, he does have the whole package for for a Democrat in a Democrat majority city.

So, he's got charisma like crazy.

He's young and good-looking, which matters.

Um he is perpetually optimistic.

Um which is not necessarily what the voters are feeling, but he's optimistic.

So he's always smiling.

He's always got this, you know, we can fix this problem thing.

He's a person of color, so he's not a generic white guy because Democrats are not going to put up with that.

And when he talks about what he's about, he has this little phrase.

See if this sounds familiar to you or what what does it remind you of?

It's not familiar, but it it'll remind you of somebody else's work.

Um, he says he's going he's trying to, and I quote, make the city affordable.

Make the city affordable.

What's that sound like?

make America great again.

Um, if if you're worried that this socialist is going to be such a good politician that he can't be stopped, he does have the whole package.

He's got he's got the message.

He's got policies that if you're a certain kind of person and a Democrat, you'd say, "Yeah, yeah, why not that?" Um, so if if I'm looking at him as only only for persuasion, charisma, optimism, uh, not a generic white guy, and he's got policies that fit easily under the category of make the city affordable, everybody understands that, and it touches them directly, and it's not about the rich.

Why is he winning?

because the people he's running against are not even close.

They're not even close to that.

They don't have that package.

So, you know, the other lesson here is if you imagine that the Democrats are completely destroyed because, you know, Trump won everything and the Republicans have the Congress and all that.

All it takes is one candidate who's got this entire package.

And if you say to yourself, "But he can't go that far because his policies are bad crazy." Democrat voters don't know that.

Obviously, Democrat voters cannot tell what policies will destroy the country.

Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have the policies that they have.

So, could somebody like that win the presidency?

Not necessarily him.

Well, he I guess he was born in another country, so he wouldn't be eligible.

But all it takes all it's going to take is one candidate who's got the full package and uh Democrats are going to be right back.

So, that's dangerous.

According to uh Lydia Moahan in the New York Post, uh luxury real estate brokers in New York City are already getting people saying the rich people are already saying, um maybe I don't want to live in New York City anymore.

So just the fact that the socialists might come into office and raise their taxes and I don't know free the criminals um it's going to make the real estate people pretty busy moving these people out of New York.

According to um Salesforce CEO and founder Mark Beni off and CNBC is reporting this uh for Salesforce um he says that AI is doing up to 50% of the work that would have been that had been done by people.

Does that sound right to you?

that Salesforce is already using AI for half you know it might be 30% to 50% but he's estimating might be up to half of all their work that's being done by AI but now the question you might ask is oh no how many people have they laid off because that's a pretty big company and the answer is that he believes that it just frees people AI is freeing people to do higher level work.

So he's not talking in terms of layoffs.

He's talking in terms of sort of turbo boosting the power of every existing employee so that they can get all their regular work done with AI the help of AI and then they can you know that'll free them to do higher level stuff that's valuable.

That is not the majority view and I don't know how many companies that would ever be true for.

It will definitely be true for some.

You know there there's no doubt about it.

Some companies will maybe add employees because the AI plus an employee is so valuable that you want to add humans to work with the AI because it's all so good.

But there will be companies where they just need fewer people because of the AI.

So it's going to be a little both.

Um and maybe Salesforce will have to change their uh staffing um let's say ideals.

But uh Betty off estimates that the software company has reached I don't know exactly what this means 93% accuracy using AI.

93% accuracy.

Now, is that as good as people?

Because people are not too perfect.

So, if AI is competing with people for these jobs, is 93% is that going to get it done?

I don't know.

Would you would you spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on a technology that would be wrong seven% of the time?

Would you?

I don't know.

Maybe he's betting on improvements in AI, but uh that doesn't sound too great.

Anyway, but something that is great is it over in the UK.

uh the Dyson, you know Dyson, the engineering technology company, they built an indoor strawberry farm that is worked by robots.

So the robots are checking on stuff and picking the strawberries.

and they came up with this really innovative uh method where instead of just putting things in in an indoor garden and then you know picking them when they're done, um they have these these big rotating drums that allow the strawberries to essentially get the right amount of light by rotating slowly so that you know all the strawberries get enough light And what this taught me is that, you know, I have this interest in indoor farms.

I'm just nerdy enough to care about that kind of stuff.

But I always imagined that the indoor farms would be growing a variety of food.

But I'm now completely convinced that every indoor farm should optimize over one product like the strawberries because probably you wouldn't grow the potatoes the same way or corn or or anything else.

So I think robots plus indoor farms plus only one product per farm so you can optimize it maybe has a future there.

There's still there's still it's tough to get protein from an indoor farm.

So even if you had a uh indoor I don't know fish farm uh it'd be hard to maintain that.

So all right ladies and gentlemen that's all I had for today.

That's the news for today.

It's Friday and I know you're ready to start your weekends.

Um, I'm going to talk privately to my beloved subscribers on locals and the rest of you.

I hope you'll come back tomorrow and we'll do it again.

Same time, same place.

All right, 30 seconds.

We will be private on locals.

Well, there you are. Come on in,

everybody.

Come on in. It's time for your favorite

part of the day.

Let's check your stocks while everybody

flows in.

Uh Tesla's down a little bit. The S&P is

up a little bit.

Snap is up a lot.

Interesting. Nvidia is up a little bit.

All right, let's uh get your comments

going and then we got something.

[Music]

Come on.

There we go.

[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 if you'd like to take a chance on

improving the way you feel from levels

that are hard to even understand and

with our tiny shiny human brains, well,

what you need for that

is a copper mug or a glass, a tankered

shell, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel

of any kind, and 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 now. Go.

So good. Well, I finally found a uh

really satisfying use for AI.

Uh yesterday I was just playing around

with a Grock and I told it to make me a

photo of Dilbert riding on a dog. It

just you know first thing that popped in

my head and so it makes this picture but

it it uh it knew that if a humansized

Dilber were riding on a dog that would

be bad for the dog. So, it turned the

Dilbert into a little stuffed look like,

you know, a stuffed uh stuffed animal

and made it small and put it on a big

dog.

And I posed it because I thought it was

just interesting picture.

And AI wants to give Dilbert a mouth

because everybody in the world except

Dilbert has a mouth. Dilbert has no

mouth, by the way, if you didn't know

that. and no eyeballs, but it wanted to

give him eyeballs with some of the AIS

and not others. And he had a necktie,

but it didn't seem to understand that it

would be an upturn necktie. So, it was

definitely Dilbert,

but uh yeah, the AI version. And then,

uh people saw my version and they tried

different AIs.

So, next thing I know, there's more than

one Dilbert riding on a dog.

And the next thing I know, um, it starts

morphing from Dilbert riding on a dog to

me riding on a dog

and then Dilbert riding on God's

shoulders. And then there was the baby

Jesus Dilbert. And then somebody used

the midjourney which takes a static

picture and turns it into a video and

somebody improved the background.

So, so the picture started as, you know,

just a little thing I thought was funny

and it it took on a life of its own and

it evolved into all these different

directions.

And uh there was even a dog riding

Dilbert.

But my favorite was

a picture of me uh the AI created of me

riding a giant cat, a house cat, but it

was a a dog. It was a horsesized

uh cat.

And I came away from the experience

thinking, "Oh my god, do I want a

horse-sized cat? Would that be awesome?

One you could, you know, put a saddle on

and ride." Imagine if you could just

say, "Hey,"

and call your cat, and your cat would

run over and you just jump on it like a

like a horse and ride around. Okay,

maybe it's just me.

Well, I wonder if there's uh any new

research that could have been skipped if

they had just asked me. Oh, here's

something from the University of Bath.

Now, you probably didn't know there was

a university of bath, but a lot of

people try to take a bath without any

education whatsoever, and they'll be

like drowning, and you know, they won't

even get wet because they've never gone

to the University of Bath

where I believe everybody majors in ba

bathing, I assume. Anyway,

but beyond that, they've also done a

study in which they determined that

people with higher IQs make better

decisions.

And the reason is

the reason is the people with higher IQs

uh can predict the results of their

decisions more accurately.

Uh-huh. Yeah, that would be pretty much

right in the middle of what a person

with a high IQ can do. Predict what's

going to happen next.

So, uh, University of Bath, you should

stick to your strengths, which is

teaching people how to bathe. And, uh,

next time you want to know if high IQ

people are smarter than low IQ people,

just ask me. Just ask. I got answers.

All right.

Um, according to the Washington Times,

uh, there's a federal employee who

managed to do work at home and get paid

for three different jobs.

So, it was Chrissy Monnique Baker. So,

she was working at HUD

uh as a full-time uh management and

program analyst, but she also had two

separate jobs beyond that, and she was

getting paid for three jobs, and she's

pleading guilty to fraud.

Now, does that seem like fraud to you?

Do you think people should go to jail

for having three jobs at the same time

when they sign something that said they

wouldn't do that? So, I guess that's the

fraud part.

Yeah. So, none of those employers got

her full-time work. So, I guess it is

fraud. It reminded me of Wall-E in the

Dilbert comic.

You know, I've heard of people who had

two jobs, which I think was really

common during the pandemic, people

having two remote jobs, but this is the

first one where somebody had three and

made it work.

I don't know how they caught her.

Probably wasn't based on her work

performance.

Well, can you believe it?

Today is the one-year anniversary from

Biden uh debating and showing the world

that his brain was not working.

Does that feel like only one year ago?

Is it my imagination?

Or does it feel like it was 3 years ago

that the Biden debate with Trump

happened?

Does that feel like it could possibly be

only one year ago?

Oh my god, how much stuff has happened

in the last year? You know, just

political stuff. Forget about your life.

But one year ago,

are you having the same the same

impression I have? That there's no way

that's just one year ago.

That that had to be at least three years

ago. Nope. One.

And so that a post from end wokenness,

one of my favorite follows.

According to Ben Weeden, who's writing

for just the news,

um Trump won uh I guess this is based on

new Pew survey.

Who is this? Uh

yeah, Pew Research. So, according to Pew

Research,

um, and if you don't know what Pew

Research is,

uh, they research when you shoot your

toy gun. Pew, pew, pew, pew. And then

they research that and then they go to

the University of Bath and wash it all

off. No, no, no. Pew research researches

very serious things. And one of the

things they found out is that uh Latinos

were the ones who moved the most right

during the uh period between 2020 and

2024

or was it possible that 2020 wasn't

exactly the most accurate election if

you know what I mean? So maybe maybe

measuring the change from 2020 where

many people I'm not saying me but many

of you believe the results were complete

of the election itself. So I

would first of all question the concept

of looking how things changed in the

vote from 2020 to 2024.

It feels to me like

maybe there's a reason those numbers

don't look as similar as you thought

they would look. Maybe.

But that's not me. That's you. That's

what you think. Anyway, um and maybe

sometimes I think it too. But

apparently, according to Pew Research, I

and I don't believe this is true. How

could this possibly be true? um that

Trump outright won Hispanic men.

Does Does that Have you heard it that

way before? I I've heard a number of

times he did better than you know

anybody's ever done with Hispanic

voters. But did you know that he won

outright

uh Hispanic men by 50 to 48% against

Harris?

That is freaking incredible.

if it's real. He he lost narrowly with

Hispanic women and uh I guess there must

have been more women voting or well no

the numbers look right and but overall

he was just close. So he had 48% of the

Hispanic vote compared to Harris's 51.

But the fact that he won outright

the male Hispanic vote, he won it

outright

at the same time that uh the news was

telling us all of his rhetoric was, you

know, racist against exactly that

category of people.

in that category of people, as I've been

telling you for a long time, they're way

more conservative than maybe you thought

was coming. So, it doesn't doesn't

surprise me that it eventually got

there, but it happened faster than I

thought.

Well, as you know,

the uh cover up of Biden's brain

um

is was considered worse than Watergate.

How many of you would agree with that?

That the cover up of Biden as president

being, you know, mentally deficient, how

many of you think that was worse than

Watergate?

Well, a lot of people

the news reports like quite a bit that

there's one expert after another saying,

"Oh, that's worse than Watergate." So, I

would like to propose the following.

Instead of asking if something is worse

than Watergate

since Watergate is now no longer the

high high bar mark, we should be forced

to say, "Is it worse than Biden's brain

coverup?

So the next time there's a gigantic

controversy,

do not say is it worse than Watergate.

That is no longer the high high water

mark. Is it worse than Biden brain cover

up? And when you add the auto pen part

to it, it really is worse than a

Watergate by a lot.

So as you know um at least one person

has admitted to having access to the

auto pen. Uh I think there were more and

we'll learn more about that. But Nerra

Tandon

said that she uh I guess she told

Congress when asked that she would use

the autopipen without actually verifying

from Joe Biden

uh that he gave the order.

Now

wait a minute.

Let let me say that again.

that the person operating the auto pen

apparently would not check directly with

Biden, but would take it from some other

staff member who was not mentioned.

Would she take the word of anyone who

asked?

Could anyone who had access to the

president walk in and say, "Hey, Nerra,

uh, Joe Biden totally wants you to

pardon this hardened criminal for no

reason that you could tell."

Would she then pardon a hardened

criminal because somebody who was not

Biden said, "Oh, yeah, Biden's totally

behind this."

Uh, I got questions. I have many

questions. But if she was not verifying

with Biden himself or at least you know

some way knowing that he had given the

order, we really don't know who was

running the country.

You know, I suppose that's the most

ordinary observation, but I have to

admit I was I was holding out some kind

of belief that maybe Biden would sign a

little document or give somebody the

word in person. So they at the very

least the person who operates the auto

pen had direct

knowledge that the president wanted

something signed. But apparently not.

Apparently not. So the person doing the

autopen literally did not know if it

came from the president. Does that seem

like a problem?

Yeah, that seems like a problem. It's

bigger than Watergate.

Anyway, according to um Newsmax,

uh the gross domestic product did not

look good for this quarter, but the

special case or reason for it is because

people were buying a bunch of foreign

goods

um in anticipation of tariffs. So, you

can't really look at the uh GDP for this

quarter, this most recent quarter that

they're reporting.

um that would that would be sort of a

you know non-standard number this time,

but they think it will bounce back to a

good number next time we see it.

And uh whatever happened in the April to

June quarter is unlikely to be repeated.

So that's good.

Um,

so there's a post on X by uh Constantine

Kissen, who if you're on Axis, you

probably know him. So he's uh what would

I call him? Um he has one of the biggest

podcasts, Trigonometry. He's one of the

two who do that. and uh he's often, you

know, debating people on other podcasts

and he's very active on social media,

but he's very well-informed

and very smart,

but he's the only person reporting that

there's some kind of maybe deal coming

up with Gaza and Israel and the Middle

East.

So, I'm going to say I don't believe

this is true, but he says that there are

reports that Trump and Netanyahu have

made a deal and it hasn't been announced

yet. Now, I'm going to I'll read you

what Constantine says is reportedly a

deal, but I'll tell you in advance, I

don't believe any of it.

So I checked with Grock and Grock could

not find any, you know, independent

reporting that agreed,

but um only because Constantine Kesson

is a um I'll say a highly credible,

you know, commentator.

Uh if it were someone else, I probably

wouldn't even read it, but I'll let you

know what he thinks, you know, based on

sources that he has that are unnamed.

So he thinks that there might be a deal

to end the Gaza war in two weeks,

which is possible. It's possible because

you could certainly imagine that Trump

would want to take the goodwill he's,

you know, he's garnered in the Iran

situation and maybe use it to, you know,

put a little pressure on Israel or, you

know, get something done. So that part,

I doubt it.

just because the Gaza situation seems so

intractable.

But maybe maybe it's entirely possible

that they might announce some kind of a

framework. You know, they would take a

long time to implement, but maybe next

thing that Constantine reports says is

being reported is that Gaza would be

governed by four neighboring countries.

To which I say maybe

because that does make sense in terms of

how in the world would you ever solve

this problem. You would almost certainly

need some non-Israel, non US,

non Hamas leadership.

And it does make sense that having only

one of them would create a whole new

problem. So if you said uh let's say um

Saudi Arabia is going to you know

monitor or uh manage Gaza well

immediately that would turn into you

know Saudi Arabia would become a target

and you know there'd be bad will there

but suppose you said four of the closest

neighbors were all going to jointly be

part of it maybe they would be helping

economically.

Um, but if there were four of them,

you'd feel like, oh, okay, that that

really is neighbors helping out a

difficult situation. Now, again, I'm not

predicting any of this is going to

happen,

but it's possible. It's within the realm

of possible. Uh, then the third part, if

any of this turns out to be true, is

that Hamas leaders would be exiled.

I don't see any anything else you could

do with them, right? You'd have you'd

have to exile them. Otherwise, they stay

underground in Gaza and you can never

solve anything. So, while I don't love

the idea of them staying alive, and

Israel wouldn't love it either, it's

entirely possible. It's the only way you

could make a deal. So, is it possible?

Yeah, it's possible.

Again, I'm going to bet against it

because I'm a little bit pessimistic on

this particular topic, but it's

possible.

Uh here's the part that I think is the

red flag for this not being real. That

uh the fourth element would be a

two-state solution that would be agreed

by uh Israel

and uh for the West Bank.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that Netanyahu

would agree to a two-state solution with

all of those is Israeli settlements that

are in the West Bank?

Does that sound real? So, that's the

part that tells me uh

maybe, but that seems really unlikely to

me. You know, maybe like a 2% chance,

something like that. And then the last

one is that several new countries would

join the Abraham Accords and recognize

Israel. Certainly, if there were an

agreed upon, reasonable conclusion for

Gaza, that would lead to more people

joining the Abraham Accords, that'd be a

big deal. So, that's possible. But um

there's no word about hostages or where

do the refugees live for the many years

it would take to make Gaza livable again

and do they all get to move back and who

exactly is going to pay for the

rebuilding of Gaza and all that. So I'm

going to say that there's some details

missing that obviously would have to be

there if there were a deal such as the

hostages.

And I don't think the two-stage solution

is likely enough that the entire

reporting could be accurate. So that's

that's my red flag on that one. Anyway,

um it's interesting.

It it the only thing it does, I think,

is it helps you understand

what what is possible.

All right. Um

and CNN is reporting

um I think news banks is reporting on

this too that uh the US is kicking

around the idea of helping Iran become a

peaceful nuclear energy country without

the ability to make a bomb. And that

part of that might be making available

to them as much as $30 billion

to build a civilian nuclear program that

doesn't have any, you know, enriched

uranium access or anything uh except for

what goes into the uh nuclear energy for

domestic use. And the that money would

not necessarily come from America, but

rather from other Middle Eastern

countries.

Does that seem Does that seem like

something that might happen? I always

like the uh Trump approach of saying

you've got two choices. We will either

attack you militarily or we'll help you

develop your economy so you can make a

lot of money.

I love that that, you know, I always

tell you about one of the one of the uh

principles of uh persuasion is that you

lay out a really big gap between doing

what you want them to do and not doing

what you want them to do. And that's a

pretty big gap. If you try to make your

own nukes again, we will bomb your

country again. Very, very bad.

But if you work with us for domestic

nuclear power, we'll help you get

funding for $30 billion from your

neighbors. And that's pretty good. So, I

like that. I like that. That's even a

conversation.

Well, according to Trump, the US and

China have quote signed a trade deal.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that the US and China

have signed a trade deal? I don't

believe that. There there may be some

elements that they've agreed upon or

have a framework for, but I don't

believe there's an overall China trade

deal.

Uh I'm pretty sure there will be nothing

about protecting intellectual property

and probably nothing about fentinol.

So is there I mean there there might be,

you know, some crawling forward on some

things like, you know, the rare

minerals. There might be a rare mineral

deal, but no, I don't believe there's

any signed comprehensive China trade

deal, but the market might.

And uh we'll see. And I guess Lnik says

the US is going to drop some some

counter measures against China because

China is loosening up uh about rare

earth materials. But we'll see if any of

that matters. But uh Trump's team says

that uh by July 9th, which I guess is

the new deadline for all the countries

to to make a deal. Um he said that there

will be a tariff hammer coming down for

any nation that doesn't look like

they're negotiating in good faith. So

basically just more tariffs.

So they do think that there are a lot of

tariff deals coming. Now, do you

remember do you remember when the

tariffs were first announced?

Um, this would be a good time to see who

was right and who was wrong. And there

were some people who said, "Oh, these

threats of tariffs will never get you

anything good. It will just all be bad."

And by now, the stock market has fully

recovered.

So, we're all all the way back before

Trump even announced the uh tariffs,

which means the people who have the most

money to invest, including the

professionals,

believe that the tariff thing will not

be a big destructive force for the

economy.

They might believe it will be additive.

Um, we don't know yet, but certainly

there's every reason to believe that our

new trade deals will be a little better

than the old ones. So, if you were one

of the people like me who said, "Hold

on, hold on. There is no way to know if

this is good or bad, but it is certainly

a smart way to negotiate."

and all of this uncertainty

which you think is bad. It is bad but

temporarily

if you're objective is to get a trade

deal. Maybe a little bit of uncertainty

and flip-flopping and jumping back and

forth and keeping your um your

negotiating partners off balance might

be exactly what Trump does for every

negotiation.

It might be he does it because it works.

And the persuasion reason that that

would work is that if you get other

people frightened that if they don't

make a deal there's, you know, there's

going to be really bad consequences,

well then they're going to make a deal

that they wouldn't have otherwise made.

So yes, keeping all of our trading

partners in a very precarious,

uncertain,

not sure about their own political

futures because it'd be such a big deal

to their country if they don't get a

trade deal. That's exactly

where he would want the other leaders to

be. And he put him there. And now he

says that over the summer, which is

about what he predicted, they'll be uh,

you know, cleaning up these trade deals

one at a time. It'll probably take

longer than they want, longer than you

want, but it's all doable.

So, it went from, oh my god, he's he's a

crazy man who's ruining the economy. And

in what, 4 months,

it turned into, huh, well, looks like

that's going to work out. Trump is on

the verge of having the best summer that

any president ever had.

uh if he if Trump gets the the big trade

deals done

and he continues to be, you know, lauded

for his uh you know, successful

conclusion to the Iran situation,

if nothing else happened,

that would be the best summer any

president ever had, basically. And if if

a miracle happens and somehow we get

something done with Gaza andor Ukraine

and I would bet against both of those

but even if he got one of them to go the

way he wants

and then and then let's say the Abraham

Accords goes to the next level that

could all happen in one summer.

Oh my god. Oh my god. like no no no

president's going to be able to touch

that for just sheer

persuasive

you know leadership policies

you know and that's not even without the

the big beautiful bill which is in

trouble at the moment let's talk about

that

so

remember when I've talked about the

budget process in Congress

um I act like I don't understand it. And

it's not an act. I really don't

understand it. And I I read the, you

know, the messages from Steven Miller

who's trying to explain, oh no, this is

not a budget bill. It's a recision bill.

Recision. Is that the way you say it?

And they're they're very different. If

it were a budget bill, then you would

need to get u I think 60%

of the Senate to agree. And nobody

believes that that's possible in today's

environment.

But if it's one of these weird recision

things, apparently you can cut the

budget on stuff uh with only a 50%

majority, you know, 51%.

And so the entire reason that there were

not a lot of Doge cuts in this one is

that the the the place you would do that

would be in the larger one. But they did

have a bunch of cuts. And now it turns

out that there's something called a

parliamentarian.

How many of you knew that Congress even

had a parliamentarian?

I guess the parliamentarian just makes

sure that Congress is following its own

its own guidelines

and only and follows the law. And guess

what? The parliamentarian

just told the creators of the big

beautiful bill.

The parliamentarian just explained that

the only thing they could do is some

minor budget tweaks. They can't have in

the big beautiful bill changes in policy

because if you want to change policy

according to something called the the

bird rule B yd based on you know uh ex

congressperson bird um that if you

follow the rules

you can't change policy with a recision

bill.

And there were a number of things that

were policy changes. So I asked uh

Grock,

you know, what the hell what what kind

of changes they are

and most of them I don't understand.

Uh but it's stuff like

changing the EPA's uh multi-pollutant

vehicle emission standards,

blah blah blah blah blah. So, a lot of

these budget changes are directly

connected to policy changes,

and we found out this week

that they can't do that.

Now, try to hold that in your head for a

moment.

Does it make sense that you and I did

not know that there was a

parliamentarian? Yeah, of course. Yeah,

we're we're not that deep into it. So

most of us never heard of this

parliamentarian thing.

If you had heard of it, would you have

known that the recision process would be

different from the budget process and

that if you tried to conflate the two,

the parliamentarian would would shut you

down. Well, I didn't know that.

But I'm not a member of Congress who

just spent five months trying to

negotiate this thing. Are you telling me

that nobody behind the big beautiful

bill was understanding that the

parliamentarian was going to shoot a

bullet through the middle of its heart

as soon as it was almost done? Are you

telling me that nobody involved in that

process saw this coming? Are you telling

me that they never once talked to her in

advance and said, "We don't want to get

too far with this unless we know that it

can get past the parliamentarian because

we're, you know, mixing some policy with

some some funding."

Nobody Nobody knew this was coming. Are

you kidding me?

Right. And again, you and I can be

excused, right? You know, we we like to

be well-informed citizens who can, you

know, with our opinions maybe help move

things in one direction or another in

small ways, but we're not supposed to

know that.

Everyone who is going to vote on this

big, beautiful bill, every one of them

should have definitely known this was

coming. and to suddenly act like they're

all surprised and people are calling for

the firing of the parliamentarian.

No,

no, don't fire the parliamentarian.

Fire every single person who didn't know

that they should check with the

parliamentarian before they got this

far. All of them. Every one of them

should be removed from Congress. If you

don't know this most basic thing about

your own job,

how are you how how do we expect you to

get anything done?

So, I don't know what the fate is of the

big beautiful bill, but it's looking

like it's going to be totally gutted

of, you know, some substantial

percentage of the things that the

Republicans were trying to get done.

Somebody says that Vance can override

her.

Vance can override her. You mean if

there's a if there's a vote of a

majority?

All right. Well, I guess there there

might be more we'll find out about this.

I don't know if that's true. The part

about Vans,

but I mean, it's just such a head

shaker. I definitely do not feel at this

point there, you know, something might

change my mind, but I definitely don't

feel like the parliamentarian is the bad

person. It's a woman, so I was going to

say bad guy, but the bad person.

I think the parliamentarian is just

doing the parliamentarian job.

So, good luck with the big beautiful

bill.

Anyway, but it'd be amazing if if Trump

got that through without it being, you

know, totally gutted. Um, his summer

would be looking pretty amazing.

Well, there's a Chinese doctor

who fled his home country and uh this is

according to just the news

and is doing some whistleblowing on

China.

Sorry. Excuse

me. Um and says that China makes um

makes the Chinese people who come to

America

sign a contract. Not all the Chinese

people but the you know the the

scientific people

and uh anybody who's coming to the US

and working in science they have to sign

a contract with China to help steal US

intellectual property and research and

anything else of value and bring it back

to the communist uh Chinese Communist

Party.

Now,

why is there never a story about Russia

doing this? Have you ever noticed that?

If if Russia is our big enemy,

why is it only the Chinese are stealing

our intellectual property? Or is Russia

doing it, too, but they're better at it,

so we don't catch them? Like, why would

it only be China?

It it's not like Russia

is doing its own Silicon Valley. You

know, aren't they just as much in need

of stealing our intellectual property?

And do you think that Russia has, let's

say, some moral or ethical

reason not to steal from us? Why would

it only be China? I don't know.

But uh I guess uh the Trump

administration is launching a vetting

process for the hundreds of foreign

scientists.

So we're going to try to catch them. But

how weird that China is doing that but

not Iran, Venezuela, the Mexican

cartels.

Um but well,

how many how many sleep our cells do we

and spies do we have in this country

now? Is it more than a residence?

Because allegedly Iran has sleeper

cells. China has all these spies and

sleeper cells and buying them farmland

to do god knows what. Venezuela

is sending us the Trendo Ragua or have

the Mexican cartels have already made,

you know, inroads into the mainland US

and they've all got these sleeper cells

and spies and stuff. But when was the

last time you heard that Russia

was doing any of those things,

like trying to put a lot of Russian

immigrants into the country so they

could become sleeper cells or steal our

IP?

Are they not doing it

or do they just not get caught or do we

just not mention them for some reason?

Isn't that weird? If it works, everybody

would be doing it. You know, Mexico

would be sending their scientists and

Venezuela would be I don't know. There's

something weird about the fact that only

China is doing this thing. If it works,

I mean, if it works, they should all be

trying it.

Well, Laura Loomer has another

exclusive. And uh I I have to compliment

her for carving out a valuable space in

the internet world. Um and what she

seems the best at in terms of her scoops

is finding out whose uh sibling whose

children andor spouses are involved in

things that the politician might be

making decisions about. And here's

another one. So according to Laura

Loomer the um John Cornin who's a Texas

senator his daughter lobbies lobbies for

China um related to Alibaba

at the same time that

um

the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is

targeting Alibaba for privacy

violations.

But so the daughter of the US senator

for Texas

is working

working for a Chinese company and not

just a Chinese company but you know one

of the biggest or is it the biggest? I

don't know.

Now does that seem like a problem to

you?

It does to me. Yeah, does to me. So

another Laura Loomer exclusive. She's

really got that category nailed down.

And um according to Blaze Media, Carlos

Garcia is writing about this. Um there

was a Democratleaning group called Code

Pink that's now threatening

um an internet user named Data

Republican. I've talked about Data

Republican. It's a woman who is very

good at data analysis and especially

linked to uh political events.

So Code Pink is threatening her because

she uh apparently suggested that they

got some funding from Chinese sources.

So, Code Bank

um is threatening a lawsuit and they

they say that they uh um they do not get

money from China or the Chinese

Communist Party or any foreign

government. So, that's what code banking

says. They don't get money from China,

Chinese Communist Party or any foreign

country.

So, do you think data Republican is

wrong?

What do you think? Do you think Code

Pink is telling you the truth

and Data Republican is wrong?

Well, Data Republican decided that the

best approach to this threat of lawsuit

is simply to dump everything she knew

and you can make up your own mind. So,

here's what here's what we've learned.

Uh apparently Code Pink is getting some

significant funding from a rich guy

who uh

uh a social activist and businessman

Neville Singum.

Um he's a billionaire who is already

under congressional investigation for

possibly violating the Foreign Agents

Registration Act that be FAR on behalf

of the Chinese government.

Oh,

so

it didn't come from China, the funding,

and it didn't come from the Chinese

Communist Party, and it didn't come from

a foreign country.

True,

but it might have come from a

billionaire who likes to do things on

behalf of China.

So,

how do you score that one? Do you score

that one as yeah that's Chinese funding

or is it Chinese funding that's deniable

because when Code Pink denied it they

did not say and we don't take money from

any billionaires who are who are

connected to China's government.

They left that part out. So I don't know

maybe they'll come back.

Um

and then apparently one of the things

that Code Pink has done

um is push some propaganda saying that

uh the Weaguers um

were not the weaguers were basically

dangerous. So total Chinese propaganda

that nobody would do unless some Chinese

force was giving them money. In other

China versus US news, uh Elon Musk

pointed to a chart on X and said,

"Remember this chart?" And what it was

was a chart that showed how much

electricity

uh China is

pulling online, you know, with new power

plants, etc., versus the US. And if you

look at the US's number since the '9s,

it's up a little bit, but it's almost a

flat line. We have about as much

electricity in the US as we had at the

end of the '9s.

And that's been a while. Now, you might

say, "But Scott, that's good news

because we've learned to conserve on

electricity."

But then you look at the uh the China

line and it's

it's not quite straight up but it's

pretty close and it has passed us you

know by a lot. So, China is adding

electricity like crazy

and the US is still just getting ready

to add electricity, you know, by making

it easier to build nuclear power plants

and reducing regulations and stuff.

It'll make a difference, but we're way

behind.

If you're trying to predict the future,

like which countries will succeed,

um, one of the best ways to predict the

future is how much energy they can

produce

domestically.

That is really predictive of how your

country is going to go. So, China's got

a big advantage there. Uh, but they also

have a big country, so they need a lot

of electricity. So, you know, there

there's a there's a reason that they're

just also meeting basic needs. But, uh,

that's worrisome. And then the other

thing would be, uh, birth rate.

So, if you asked Elon Musk what are the

big uh, risks, you know, sort of

geopolitical risks and country risks,

etc., He would probably say low birth

rate is a gigantic problem in every

developed country apparently. And uh not

having enough electricity for AI

might be the other gigantic variable

that it would be easy to overlook if you

don't follow the news pretty closely. So

yeah, have more babies and more

electricity and you're going to be in

good shape.

According to the free beacon, Hunter

Biden is being sued by one of his

probably there were a lot of them uh law

firms that work for him and say he owes

in excess of $50,000

in fees and interests.

And uh

I guess he has paid them a little bit in

the past, but hasn't paid them

everything. Now, I don't know about you,

but I'm starting to think that Hunter

Biden's uh art career was not 100%

legit.

H cuz I feel like he could have solved

that problem by selling just one

painting. Just one.

So

now I'm starting to suspect

that that painting operation was not

exactly what it looked like. H

anyway,

let's talk about uh New York City's

future mayor. This is Zoran Mdani, who's

a who's a overt socialist.

uh Republicans were trying to paint him

as a communist but more more socialist

than communist I would say

and I realized I had not uh evaluated

him on persuasion.

Um I talked about him and his policies

and the fact he's a socialist and he

wants things like uh rent control and

government grocery stores and free

transportation and stuff. bunch of

socialist things. And

um everybody who knows anything about

economics and history knows that too

much socialism will destroy just about

anything. So New York City, if he wins,

and it looks like he might probably

actually, um New York City is sort of

looking doomed because of his socialist

policies. But to be fair, since I I have

in the past reviewed Trump just as how

persuasive he is, you know, that's how I

got started doing this political stuff.

And I've done the same with AOC.

So I've said, you know, I don't like

AOC's policies. I wouldn't want her to

be my president, but definitely she has

some persuasion skills.

And so I decided to look at Zoran Mamani

just as a persuasion filter.

And

I don't think there's any question about

why he's doing well. If you look at him,

if you forget policies, because voters

don't even understand policies for the

most part, and you just look at

persuasion, he does have the whole

package for for a Democrat in a Democrat

majority city. So, he's got charisma

like crazy.

He's young and good-looking, which

matters.

Um he is perpetually optimistic.

Um which is not necessarily what the

voters are feeling, but he's optimistic.

So he's always smiling. He's always got

this, you know, we can fix this problem

thing. He's a person of color, so he's

not a generic white guy because

Democrats are not going to put up with

that. And

when he talks about what he's about, he

has this little phrase. See if this

sounds familiar to you or what what does

it remind you of? It's not familiar, but

it it'll remind you of somebody else's

work. Um, he says he's going he's trying

to, and I quote, make the city

affordable.

Make the city affordable. What's that

sound like?

make America great again.

Um, if if you're worried that this

socialist is going to be such a good

politician that he can't be stopped, he

does have the whole package. He's got

he's got the message. He's got policies

that if you're a certain kind of person

and a Democrat, you'd say, "Yeah, yeah,

why not that?"

Um, so if if I'm looking at him as only

only for persuasion,

charisma, optimism, uh, not a generic

white guy, and he's got policies that

fit easily under the category of make

the city affordable, everybody

understands that, and it touches them

directly, and it's not about the rich.

Why is he winning? because the people

he's running against are not even close.

They're not even close to that. They

don't have that package.

So, you know, the other lesson here is

if you imagine that the Democrats are

completely destroyed because, you know,

Trump won everything and the Republicans

have the Congress and all that. All it

takes is one candidate who's got this

entire package.

And if you say to yourself, "But he

can't go that far because his policies

are bad crazy."

Democrat voters don't know that.

Obviously,

Democrat voters cannot tell what

policies will destroy the country.

Obviously, otherwise they wouldn't have

the policies that they have.

So, could somebody like that win the

presidency? Not necessarily him. Well,

he I guess he was born in another

country, so he wouldn't be eligible. But

all it takes

all it's going to take is one candidate

who's got the full package

and uh Democrats are going to be right

back.

So, that's dangerous.

According to uh Lydia Moahan in the New

York Post, uh luxury real estate brokers

in New York City are already getting

people saying the rich people are

already saying, um maybe I don't want to

live in New York City anymore. So just

the fact that the socialists might come

into office and raise their taxes and I

don't know free the criminals

um it's going to make the real estate

people pretty busy moving these people

out of New York. According to um

Salesforce CEO and founder Mark Beni off

and CNBC is reporting this uh for

Salesforce

um he says that AI is doing up to 50% of

the work that would have been that had

been done by people.

Does that sound right to you? that

Salesforce is already using AI for half

you know it might be 30% to 50% but he's

estimating might be up to half of all

their work that's being done by AI but

now the question you might ask is oh no

how many people have they laid off

because that's a pretty big company and

the answer is that he believes that it

just frees people AI is freeing people

to do higher level work. So he's not

talking in terms of layoffs. He's

talking in terms of sort of turbo

boosting the power of every existing

employee so that they can get all their

regular work done with AI the help of AI

and then they can you know that'll free

them to do higher level stuff that's

valuable.

That is not the majority view

and I don't know how many companies that

would ever be true for. It will

definitely be true for some. You know

there there's no doubt about it. Some

companies will maybe add employees

because the AI plus an employee is so

valuable that you want to add humans to

work with the AI because it's all so

good. But there will be companies where

they just need fewer people because of

the AI. So it's going to be a little

both. Um and maybe Salesforce will have

to change their uh staffing um let's say

ideals.

But uh Betty off estimates that the

software company has reached I don't

know exactly what this means 93%

accuracy using AI.

93% accuracy.

Now,

is that as good as people? Because

people are not too perfect. So, if AI is

competing with people for these jobs, is

93%

is that going to get it done? I don't

know. Would you would you spend tens or

hundreds of millions of dollars on a

technology that would be wrong seven% of

the time?

Would you? I don't know. Maybe he's

betting on improvements in AI, but uh

that doesn't sound too great.

Anyway, but something that is great

is it over in the UK. uh the Dyson, you

know Dyson, the engineering

technology company, they built an indoor

strawberry farm that is worked by

robots. So the robots are checking on

stuff and picking the strawberries. and

they came up with this really innovative

uh method where instead of just putting

things in in an indoor garden and then

you know picking them when they're done,

um they have these these big rotating

drums

that allow the strawberries to

essentially get the right amount of

light by rotating slowly so that you

know all the strawberries get enough

light And what this taught me is that,

you know, I have this interest in indoor

farms. I'm just nerdy enough to care

about that kind of stuff. But I always

imagined that the indoor farms would be

growing a variety of food.

But I'm now completely convinced that

every indoor farm should optimize over

one product like the strawberries

because probably you wouldn't grow the

potatoes the same way or corn or or

anything else. So I think robots plus

indoor farms plus only one product per

farm so you can optimize it maybe has a

future there. There's still there's

still it's tough to get protein from an

indoor farm. So even if you had a uh

indoor I don't know fish farm uh it'd be

hard to maintain that. So

all right ladies and gentlemen that's

all I had for today. That's the news for

today. It's Friday and I know you're

ready to start your weekends. Um, I'm

going to talk privately to my beloved

subscribers on locals and the rest of

you. I hope you'll come back tomorrow

and we'll do it again. Same time, same

place. All right, 30 seconds. We will be

private on locals.