Episode 2886 CWSA 07/03/25

Good to see you.

Have you lost weight?

You're looking great this morning.

Come on in.

I got a show for you.

It's just for you.

Just for you.

Let's check your uh stock market first.

Well, stock market is up.

Good.

Good.

People are feeling patriotic and all that.

All right.

While you're streaming in, let me get my comments working on locals.

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 try to take this experience up to levels that no one could possibly understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankered shelter inside a canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

That's right.

Go.

Oh, it's just as good as I imagined it would be.

Well, I wonder if there's any science that they didn't need to do.

if they had just asked Scott.

Uh, oh, here's something from Aros University.

Um, the myth is busted.

They say that men do not sleep through a baby crying um more than a woman.

Did Did any of you believe that men and women have different ability to hear a crying baby?

Well, I didn't doubt it, but I did imagine that men are better at pretending to be asleep and not hearing a baby.

It turns out that women still do three times as much of the baby tending at night.

And uh much of that has to do with the fact that all men across the planet have agreed.

It's sort of a silent agreement we all have.

Even if you don't have children, you know the agreement, right, guys?

You know what I'm talking about, right?

That's right.

As long as we all pretend that men can't hear crying babies, we can continue to stay in bed while your spouse goes off to check on the crying baby because she thinks you can't hear it and she doesn't want to wake you up.

So, shh, don't say anything.

We're all in this together, guys.

Well, the Wall Street Journal was doing a hit piece on Tesla and Musk.

Um, I no longer see the news as purely the news.

It all has this, you know, real overt and obvious political element to it depending on the story.

But anything about uh Tesla and Elon Musk that comes out around now is definitely going to have a political bend to it.

But listen to this headline.

This is the Wall Street Journal and this is their uh their opinion piece here.

It says Tesla is in disarray.

Is it?

Do you think Tesla is in disarray?

What?

What evidence would you have that Tesla's in disarray?

All right.

Um, and that Musk has already moved beyond caring about cars.

And so the idea is that he's shifted his focus to robots and and robo taxis and he's letting the Tesla car company um disintegrate in disarray.

Now, how would they know any of that?

Are they in the meetings?

Do they have some kind of source that's sleeping in a tent with them at the AI headquarters?

Because, you know, he's spending a lot of time there lately.

Um, I don't think there's any real evidence that he has the suddenly he has the inability to run all of his companies when obviously he was doing it before.

Did Did he suddenly lose his ability to deal with multiple problems at the same time?

I doubt it, but but apparently if you Wall Street Journal, you can just sort of declare that you know what he's he's thinking and how he feels and what his inner thoughts are.

Anyway, there but it is true that their sales were down but we're talking about the period where politics were affecting everybody's buying decision.

So if you just project forward, you know, a couple of years, do you think people will still not be buying a Tesla because they don't like what Trump did with or what must with Doge?

I don't know if this is some kind of a a lifetime problem.

Um, feels to me that if if he keeps making cars that are unambiguously better than the other cars, that's going to have an effect on the market over time.

So, we'll see.

But also, the uh value of Tesla does have a lot built into it about the optimism about robots and robo taxis.

So um it might be true that the Tesla ordinary car part of the company is now where all the value will be in just a few short years.

That's what the market thinks that the that the value is in the future stuff.

And it's probably true because I do agree with uh Elon Musk who says that the humanoid robot market will be maybe the biggest market of any market of all time and Tesla might be leading that.

Well, Sean Diddy Combmes has some good luck and some bad luck.

Good news, bad news.

Good news for Diddy is that he was acquitted on the most serious charges um in the multi-charge case.

The most serious ones would have given him potentially life in prison, but those the jury found not guilty by unanimous decision.

But he's still in jail and he's not getting bail because he was found guilty on two lesser charges which uh as I listen to the people who know what they're talking about which does not include me for any of the legal stuff.

the uh people who know what they're talking about say that um generally the crimes he's he's uh he's been convicted of now that that they don't even prosecute that generally because it's so small that if this were someone else and the only thing he'd been alleged to have done are the things he was found guilty of probably they wouldn't even take it to court.

Um, I think it was basically technically prostitution with women who clearly were um, according to their own text messages, um, women who were consensually involved.

That's it.

Now, I don't, you know, obviously I'm the worst one to talk about the legal stuff, but what I I think is true is that he was accused of a technical crime in which there was no there's no alleged victim because the victim has a text record of being consensually involved in all that stuff.

So, so I asked a question on X.

Is it too soon to talk about a pardon?

Because here's my take.

I'm not defending Diddy.

I'm not I'm not a fan of his work and I certainly would not defend him beating up his ex in the hallway of the hotel.

But that wasn't apparently he wasn't being tried for that.

I don't understand why.

Seems like that would have been the obvious thing to try him on.

But again, probably because the woman was not pressing charges.

Do you even need to press charges if it's on video and we can all see it?

I don't know how that works.

But so just to be clear, I don't think he's a good guy.

And I'm sure he's been involved in things which if we knew for sure what he was doing, we'd say to ourselves, M.

H that looks pretty bad.

All right, so I'm not defending him, but I will defend the following standard, which is you don't treat Diddy worse than you would treat anybody else.

And it sort of looks like they're treating him worse than they would treat other people.

Um because if someone else had been accused and convicted of only these things, um we'll find out.

If the judge gives him serious jail time for what he's been convicted of, I feel like a pardon is completely in order.

And Trump was asked about it.

Steve Ducey asked about it in one of Trump's uh open oval office events just yesterday, I think.

And Trump said he, you know, wasn't really paying attention to the case.

So, he didn't have an opinion on it.

But I always forget that Trump had lots of interesting friends in the past.

He lost a lot of them when he ran for office.

But he actually was friendly with Diddy.

So, it's not a stranger for Trump.

It's somebody he knows pretty well.

But, you know, I guess did he probably changed when Trump ran for office.

So Trump did not rule out, but he had also not looked into pardoning, did he?

Now, depending on what I hear, you know, about what's going on with him, um, I might be in favor of the pardon, uh, it's probably too soon to have a hard opinion on it, but I wouldn't want to see him treated in a way that would not be normal for anybody else to be treated.

that that seems like a reasonable standard.

Um, so we'll see.

Anyway, why in the world does he not get bail?

Does anyone know why he doesn't get bail?

The judge's reasons were that he that he can't demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community.

Who who can do that?

You know what I can't do?

I can't demonstrate that I'm not a danger to the community.

Can you?

How would you possibly demonstrate that?

You could demonstrate what you are perhaps simply by being that, but how do you how do you demonstrate that you would not do something dangerous?

That's not even a real thing.

And they also say is a flight risk.

To which I say, a flight risk?

Really?

How in the world would he get on a flight?

I guess a private flight.

But he doesn't seem like a flight risk to me.

He seems like somebody who worst case scenario might serve another year or two and then he's back in business.

So, is that a flight risk?

I don't know.

He served a year.

If he if they told him that, you know, his record would be cleared and he could go back to his good life if he served one or two more, would that be enough for him to make him leave the country and become, you know, live in some place where they don't have an extradition treaty, which wouldn't be fun.

I don't know.

So, keep an eye on that.

So, give me an update.

Uh the big beautiful bill allegedly there was going to be a vote this morning and is postponed.

Um the early reporting is that uh they had the votes so they hadn't done the vote but they they knew that they had the commitments for the vote to get it passed.

Um and of course that was after Trump had private conversations with some of the holdouts.

Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall listening to Trump convince the final holdowns?

Do you think there was any threatening going on?

Probably.

There was probably a lot of threatening going on.

Uh some would call it blackmail, but I think it was just if you don't vote for this, you know, I will destroy you.

But it also might have been, and I think this is more likely, well, maybe equally likely, uh, it might be equally likely true, that Trump convinced them that they'll do some serious deficit reduction in the upcoming budget process, which is a bigger a bigger process.

So, do you think they got the hold downs got a commitment that some of the Doge stuff would be taken more seriously than it is in this bill?

I don't know.

We'll see.

We don't know what what they said.

But I was looking at uh people reporting what the big beautiful bill has in it because it got tweaked by the Senate a million times.

And you know, by the time it goes back to the House to see if they're okay with the Senate tweaks, we members of the public, we don't have any idea what's in that thing at this point.

So, I I thought, well, I'll dive in and I'll see, you know, just some obvious questions.

Like, one of the one of the things the bill allegedly does is it removes a tax on social security.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe the big beautiful bill uh eliminated taxes on social security?

Because I saw online that it does.

Well, probably not for me.

There there's some kind of an income uh cut off and you know, I would be above it.

So, if you're still working and you're you're getting a uh regular paycheck, it won't take much regular paycheck for you not to be eligible for the no tax on social security.

So, even something as simple as that, is there or is there not a tax on social security?

You would you would have to do sort of a deep dive to figure out where you stand in that.

Do you even know?

Do you even know if it applies to you?

Um, same with uh same with a number of other topics.

So, we've got this big beautiful bill that the public does not understand.

The pundits, some might, some won't.

But here's what I call the perfect situation.

You know, if you look at the incentive of the people in Congress and you say, "Are they doing it for the money or they doing it to keep their jobs?" You know, why do they vote the way they vote?

Well, I would submit to you that the ideal bill for Congress is one where the public doesn't understand anything about what's in it.

Because then both sides can criticize it, which is wildly, wildly misleading claims about what it does and doesn't do.

and the public will not really have the time or interest or even ability to look at the details of the bill.

And if you're if you're going to depend on watching the news or watching social media or watching even me and then oh well I'll watch my favorite pundits who seem really smart and they'll talk about the bill and then I'll know I'll know if I like it because the pundits said this or that is a good idea.

Do you think the pundits, even the ones that you agree with, do you think they understand what's in the bill and all the implications?

No, they don't.

Very a few might.

Very few might.

But you won't even know which the few are because the Republicans are all going to say the same thing.

If you talk to any Republican or anybody who supports Republicans and you say, "Did you cut Medicaid?" What will the Republican say?

They would say, "Cut Medicaid?" No, we protected it.

And then they would give their argument that you don't understand about well you know it's it's for a lot of the people kicked off would be migrants migrants and stuff and and then you would walk away saying oh nobody's being kicked off of Medicaid that's not even a thing.

It's just the people who shouldn't have been there.

waste and abuse, the the the non-citizens who should who you believe should not have been eligible, the people who refuse to work even though they're able-bodied.

And so you're going to go away with the Republican view of it that nothing got cut and in fact it got strengthened by protecting against abuse.

And then if you happen to be a Democrat and you watch any of the Democratleaning news or social media, it will say that there the mean old Republicans uh cut Medicaid and they won't they will not specify who got cut.

They'll just say it's a big ass number like 12 million or something.

And then they'll say, "Well, 12 million people will lose lose their health care." And they'll they'll act like it could be people, you know, and able-bodied people.

And neither of those I would say that neither of those takes are accurate.

It's just that you can say anything about a bill that people aren't going to look into on their own.

So the two sides will just have the two different movies running.

Which one's true?

I'd say neither.

You know, I I've heard the argument on both sides and then I've also read it, you know, what the news reports about it and I would say to me it looks like neither side is telling the truth, but they don't need to because they know that their people will accept their version as the truth and then they'll just parrot it because our opinions are assigned to us.

We don't come up with them on our own.

Anyway, um so I was looking at what it would do to my taxes and uh pretty good.

It looks like it might help me.

But then I look at the salt taxes.

Yeah.

The state and local taxes deduction that used to be there and then it was taken away.

taken away from the blue state residents like me and but now it's back but there are all these caps on it so it doesn't make any difference to me you know if your house is above a certain level or your income is you don't get any of those you don't get much or any of the salt benefits.

So everything's too complicated for anybody to understand.

We'll see if it gets passed.

The the most uh probably the the thing that is the most easy example of two movies on one screen is that the uh critics and at least some of these scoring organizations say that it will drive up the debt or up the deficit by over $3 trillion over time.

$3 trillion.

But the Trump administration would say they're not scoring it right because they're acting like nothing changes except the budget.

But what would really change is that the budget could be part of a larger effort to goose the economy Trump style until the economy is just clicking away like we've never seen it.

the GDP's up to, you know, five or seven or some number we've never even seen before.

And it's producing all this extra revenue that the the groups who do the analysis of the budget impact don't include because they just assume that the GDP does what it always does.

And the whole point of it is to goose the GDP so it doesn't do what it always did, but it does way better.

So, so Trump and and company would say it's going to reduce the deficit by two trillion.

So, now we have a $5 trillion gap between what the Democrats are being told the bill will do and what the Republicans are being told it will do.

So, will it cost you three trillion or will it save you two trillion?

Which one do you believe is true?

And the answer is, I don't know.

How would I know?

I mean, really, how would I know?

How would you know?

Because somebody that you don't know told you they did an analysis and they came up with a certain answer.

Would you believe that?

These are completely unknowable things at this point.

So, um I do think that if anyone except Trump had had said to me, we're going to goose the economy so much that we'll make extra money.

If anyone else had said that, I would not believe it for a second.

Because I would just think they're going to do normal stuff and get normal results.

But Trump, he does now have a solid track record of doing things that other people can't get done.

and achieving things that even if you were very pro.

Trump, you might have said to yourself, "Well, he's never going to get that done." And then he does.

So, he might be able to goose the economy like we've never seen before.

Certainly, he has all the tools to do that now.

And some of it is luck, but it all seems lined up at this point that maybe we could see an economy like we've just never seen before.

could happen.

And then maybe this would be the Republican best case scenario.

Maybe um when the upcoming budget process is um engaged, and that wouldn't be too many months from now.

I think it happens in a few months that that's where they do the big Doge cuts.

Maybe.

I mean, I feel like anything where you have to get 60 votes in the Senate will never happen, but maybe.

All right, see what else we have.

Uh, let's check in with what the Democrats are saying about the big beautiful bill.

Uh, Premila Japal, Representative Japal says, quote, "If they do succeed today," which means getting the big beautiful bill signed.

July 4th is going to be about uh apple pie kicking mom out of her nursing home and health care for no one.

And so she's telling she's telling her constituents that the bill will remove health care for everyone.

How many of the Democrat public will know that that's just not true or not close to true?

It's just miles away from being true.

How many will know that?

I don't know.

Probably the people who support her would not be looking into it.

And if they looked into it, they'd turn on MSNBC.

And MSNBC would say, "Oh yeah, here's this example of somebody who got kicked out of a nursing home." And they won't ask questions like, you know, "Were you supposed to be there in the first place?

You know, did you legally have access to this?" So that's her take.

However, I'm gonna give her persuasion points for being visual in her persuasion because listen, just listen to this thing she said kicking mom out of her nursing home.

That one you feel because you see your own mom and you see the building and you say to yourself, "Holy, what am I going to do if I don't have professionals taking care of her and somebody else paying the bill for it?" You know, I can't stay home from work.

I can't afford to do it on my own.

That one really hits.

So, I don't want to give her advice, but if you're talking about a budget and you can turn it into kicking mom out of her nursing home, which by the way is not close to anything that's really going to happen, but wow, that's that's visual persuasion right there.

Well, meanwhile, Trump says he's got a deal with Vietnam for trade in which u there would be no tariff when we sell into Vietnam, but they would still pay a 20% tariff for what they're selling into the US.

So that would be a Oh, and also the the bigger part is that uh they Vietnam would not be allowed to take Chinese products and just ship it through Vietnam.

So it looks like it came from Vietnam to avoid the uh higher tariffs.

Uh the US impos would impose extra tariffs on stuff that came from China first and that would be a 40% tariff.

So Vietnam agreed to that apparently.

So that's like a really big deal because it sort of validates what Trump was saying that we have the most valuable market.

So we can essentially charge other countries an entry fee just to have access to the market.

So Vietnam will pay well, you know, you could say that US companies are paying it, but the point is that it would suppress imports from Vietnam.

And sure enough, it it would put a price on access to American markets.

Um, there's a report.

Anyway, so what's what's the big deal about the Vietnam thing is if it's true, and it's probably too soon to know if it's the final deal, but if he really got this, it's going to validate everything he said.

It's just going to make him look like he was so right about tariffs that the other trade deals might hasten to, you know, make a deal maybe.

So Trump's having the best summer ever.

Um, speaking of which, allegedly, according to the Times of Israel, Hamas is satisfied with the Trump motivated ceasefire idea.

So that would mean that Israel said yes to a ceasefire for Gaza and that Hamas has agreed to the terms.

Do you believe that?

I'm going to put that in my category of too soon.

And I only see one source so far, Times of Israel.

Now, I'm not saying the Times of Israel is low credibility.

I'm just saying that this topic is low credibility.

That if you hear that Hamas agreed to do something reasonable, what should be your first response to that?

Should you say to yourself, "Wow, finally Hamas decided to be reasonable and make a deal." Or would it be more reasonable to say Hamas is never going to make a reasonable deal with anybody, so obviously the story can't be true?

I lean toward I don't think Hamas can make a reasonable deal with anybody.

So, I lean toward this not being a true story.

So, I'm not going to embrace it yet.

But it would be really impressive if Trump got this done right before the 4th of July.

Oh my goodness.

So, so my optimism wants it to be true because it would be incredible.

I mean, it would just be jaw-droppingly give me the Nobel Peace Prize.

Um, you know, that conversation is over forever.

Best president of all time.

Um, so I mean it'd be wonderful if it's true, but I'm going to bet against it at the moment.

Maybe it'll be true later.

Well, in a story that, you know, in I guess normal times would be the biggest story in the country, but it's just sort of a thing that passes by at this point.

CIA director John Rackcliffe.

Um, so he's head of the CIA.

The CIA did a analysis of the Russia collusion um prosecution against Trump.

I call it the Russia collusion hoax.

And what they concluded was that, and I love this because they concluded exactly what you and I thought was true.

So see how many of you say, "Uh, that's what I thought was the case from day one." So they say that uh John Brennan and Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals uh all so they could pursue Trump and try to drive him out of office with essentially just madeup And according to CIA director John Rackcliffe, the CIA can conclude that they were bad actors who tried to essentially overthrow the uh the election.

Now, when you saw Brennan and Clapper appear on, you know, all the networks that they appeared on during the time when the Russia collusion thing was at its peak, didn't you know that they were the two guys behind it?

and and that they had manipulated things.

Couldn't you tell every time they appeared on TV?

Because I could.

I just didn't want to say it out loud because I thought, well, I don't have evidence.

So, if you don't have evidence, you know, you don't want to get sued for liel or something.

But every time I saw Brennan and Clapper, they looked so obviously like they were lying.

and they were obviously the ones who had the most, you know, their hands on the levers of what happens and what doesn't happen.

It seemed really, really super glaringly obvious that they were trying to overthrow the country with their winged monkeys and the media supporting them.

So to me, this is just the oldest news in the world.

But the new part is that the CIA confirms it.

They looked into it.

So yes, these three guys, if you had Comey in there as the third, that they literally manipulated things and ignored things that they shouldn't have ignored and focused on things they shouldn't have focused on and they did it intentionally to Trump.

Now, I don't know what the criminal penalty is for that, but it's also part of the twin hoaxes at the moment.

Well, you know the story of the fine people hoax that was the the central tentpole hoax that was holding the Democrats together.

You know, no matter what they thought about their own bad politicians, you could always depend on a Democrat to believe the Fine People hoax.

And they would say things like, "Well, yeah, my side isn't doing so well, but at least they're not promoting neo-Nazis," which of course never happened in the real world.

Trump uh denounced them.

He did not promote them.

But as long as that hoax was there, Democrats could manipulate their base because they'd say, "Trump is worse.

Look at look at what he said in Charlottesville," which of course he did not say.

He said the opposite.

So that hoax was holding up all the other hoaxes and then it collapsed.

So what did they do?

They just put it in a new tenpole.

The new tenpole is January 6.

The January 6 quote insurrection.

And I was listening to CNN yesterday, I guess, and Anderson Cooper had some journalist on.

And the journalist was just so deep into the pure propaganda.

No, the 2020 election, the f the fact that Biden won is a fact.

It's a fact.

And do you know how he defended that he he alone apparently would know that the election was not rigged cuz it's a fact.

It's a fact.

You can't change it.

It's a fact.

But you know, there's nothing you can say because it's a fact.

It's just a fact.

And he would just say that over and over again until the idiots watching that network would say, "Well, I guess we know that for sure." To which I say, "How would anybody know that for sure?

Are you telling me that if our CIA tried to throw an election in another country that they get caught every time?

Are you telling me that they're not there's nobody involved in the United States politics or or intelligence or anywhere who would know how to cheat one of our elections?

How would we possibly know if somebody knew how to cheat the election and and whether they didn't?

You can't know what you don't know.

And how in the world do these journalists get off telling you it's a fact when nobody can know that?

That is a completely unknowable proposition.

Now, do I have proof that that election was rigged?

No.

No, I don't have any proof of that.

The only thing I know for sure with 100% certainty is that you couldn't know just by following the news.

Yeah.

What are you going to do?

You can tell if the election is good because the news said it was good.

Have you learned nothing about the news?

And then Anderson Cooper was, you know, agreeing with his guests.

You know, it's a fact.

It's a fact.

It's a fact.

Now, in order to sell that fact, they they have to get you to believe two ridiculous things.

One ridiculous thing is that anybody could know if an election was rigged or not rigged successfully because if something is rigged successfully by definition you wouldn't know.

That's what makes it successful.

And the other the other uh ridiculous assumption is that the people who protested and including Trump knew that the election was won by Biden and were simply pretending it didn't happen.

Pretending they were simply pretending that it was illegitimate election so that they could take over the country by what?

uh wandering around in a building and trespassing.

Is that how you take over a country?

So, the January 6 hoax has the two most ridiculous assumptions at its core that anybody could know if an election was rigged and that the people on January 6 believed that it was totally fairly went to Biden and that they were there to try to change it to Trump because of his authoritarian blah blah blah brainwashing propaganda.

It's a cult.

Oh my goodness.

It's the weakest it's the weakest hoax of all time because you don't even need to do any research to to know that those two problems exist, the ones I mentioned, but it's all they have.

So, the Democrats are a hoaxbased machine.

They need at least one tentpole hoax.

10pole hoax means it's the main one that makes all the other hoaxes look like they're reasonable.

Because all the other stuff that they say about Trump, just like the fine people hoax, where if they could sell that as being true, then any other accusation of being racist, sounded like it was true because you you say to yourself, well, if the main thing that that would make him a racist, the fine people hoax, if that main thing is true, it's really easy to believe all the other accusations because you've already established who he is.

So now they've taken that technique over to the insurrection and they'll say if you buy the fact that he was part of a, you know, knowing he had not been elected but trying to take the job anyway, then all of the other accusations about authoritarianism, they all sound true because you say to yourself, well, he tried to conquer the country and stay in office once.

So then they can sell you that he doesn't plan to leave after a second term, which you would never believe unless you had fallen for the tentpole hoax, which is that he had already tried once to conquer the country by telling his his followers to trespass and wander around in a building without any guns.

So anyway, beware the fine people hoax.

We we'll take care of that one.

I'll work on that one.

um the University of California system, so that's the system that is uh binds together all the various California universities has announced that boycots of Israel will be banned and that's because of pressure from Trump on funding.

Um, so now they're banning protests against Israel or boycots of Israel.

To which Glenn Greenwald might ask, um, are they now allowed to boycott everybody but Israel?

What if the University of California system um didn't say no if they decided to boycott some other country?

or do we do we really have laws now that are Israel specific and it's the one place you can't boycott?

I don't know.

So, while I'm certainly in favor of tamping down any signs of anti-semitism, I'm not sure if boycotting a country quite satisfies the anti-semitism claim.

Because I would wonder I would wonder, you know, it would make more sense if they said you can't boycott anybody.

You know, maybe universally should not be involved in boycotting.

Or if we said you can't boycott anybody who's an ally of the United States, that wouldn't be bad, would it?

because then it's not Israel specific, but it would include anybody who's an ally of the United States.

So, what happens if uh somebody wants to boycott Russia?

Still legal, still okay?

Or boycott China?

Don't Don't we always talk about not buying China stuff?

Effectively, you know, a boycott.

So, I guess we have laws now that apply to one country.

Um, let's see.

Uh, what else is happening?

Um, yeah, CNN is u announcing that the uh they're saying that CEOs are now admitting that there's going to be a lot of layoffs with AI.

Oh, no.

I'm sorry.

There's two opposite stories.

I'm confusing them.

Um, the positive story is that CNN is admitting that uh the number of layoffs under Trump have declined tremendously.

So, apparently the they went out of their way to say a story that was just unambiguously positive for Trump.

Again, I've been telling you CNN's making a legitimate attempt to include a little bit of both sides, which I had not seen before.

So, it is a change, but uh this is a good example of that, admitting that the number of layoffs under Trump are way down, down 49%.

But not all good news.

Meanwhile, a federal judge, let's see if you understand this better than I do because the legal stuff is just so far out of my domain.

But a federal judge in Washington DC just ruled that uh Trump does not have the power to declare that uh he's going to close the asylum process because it's turned into an invasion.

So the word invasion is the active word.

So Trump was saying that if it's an invasion um the federal government has responsibility of repelling it on behalf of the states and uh that's all he was doing.

The uh executive order closed the asylum process as his response to the quote invasion.

Now, the federal judge says um that invasion language doesn't give Trump any new powers that he didn't have before.

So, he doesn't really have that power.

And the part I don't understand is that the Supreme Court just ruled that a federal judge can't overrule something that applies to the entire country.

They can only do things that apply to their their domain.

So, how did this judge do the very thing that the Supreme Court just made illegal?

Well, it has something to do with declaring future asylum seekers a protected class.

And here's where I'm going to bow out.

Because if you understand the law well enough to know why that is a appropriate workaround to just simply declare them a class.

How exactly does that give him the power to do what the Supreme Court just said you guys can't do?

You can't you can't block something nationwide if you're a f just a federal judge.

Oh no.

We'll just declare that these people who might come in in the future are a protected class.

Somehow that works around it.

How's that work?

All right.

So, I'm a little bit confused by it.

I assume it'll go to the Supreme Court.

I assume the Supreme Court would say you can't do this trick to get around our ruling.

I don't know.

Maybe it would go the other way.

So listen to the people who know something about the law if you want to know more about that.

Meanwhile, James Carville, uh he says that he thinks that Trump's going to try to rig the midterm election.

Um and he says that uh Trump can't possibly win fair and square in the midterms because the big beautiful bill is about 25 points underwater in terms of popularity in the country in general.

Um and that's he's that Trump will have a massive defeat and he's not going to be able to handle that.

So that uh Trump will declare martial law or declare that there's some other national emergency.

so that he can throw out the results of the midterms.

Now, that's what James Garville says.

Now, that would be an example of um getting your base all riled up, but it does seem to suggest that he believes that you could rig an election.

So, can he talk to Anderson Cooper on CNN?

Cuz he believes that an election can be rigged, but maybe not by rigging the vote.

I think he's suggesting that he might rig something about the system, you know, declaring an emergency or martial law or something, which would be more overthrowing an election than rigging it.

Um, going back to Representative Japal, here's what she's saying on CNN.

He she says, "What is deranged and cruel and outrageous is that literally we're seeing literally like literally actually happening.

We're seeing ICE agents and they're coming and kidnapping and disappearing people on the streets of the United States.

Is that happening?

Are they kidnapping and disappearing um people or just people who are illegal and shouldn't be here in the first place?

Well, probably their net is picking up more people than you thought they would.

So, there is a little bit of that.

So, this is hyperbole.

Of course, there's no kidnapping and there's no disappearing.

But I can definitely see that the aggressive approach to immigration um is going to pick up some people who are not the worst of the worst and they will get shipped off to who knows where.

So my take on this is that it does transfer a burden from the the legal citizens of the United States and their their risk would be having too many people come in who were not vetted.

It shifts the burden to the people who have already come in illegally.

Now I don't mind shifting burden from the people who are obeying the law to the people who did not obey the law.

That's it does seem, you know, my my empathy gene kicks in and I definitely have empathy for the population that is being most affected.

I have lots of empathy.

Um, but from a conceptual level, philosophically, shifting the burden from the people who are doing everything right to the people who are trying to get a little extra from the system, that doesn't seem terrible.

even though it does have a price.

Um, there's this guy Eli Mistell, you've seen him.

He looks like he has the big white afro and uh he's often on MSNBC.

Well, he was on Joy Reed's podcast and he said that uh that America is the bad guys on the world stage and a menace to free and peaceful people because America is the one causing all the trouble.

To which I say, well, that's sort of true, but I would say that America pursues its national best interest, which is often tied to its multinational profitability.

And uh that's not really pleasant for the rest of the world.

But every country gets the opportunity to pursue their own best interest.

We don't complain too much when other countries do it.

We just say, "Well, obviously everybody pursues their own best interests." So yeah, we're sort of the bad guys to other countries because we're doing the same thing they're doing, pursuing our own best interests.

So, he's kind of right and kind of wrong at the same time.

CNN's Harry Enon was uh blown away, as was I, by new data showing that Democrats have shifted massively from being pro-Israel to being pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

And the shift is enormous.

Um, it's a the uh the pro Palestinian position is up by 43 points.

43 points.

In other words, it's not even close.

That it's one of the few issues where where it's just not close.

So, the Democrats are just anti-Israel, pro Palestinian, and the Republicans.

I haven't seen the Republican numbers, but probably not that.

My guess is that the Republicans are still pro-Israel by a majority, but I don't know.

So, obviously, the Gaza situation um and the military might that Israel has been employing with US support is not popular, but I didn't see that it could ever move that much.

So apparently the uh um something big is happening.

I don't know if it's a Tik Tok effect, a social media effect, but if you take the Gaza situation and you put it all over Tik Tok and social media, I can see how you could turn half of the country, you know, 180.

Looks like that's what happened.

According to the Wall Street Journal, there's a bunch of CEOs who are now saying that AI will vastly reduce the number of jobs.

Now remember, at the moment, the number of jobs is looking good.

So employment looks pretty good and we've had AI for kind of two years and so far not really any direct effect on the overall job situation.

definitely affect some individual companies, but overall employment stayed strong.

Um, and I'm wondering if this is an example of the Adams law of slowmoving disasters where if everyone can see the problem coming like all these CEOs, um, I think the the CEO of Anthropic, which is an AI company, says we'll see unemployment levels of 10 to 20% from AI replacing people.

Now that would be unemployment of 20%.

That's depression level, isn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think even the Great Depression was around 20% unemployment.

That's hard to survive that level.

Um, and that I think uh CEO of what Ford says that half of all white collar workers might be replaced by AI.

But I'm going to be a little bit skeptical about these predictions.

I think it's a little bit too obvious and easy to say that oh AI will replace a bunch of workers.

It, you know, if you're wrong, nobody's going to be mad at you.

they'll just be happy that nothing bad happened.

And if you're right, you get to say, "Look how right I was." So, it's sort of a safe, easy, routine thing to predict.

Oh, yeah.

The AI will take half our jobs.

But so far, um, I I feel like it will definitely take jobs in some businesses, and some industries, but I don't know.

I feel like maybe as many jobs will be created as there are taken away.

We'll see.

I'm a skeptic.

I'm a loss.

Um, apparently in LA there's some kind of u $30 minimum wage hike that was passed by the city council.

So, if you have a hotel in LA, you would have to pay all of your workers a minimum of $30 an hour.

Now, the federal minimum wage is still like $7.50, but a lot of states have higher higher ones, like $15 maybe.

I don't know what it is in California.

Is it $15 minimum wage?

But for the hotels, it would be $30 minimum wage.

And of course, the hotels are saying they can't survive that.

And maybe they can't.

Well, let's talk about uh Jerome Powell.

Does it feel to you that Jerome Powell has that Joe Biden vibe now?

When I see pictures of Jerome Powell, he doesn't look like he still has his fast.

Now, it's still only based on the videos and the pictures.

It's not even based on anything he says or believes or anything like that.

It's based on just the vibe.

He's got that Joe Biden, you know, I stayed in the job too long vibe.

But uh Bill Py is pointing out that when uh Powell testified uh to the Senate Banking Committee, so that's a testimony under oath I think um that he had answered some questions um dishonestly and the questions were involved a new building that was being built for the Fed and he was being asked about some of the alleged luxuries that were being built into the building, I'll call them luxuries, like a rooftop garden and some stuff like that.

And that he must have said that they're not planning that.

And now we know that maybe that is part of the plan.

So if he lied to Congress, is that grounds for removing him from the Fed?

Because it was a big project.

It was I think it was over a billion dollars in construction that they were looking at.

Well, Bill Py has called this out as uh potential grounds for removing him along with being too late about everything.

So, and then Trump has uh agreed with that um put to put more pressure on Powell.

Um there's new video of this Zoran Mani guy back in 2021.

We already saw the video where he said that the ultimate goal is seizing the means of production which confirms that he's a communist, not not just a socialist, but actually wants to go full communist, seizing the means of production.

In other words, the government owning all the factories and the the productions.

I don't know.

But apparently he's he also in the similar video in 2021 said something about um I think the government taking over the pen houses and turning them into lowcost housing.

So basically getting rid of private ownership of residential homes.

Now, you might argue that there's no such thing as private ownership of homes in the United States because if you're paying property tax, which you are, um if you stop paying the property tax, you you'd be uh you jailed by the government.

So, I you know, you could argue that we already don't have private ownership of business, but it's closer to private than the idea of the government owning it directly.

So yes, uh, Mom Donnie with his creepy communist smile.

That smile that every time you see it, you say to yourself, "Wait a minute, that smile looks like a snake oil salesman.

Somebody is trying to put one over on me." He has the least trustable face because of that weird smile, the creepy communist smile.

Um, so we'll see if that becomes an issue.

Well, Newsmax is talking about how the Washington Post has a big um opinion piece about how Trump can lead the US to a nuclear energy revolution by supporting innovation and removing bureaucratic stuff and red tape and stuff.

Now, hold that in your brain.

Do you remember 2016 or so when I was one of the people on social media who was lobbying really hard for both sides of the aisle to understand that nuclear power was not just better than you thought it was in terms of safety and economics etc.

but required that we would never make it into the future as an important country unless we had turned around completely our nuclear energy policies and made them, you know, pro- nuclear power plants being built.

So that's now the common opinion on both the left and the right because the Washington Post opinion piece would represent I think the left fully embracing you know maybe not the left left left but the ordinary left embracing nuclear power as a requirement but also the fact that they would write an article saying that Trump might be exactly the right person to get us there because he's he's big on removing the, you know, the unnecessary regulations.

Um, that's amazing.

It's just amazing that this even exists in the Washington Post.

And then I said to myself, oh, wait a minute.

Did the Washington Post just think from, you know, first principles and came to this idea that now they can be fullthroatedly embracing nuclear energy.

Is that what just happened?

Or or is it possible that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos?

It is.

And that Jeff Bezos needs massive amounts of electricity to run his robot factories and his own AI.

Oh yeah.

So the owner of the Washington Post absolutely cannot survive in the future without massive nuclear power and every other kind of energy.

So, did the Washington Post on their own come up with a new love for nuclear energy or or do they know who they work for and they know that the business of the owner, you know, the extended business of all of his businesses can't survive without a robust nuclear energy industry in the United States.

Just asking All right.

According to modernity, John Fleetwood, uh the Xfinity company, the one who provides cable and Wi-Fi to your house, at least uh does in my house, um they now can spy on your physical movements in your house via your Wi-Fi.

So, you've probably seen stories about this where uh Wi-Fi can see interference and it can draw a little picture of where you are in your house.

Did you know that?

Now, that's not a big problem except there's an allegation that Palunteer, which is a big uh you know government contracted company, um that has connections to a whole bunch of data about you.

So, are you do you feel okay that Palunteer might I don't know this for sure, but might someday have access to the Wi-Fi movement information so they could tell where you are in your house and maybe even decisions about what you might be doing and what you might do in the future.

I don't know how much of this is real and how much of this is people just worrying that it could become real, but it's pretty scary.

So, I don't know if it's real or just a potential real thing.

It is real that they can determine where you are.

So, even even Xfinity is advertising that.

What we don't know or I don't know is if Palenter is going to have access to that data and use it in some way you don't like.

All right.

Um, Fox News is reporting how the IAEA uh has warned that Iran could restart their uranium enrichment within months despite the US strikes.

So, do you buy that?

So, even Iran has admitted that the nuclear program was hit hard and you know a lot of destruction.

But do you believe the IAEA who are experts in this field that they could start enriching in a few months?

I don't know.

I don't know how they would know that.

But we also wouldn't know what they can do that we don't know about.

So I don't know.

So anyway, a part some part bipartisan lawmakers, people on both sides have proposed that we put together a plan to sell B2 stealth bombers to Israel so that we don't have to be involved if Israel wants to rebomb Iran.

Is that a good idea or a terrible idea?

Because I feel like Trump got a lot of benefit from being the only one who could do these bunker buster bombs.

If Israel could do it on its own, then Trump would have had no leverage over Israel, right?

And we like it when um you know, because we know Israel is influential in the United States in Congress.

Wouldn't it be good if there was some influence that worked both ways and it was pretty strong influence?

Cuz then you've got a more productive, you know, ally situation where you're both you both got your hand on a lever and uh sometimes one prevails and sometimes the other, but you know, you're both pushing.

I don't know.

I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea.

Um, there's another report in Newsmax that North Korea is going to be sending 25,000 25,000 soldiers to boost the uh the Russian military in Ukraine.

25 to 30,000 more.

Is that because Russia is running out of troops?

Or whether they were running out or not, it's just cheaper and easier to burn up these North Korean soldiers who don't even know why they're there.

So, it could be either one.

I'm not sure I'd read too much into it.

All right, that is all I have to say today.

And look how I came pretty close to 8:00.

So, did uh the big beautiful bill get voted on?

You remember my prediction?

My prediction is that they would delay it after January 1 or after July 4th.

Um, so I don't have a prediction about whether it get signed, just a prediction that they're not going to make the July 4th deadline.

They tried and I think there's still a really good chance they're going to hit it.

So, we'll we'll compare my prediction that they won't hit it to all the reporting that's a lot smarter than me that says, "Yeah, it looks like they're going to hit it." So, uh I see in the comments that, uh Jack Pobec thinks it will happen today.

I think most people think it will happen today because Trump's going to put the pressure from hell on the Republicans.

Trump really, really, really, really wants this to happen before July 4th or even on July 4th.

Um, and he's going to push as hard as anybody ever pushed anybody, but anything to get it done.

So, I would agree with Jack that the odds are it'll get done, but I'm still going to go with my prediction that it won't u just to be a contrarian.

All right.

All right.

That's all I got.

I'm going to say a few words to the people on locals, my beloved subscribers on locals.

The rest of you, thanks for joining and I will see you again tomorrow.

Same time, same place.

Hope you enjoyed it.

Good to see you. Have you lost weight?

You're looking great this morning. Come

on in. I got a show for you. It's just

for you.

Just for you. Let's check your uh stock

market first. Well, stock market is up.

Good.

Good. People are feeling patriotic and

all that.

All right. While you're streaming in,

let me get my comments working on

locals.

[Music]

[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 try to take this

experience up to levels that no one

could possibly understand with their

tiny shiny human brains, all you need

for that is

a copper mug or a glass of tankered

shelter inside a canteen jug or flask

vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. and join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

the dopamine hit of the day. The thing

that makes everything better. It's

called the simultaneous sip. That's

right. Go.

Oh, it's just as good as I imagined it

would be.

Well, I wonder if there's any science

that they didn't need to do. if they had

just asked Scott. Uh, oh, here's

something from Aros University.

Um, the myth is busted. They say that

men do not sleep through a baby crying

um more than a woman.

Did

Did any of you believe that men and

women have different ability to hear a

crying baby?

Well, I didn't doubt it, but I did

imagine that men are better at

pretending to be asleep and not hearing

a baby. It turns out that women still do

three times as much of the baby tending

at night.

And uh much of that has to do with the

fact that all men across the planet have

agreed. It's sort of a silent agreement

we all have. Even if you don't have

children, you know the agreement, right,

guys? You know what I'm talking about,

right? That's right. As long as we all

pretend that men can't hear crying

babies,

we can continue to stay in bed while

your spouse goes off to check on the

crying baby because she thinks you can't

hear it and she doesn't want to wake you

up.

So, shh, don't say anything. We're all

in this together, guys.

Well, the Wall Street Journal was doing

a hit piece on Tesla and Musk. Um, I no

longer see the news as purely the news.

It all has this, you know, real overt

and obvious political element to it

depending on the story. But anything

about uh Tesla and Elon Musk that comes

out around now

is definitely going to have a political

bend to it. But listen to this headline.

This is the Wall Street Journal

and this is their uh their opinion piece

here. It says Tesla is in disarray.

Is it? Do you think Tesla is in

disarray?

What? What evidence would you have that

Tesla's in disarray?

All right. Um, and that Musk has already

moved beyond caring about cars.

And so the idea is that he's shifted his

focus to robots and and robo taxis and

he's letting the Tesla car company um

disintegrate in disarray. Now, how would

they know any of that? Are they in the

meetings? Do they have some kind of

source that's sleeping in a tent with

them at the AI headquarters?

Because, you know, he's spending a lot

of time there lately. Um, I don't think

there's any real evidence

that he has the suddenly he has the

inability to run all of his companies

when obviously he was doing it before.

Did Did he suddenly lose his ability to

deal with multiple problems at the same

time? I doubt it,

but but apparently if you Wall Street

Journal, you can just sort of declare

that you know what he's he's thinking

and how he feels and what his inner

thoughts are.

Anyway, there but it is true that their

sales were down but we're talking about

the period where politics were affecting

everybody's buying decision.

So if you just project forward, you

know, a couple of years, do you think

people will still not be buying a Tesla

because they don't like what Trump did

with or what must with Doge?

I don't know if this is some kind of a a

lifetime problem.

Um, feels to me that if if he keeps

making cars that are unambiguously

better than the other cars,

that's going to have an effect on the

market over time. So, we'll see. But

also, the uh value of Tesla does have a

lot built into it about the optimism

about robots and robo taxis. So

um it might be true that the Tesla

ordinary car part of the company is now

where all the value will be in just a

few short years. That's what the market

thinks that the that the value is in the

future stuff. And it's probably true

because I do agree with uh Elon Musk who

says that the humanoid robot market will

be maybe the biggest market of any

market of all time and Tesla might be

leading that. Well, Sean Diddy Combmes

has some good luck and some bad luck.

Good news, bad news. Good news for Diddy

is that he was acquitted on the most

serious charges

um in the multi-charge case. The most

serious ones would have given him

potentially life in prison, but those

the jury found not guilty by unanimous

decision.

But he's still in jail and he's not

getting bail

because he was found guilty on two

lesser charges which uh as I listen to

the people who know what they're talking

about which does not include me for any

of the legal stuff. the uh people who

know what they're talking about say that

um generally the crimes he's he's uh

he's been convicted of now that that

they don't even prosecute that generally

because it's so small

that if this were someone else and the

only thing he'd been alleged to have

done are the things he was found guilty

of probably they wouldn't even take it

to court. Um, I think it was

basically technically prostitution

with women who clearly were um,

according to their own text messages,

um, women who

were consensually involved.

That's it. Now, I don't, you know,

obviously I'm the worst one to talk

about the legal stuff, but what I I

think is true is that he was accused of

a technical crime in which there was no

there's no alleged victim because the

victim

has a text record of being consensually

involved in all that stuff.

So,

so I asked a question on X. Is it too

soon to talk about a pardon?

Because here's my take.

I'm not defending Diddy. I'm not I'm not

a fan of his work and I certainly would

not defend him beating up his ex in the

hallway of the hotel. But that wasn't

apparently he wasn't being tried for

that. I don't understand why. Seems like

that would have been the obvious thing

to try him on. But again, probably

because the woman was not pressing

charges. Do you even need to press

charges if it's on video and we can all

see it? I don't know how that works. But

so just to be clear, I don't think he's

a good guy. And I'm sure he's been

involved in things which if we knew for

sure what he was doing, we'd say to

ourselves, M. H that looks pretty bad.

All right, so I'm not defending him, but

I will defend the following standard,

which is you don't treat Diddy worse

than you would treat anybody else. And

it sort of looks like they're treating

him worse than they would treat other

people.

Um because if someone else had been

accused and convicted of only these

things,

um we'll find out. If the judge gives

him serious jail time for what he's been

convicted of, I feel like a pardon is

completely in order. And Trump was asked

about it. Steve Ducey asked about it in

one of Trump's uh open oval office

events just yesterday, I think. And

Trump said he, you know, wasn't really

paying attention to the case. So, he

didn't have an opinion on it. But I

always forget

that Trump had lots of interesting

friends in the past. He lost a lot of

them when he ran for office. But he

actually was friendly with Diddy.

So, it's not a stranger for Trump. It's

somebody he knows pretty well. But, you

know, I guess did he probably changed

when Trump ran for office. So Trump did

not rule out, but he had also not looked

into pardoning, did he?

Now, depending on what I hear, you know,

about what's going on with him, um, I

might be in favor of the pardon,

uh, it's probably too soon to have a

hard opinion on it, but I wouldn't want

to see him treated in a way that would

not be normal for anybody else to be

treated. that that seems like a

reasonable standard. Um, so we'll see.

Anyway, why in the world does he not get

bail?

Does anyone know why he doesn't get

bail? The judge's reasons were that he

that he can't demonstrate that he is not

a danger to the community.

Who who can do that? You know what I

can't do? I can't demonstrate that I'm

not a danger to the community. Can you?

How would you possibly demonstrate that?

You could demonstrate what you are

perhaps simply by being that, but how do

you how do you demonstrate that you

would not do something dangerous?

That's not even a real thing. And they

also say is a flight risk. To which I

say, a flight risk?

Really? How in the world would he get on

a flight? I guess a private flight. But

he doesn't seem like a flight risk to

me. He seems like somebody who worst

case scenario might serve another year

or two and then he's back in business.

So, is that a flight risk? I don't know.

He served a year.

If he if they told him that, you know,

his record would be cleared and he could

go back to his good life if he served

one or two more, would that be enough

for him to make him leave the country

and become, you know, live in some place

where they don't have an extradition

treaty, which wouldn't be fun. I don't

know.

So, keep an eye on that.

So, give me an update. Uh the big

beautiful bill allegedly there was going

to be a vote this morning

and is postponed.

Um the early reporting is that uh they

had the votes so they hadn't done the

vote but they they knew that they had

the commitments for the vote to get it

passed. Um and of course that was after

Trump had private conversations with

some of the holdouts. Wouldn't you love

to have been a fly on the wall listening

to Trump convince the final holdowns?

Do you think there was any threatening

going on?

Probably. There was probably a lot of

threatening going on. Uh some would call

it blackmail, but I think it was just if

you don't vote for this, you know, I

will destroy you. But it also might have

been, and I think this is more likely,

well, maybe equally likely, uh, it might

be equally likely true, that Trump

convinced them that they'll do some

serious deficit reduction in the

upcoming budget process, which is a

bigger a bigger process.

So, do you think they got the hold downs

got a commitment that some of the Doge

stuff would be taken more seriously than

it is in this bill? I don't know. We'll

see. We don't know what what they said.

But I was looking at uh people reporting

what the big beautiful bill has in it

because it got tweaked by the Senate a

million times. And you know, by the time

it goes back to the House to see if

they're okay with the Senate tweaks,

we members of the public, we don't have

any idea what's in that thing at this

point. So, I I thought, well, I'll dive

in and I'll see, you know, just some

obvious questions. Like, one of the one

of the things the bill allegedly does is

it removes a tax on social security.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe the big beautiful bill

uh eliminated taxes on social security?

Because I saw online that it does.

Well, probably not for me.

There there's some kind of an income

uh cut off and you know, I would be

above it. So, if you're still working

and you're you're getting a uh regular

paycheck,

it won't take much regular paycheck for

you not to be eligible for the no tax on

social security.

So, even something as simple as that, is

there or is there not a tax on social

security? You would you would have to do

sort of a deep dive to figure out where

you stand in that. Do you even know? Do

you even know if it applies to you? Um,

same with uh same with a number of other

topics. So, we've got this big beautiful

bill that the public does not

understand. The pundits, some might,

some won't. But here's what I call the

perfect situation.

You know, if you look at the incentive

of the people in Congress and you say,

"Are they doing it for the money or they

doing it to keep their jobs?" You know,

why do they vote the way they vote?

Well, I would submit to you that the

ideal bill for Congress is one where the

public doesn't understand anything about

what's in it. Because then both sides

can criticize it, which is wildly,

wildly misleading claims about what it

does and doesn't do. and the public will

not really have the time or interest or

even ability to look at the details of

the bill.

And if you're if you're going to depend

on watching the news or watching social

media or watching even me and then oh

well I'll watch my favorite pundits who

seem really smart and they'll talk about

the bill and then I'll know I'll know if

I like it because the pundits said this

or that is a good idea. Do you think the

pundits, even the ones that you agree

with, do you think they understand

what's in the bill and all the

implications?

No, they don't.

Very a few might. Very few might. But

you won't even know which the few are

because the Republicans are all going to

say the same thing. If you talk to any

Republican or anybody who supports

Republicans and you say, "Did you cut

Medicaid?"

What will the Republican say?

They would say, "Cut Medicaid?" No, we

protected it.

And then they would give their argument

that you don't understand about well you

know it's it's for

a lot of the people kicked off would be

migrants migrants and stuff and

[Music]

and then you would walk away saying oh

nobody's being kicked off of Medicaid

that's not even a thing. It's just the

people who shouldn't have been there.

waste and abuse, the the the

non-citizens who should who you believe

should not have been eligible, the

people who refuse to work even though

they're able-bodied. And so you're going

to go away with the Republican view of

it that nothing got cut and in fact it

got strengthened by protecting against

abuse.

And then if you happen to be a Democrat

and you watch any of the Democratleaning

news or social media, it will say that

there the mean old Republicans

uh cut Medicaid and they won't they will

not specify who got cut. They'll just

say it's a big ass number like 12

million or something. And then they'll

say, "Well, 12 million people will lose

lose their health care." And they'll

they'll act like it could be people, you

know, and able-bodied people.

And neither of those I would say that

neither of those takes

are accurate.

It's just that you can say anything

about a bill that people aren't going to

look into on their own. So the two sides

will just have the two different movies

running. Which one's true?

I'd say neither. You know, I I've heard

the argument on both sides and then I've

also read it, you know, what the news

reports about it and I would say to me

it looks like neither side is telling

the truth, but they don't need to

because they know that their people will

accept their version as the truth and

then they'll just parrot it because our

opinions are assigned to us. We don't

come up with them on our own.

Anyway, um

so I was looking at what it would do to

my taxes and uh pretty good.

It looks like it might help me. But then

I look at the salt taxes. Yeah. The

state and local taxes deduction that

used to be there and then it was taken

away. taken away from the blue state

residents like me and but now it's back

but there are all these caps on it so it

doesn't make any difference to me you

know if your house is above a certain

level or your income is you don't get

any of those you don't get much or any

of the salt benefits.

So everything's too complicated for

anybody to understand. We'll see if it

gets passed. The the most uh

probably the the thing that is the most

easy example of two movies on one screen

is that the uh critics and at least some

of these scoring organizations

say that it will drive up the debt or up

the deficit by over $3 trillion over

time. $3 trillion. But the Trump

administration would say they're not

scoring it right because they're acting

like nothing changes except the budget.

But what would really change is that the

budget could be part of a larger effort

to goose the economy Trump style until

the economy is just clicking away like

we've never seen it. the GDP's up to,

you know, five or seven or some number

we've never even seen before. And it's

producing all this extra revenue that

the the groups who do the analysis of

the budget impact don't include because

they just assume that the GDP does what

it always does. And the whole point of

it is to goose the GDP so it doesn't do

what it always did, but it does way

better.

So, so Trump and and company would say

it's going to reduce the deficit by two

trillion. So, now we have a $5 trillion

gap between what the Democrats are being

told the bill will do and what the

Republicans are being told it will do.

So, will it cost you three trillion or

will it save you two trillion? Which one

do you believe is true? And the answer

is, I don't know.

How would I know? I mean, really, how

would I know? How would you know?

Because somebody that you don't know

told you they did an analysis and they

came up with a certain answer. Would you

believe that? These are completely

unknowable things at this point. So,

um I do think

that if anyone except Trump had had said

to me, we're going to goose the economy

so much that we'll make extra money. If

anyone else had said that, I would not

believe it for a second. Because I would

just think they're going to do normal

stuff and get normal results. But Trump,

he does now have a solid track record of

doing things that other people can't get

done. and achieving things that even if

you were very proTrump, you might have

said to yourself, "Well, he's never

going to get that done." And then he

does. So, he might be able to goose the

economy like we've never seen before.

Certainly, he has all the tools to do

that now. And some of it is luck, but it

all seems lined up at this point that

maybe we could see an economy like we've

just never seen before.

could happen.

And then maybe this would be the

Republican best case scenario. Maybe

um when the upcoming budget process

is um engaged, and that wouldn't be too

many months from now. I think it happens

in a few months that that's where they

do the big Doge cuts. Maybe. I mean, I

feel like anything where you have to get

60 votes in the Senate will never

happen, but maybe.

All right,

see what else we have. Uh,

let's check in with what the Democrats

are saying about the big beautiful bill.

Uh, Premila Japal,

Representative Japal says, quote, "If

they do succeed today," which means

getting the big beautiful bill signed.

July 4th is going to be about uh

apple pie kicking mom out of her nursing

home and health care for no one.

And so she's telling she's telling her

constituents that the bill will remove

health care for everyone.

How many of the Democrat public will

know that that's just not true or not

close to true? It's just miles away from

being true. How many will know that? I

don't know.

Probably the people who support her

would not be looking into it. And if

they looked into it, they'd turn on

MSNBC.

And MSNBC would say, "Oh yeah, here's

this example of somebody who got kicked

out of a nursing home." And they won't

ask questions like, you know, "Were you

supposed to be there in the first place?

You know, did you legally have access to

this?"

So that's her take. However, I'm gonna

give her persuasion points for being

visual in her persuasion because listen,

just listen to this thing she said

kicking mom out of her nursing home.

That one you feel because you see your

own mom and you see the building and you

say to yourself, "Holy, what am I going

to do if I don't have professionals

taking care of her and somebody else

paying the bill for it?" You know, I

can't stay home from work. I can't

afford to do it on my own. That one

really hits. So, I don't want to give

her advice, but if you're talking about

a budget and you can turn it into

kicking mom out of her nursing home,

which by the way is not close to

anything that's really going to happen,

but wow, that's that's visual persuasion

right there.

Well, meanwhile, Trump says he's got a

deal with Vietnam for trade in which u

there would be no tariff when we sell

into Vietnam, but they would still pay a

20% tariff for what they're selling into

the US. So that would be a Oh, and also

the the bigger part is that uh they

Vietnam would not be allowed to take

Chinese products and just ship it

through Vietnam. So it looks like it

came from Vietnam to avoid the uh higher

tariffs. Uh the US impos would impose

extra tariffs on stuff that came from

China first and that would be a 40%

tariff. So Vietnam agreed to that

apparently. So that's like a really big

deal because it sort of validates what

Trump was saying that we have the most

valuable market. So we can essentially

charge other countries an entry fee just

to have access to the market. So Vietnam

will pay well, you know, you could say

that US companies are paying it, but the

point is that it would suppress imports

from Vietnam.

And sure enough, it it would put a price

on access to American markets.

Um,

there's a report. Anyway, so what's

what's the big deal about the Vietnam

thing is if it's true, and it's probably

too soon to know if it's the final deal,

but if he really got this, it's going to

validate everything he said. It's just

going to make him look like he was so

right about tariffs that the other trade

deals might hasten to, you know, make a

deal maybe.

So Trump's having the best summer ever.

Um, speaking of which, allegedly,

according to the Times of Israel, Hamas

is satisfied with the Trump motivated

ceasefire idea. So that would mean that

Israel said yes to a ceasefire for Gaza

and that Hamas has agreed to the terms.

Do you believe that? I'm going to put

that in my category of too soon. And I

only see one source so far, Times of

Israel. Now, I'm not saying the Times of

Israel

is low credibility. I'm just saying that

this topic is low credibility. That if

you hear that Hamas agreed to do

something reasonable, what should be

your first response to that? Should you

say to yourself, "Wow, finally Hamas

decided to be reasonable and make a

deal." Or would it be more reasonable to

say Hamas is never going to make a

reasonable deal with anybody,

so obviously the story can't be true? I

lean toward I don't think Hamas can make

a reasonable deal with anybody.

So, I lean toward this not being a true

story. So, I'm not going to embrace it

yet. But it would be really impressive

if Trump got this done right before the

4th of July. Oh my goodness.

So, so my optimism wants it to be true

because it would be incredible. I mean,

it would just be jaw-droppingly

give me the Nobel Peace Prize. Um, you

know, that conversation is over forever.

Best president of all time.

Um, so I mean it'd be wonderful if it's

true, but I'm going to bet against it at

the moment. Maybe it'll be true later.

Well, in a story that, you know, in I

guess normal times would be the biggest

story in the country, but it's just sort

of a thing that passes by at this point.

CIA director John Rackcliffe.

Um, so he's head of the CIA. The CIA did

a analysis of the Russia collusion

um prosecution against Trump. I call it

the Russia collusion hoax. And what they

concluded was that, and I love this

because they concluded exactly what you

and I thought was true. So see how many

of you say, "Uh, that's what I thought

was the case from day one." So they say

that uh John Brennan and Clapper and

Comey manipulated intelligence and

silenced career professionals

uh all so they could pursue Trump and

try to drive him out of office with

essentially just madeup

And according to CIA director John

Rackcliffe, the CIA can conclude

that they were bad actors who tried to

essentially overthrow the uh the

election.

Now, when you saw Brennan and Clapper

appear on, you know, all the networks

that they appeared on during the time

when the Russia collusion thing was at

its peak,

didn't you know that they were the two

guys behind it? and and that they had

manipulated things.

Couldn't you tell every time they

appeared on TV? Because I could. I just

didn't want to say it out loud because I

thought, well, I don't have evidence.

So, if you don't have evidence, you

know, you don't want to get sued for

liel or something.

But every time I saw Brennan and

Clapper,

they looked so obviously like they were

lying. and they were obviously the ones

who had the most, you know, their hands

on the levers of what happens and what

doesn't happen. It seemed really, really

super glaringly obvious that they were

trying to overthrow the country with

their winged monkeys and the media

supporting them.

So to me, this is just the oldest news

in the world. But the new part is that

the CIA confirms it. They looked into

it. So yes, these three guys, if you had

Comey in there as the third, that they

literally manipulated things and ignored

things that they shouldn't have ignored

and focused on things they shouldn't

have focused on and they did it

intentionally

to

Trump.

Now, I don't know what the criminal

penalty is for that, but it's also part

of the twin hoaxes

at the moment. Well, you know the story

of the fine people hoax that was the the

central tentpole hoax that was holding

the Democrats together. You know, no

matter what they thought about their own

bad politicians, you could always depend

on a Democrat to believe the Fine People

hoax. And they would say things like,

"Well, yeah, my side isn't doing so

well, but at least they're not promoting

neo-Nazis,"

which of course never happened in the

real world. Trump uh denounced them. He

did not promote them.

But as long as that hoax was there,

Democrats could manipulate their base

because they'd say, "Trump is worse.

Look at look at what he said in

Charlottesville," which of course he did

not say. He said the opposite.

So that hoax was holding up all the

other hoaxes

and then it collapsed.

So what did they do? They just put it in

a new tenpole. The new tenpole is

January 6. The January 6 quote

insurrection.

And I was listening to CNN yesterday, I

guess, and Anderson Cooper had some

journalist on. And the journalist was

just so deep into the pure propaganda.

No, the 2020 election, the f the fact

that Biden won is a fact. It's a fact.

And do you know how he defended that he

he alone apparently would know that the

election was not rigged cuz it's a fact.

It's a fact. You can't change it. It's a

fact. But you know, there's nothing you

can say because it's a fact. It's just a

fact. And he would just say that over

and over again until the idiots watching

that network would say, "Well, I guess

we know that for sure." To which I say,

"How would anybody know that for sure?

Are you telling me that if our CIA tried

to throw an election in another country

that they get caught every time?

Are you telling me that they're not

there's nobody involved in the United

States politics or or intelligence or

anywhere who would know how to cheat one

of our elections?

How would we possibly know if somebody

knew how to cheat the election and and

whether they didn't? You can't know what

you don't know.

And how in the world do these

journalists get off telling you it's a

fact when nobody can know that? That is

a completely unknowable proposition.

Now, do I have proof that that election

was rigged? No. No, I don't have any

proof of that. The only thing I know for

sure with 100% certainty is that you

couldn't know just by following the

news.

Yeah. What are you going to do? You can

tell if the election is good because the

news said it was good. Have you learned

nothing about the news?

And then Anderson Cooper was, you know,

agreeing with his guests. You know, it's

a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. Now,

in order to sell that fact, they they

have to get you to believe two

ridiculous things.

One ridiculous thing is that anybody

could know if an election was rigged or

not rigged successfully

because if something is rigged

successfully

by definition you wouldn't know. That's

what makes it successful.

And the other the other uh ridiculous

assumption is that the people who

protested and including Trump knew that

the election

was won by Biden and were simply

pretending it didn't happen. Pretending

they were simply pretending

that it was illegitimate election so

that they could take over the country by

what?

uh wandering around in a building and

trespassing.

Is that how you take over a country?

So, the January 6 hoax has the two most

ridiculous

assumptions at its core that anybody

could know if an election was rigged and

that the people on January 6

believed that it was totally fairly went

to Biden and that they were there to try

to change it to Trump because of his

authoritarian

blah blah blah brainwashing propaganda.

It's a cult.

Oh my goodness. It's the weakest

it's the weakest hoax of all time

because you don't even need to do any

research to to know that those two

problems exist, the ones I mentioned,

but it's all they have. So, the

Democrats are a hoaxbased machine. They

need at least one tentpole hoax. 10pole

hoax means it's the main one that makes

all the other hoaxes look like they're

reasonable. Because all the other stuff

that they say about Trump, just like the

fine people hoax, where if they could

sell that as being true, then any other

accusation of being racist, sounded like

it was true because you you say to

yourself, well, if the main thing that

that would make him a racist, the fine

people hoax, if that main thing is true,

it's really easy to believe all the

other accusations because you've already

established who he is. So now they've

taken that technique over to the

insurrection and they'll say if you buy

the fact that he was part of a, you

know, knowing he had not been elected

but trying to take the job anyway, then

all of the other accusations

about authoritarianism,

they all sound true because you say to

yourself, well, he tried to conquer the

country and stay in office once. So then

they can sell you that he doesn't plan

to leave after a second term,

which you would never believe unless you

had fallen for the tentpole hoax, which

is that he had already tried once to

conquer the country by telling his his

followers to

trespass

and wander around in a building without

any guns.

So anyway,

beware the fine people hoax. We we'll

take care of that one. I'll work on that

one.

um the University of California system,

so that's the system that is uh binds

together all the various California

universities has announced that boycots

of Israel will be banned

and that's because of pressure from

Trump on funding. Um, so now they're

banning protests against Israel or

boycots of Israel. To which Glenn

Greenwald might ask,

um, are they now allowed to boycott

everybody but Israel?

What if the University of California

system um didn't say no if they decided

to boycott some other country?

or do we do we really have laws now that

are Israel specific

and it's the one place you can't

boycott?

I don't know. So, while I'm certainly in

favor of tamping down any signs of

anti-semitism,

I'm not sure if boycotting a country

quite satisfies the anti-semitism claim.

Because I would wonder I would wonder,

you know, it would make more sense if

they said you can't boycott anybody.

You know, maybe universally should not

be involved in boycotting. Or if we said

you can't boycott anybody who's an ally

of the United States,

that wouldn't be bad, would it? because

then it's not Israel specific, but it

would include anybody who's an ally of

the United States.

So, what happens if uh somebody wants to

boycott Russia?

Still legal,

still okay? Or boycott China?

Don't Don't we always talk about not

buying China stuff? Effectively, you

know, a boycott.

So, I guess we have laws now that apply

to one country.

Um,

let's see. Uh,

what else is happening?

Um, yeah,

CNN is u announcing that the uh they're

saying that CEOs are now admitting that

there's going to be a lot of layoffs

with AI.

Oh, no. I'm sorry. There's two opposite

stories. I'm confusing them. Um, the

positive story is that CNN is admitting

that uh the number of layoffs under

Trump have declined tremendously.

So, apparently the they went out of

their way to say a story that was just

unambiguously positive for Trump. Again,

I've been telling you CNN's

making a legitimate attempt

to include a little bit of both sides,

which I had not seen before. So, it is a

change, but uh this is a good example of

that, admitting that the number of

layoffs under Trump are way down, down

49%.

But not all good news. Meanwhile, a

federal judge,

let's see if you understand this better

than I do because the legal stuff is

just so far out of my domain. But a

federal judge in Washington DC just

ruled that uh Trump does not have the

power to declare that uh he's going to

close the asylum process because it's

turned into an invasion. So the word

invasion

is the active word. So Trump was saying

that if it's an invasion

um the federal government has

responsibility of repelling it on behalf

of the states and uh that's all he was

doing. The uh executive order closed the

asylum process as his response to the

quote invasion.

Now, the federal judge says

um that invasion language doesn't give

Trump any new powers that he didn't have

before. So, he doesn't really have that

power. And the part I don't understand

is that the Supreme Court just ruled

that a federal judge can't overrule

something that applies to the entire

country. They can only do things that

apply to their their domain.

So, how did this judge do the very thing

that the Supreme Court just made

illegal?

Well, it has something to do with

declaring future asylum seekers a

protected class.

And here's where I'm going to bow out.

Because if you understand the law well

enough to know why that is a appropriate

workaround

to just simply declare them a class.

How exactly does that give him the power

to do what the Supreme Court just said

you guys can't do? You can't you can't

block something nationwide if you're a f

just a federal judge. Oh no. We'll just

declare that these people who might come

in in the future are a protected class.

Somehow that works around it. How's that

work?

All right. So, I'm a little bit confused

by it. I assume it'll go to the Supreme

Court. I assume the Supreme Court would

say you can't do this trick to get

around our ruling. I don't know. Maybe

it would go the other way.

So listen to the people who know

something about the law if you want to

know more about that.

Meanwhile, James Carville,

uh

he says that he thinks that Trump's

going to try to rig the midterm

election.

Um and he says that uh Trump can't

possibly win fair and square in the

midterms because the big beautiful bill

is about 25 points underwater in terms

of popularity in the country in general.

Um and that's he's that Trump will have

a massive defeat and he's not going to

be able to handle that. So that uh Trump

will declare martial law or declare that

there's some other national emergency.

so that he can throw out the results of

the midterms.

Now, that's what James Garville says.

Now, that would be an example of um

getting your base all riled up, but it

does seem to suggest that he believes

that you could rig an election.

So, can he talk to Anderson Cooper on

CNN? Cuz he believes that an election

can be rigged, but maybe not by rigging

the vote. I think he's suggesting that

he might rig something about the system,

you know, declaring an emergency or

martial law or something,

which would be more overthrowing an

election than rigging it.

Um, going back to Representative Japal,

here's what she's saying on CNN. He she

says, "What is deranged and cruel and

outrageous is that literally we're

seeing literally like literally actually

happening. We're seeing ICE agents and

they're coming and kidnapping and

disappearing people on the streets of

the United States. Is that happening?

Are they kidnapping and disappearing

um people or just people who are illegal

and shouldn't be here in the first

place?

Well, probably their net is picking up

more people than you thought they would.

So, there is a little bit of that. So,

this is hyperbole. Of course, there's no

kidnapping and there's no disappearing.

But I can definitely see that the

aggressive approach to immigration

um is going to pick up some people who

are not the worst of the worst

and they will get shipped off to who

knows where.

So my take on this is that it does

transfer a burden from the the legal

citizens of the United States

and their their risk would be having too

many people come in who were not vetted.

It shifts the burden to the people who

have already come in illegally.

Now I don't mind shifting burden from

the people who are obeying the law to

the people who did not obey the law.

That's it does seem, you know, my my

empathy gene kicks in and I definitely

have empathy for the population that is

being most affected. I have lots of

empathy. Um,

but from a conceptual level,

philosophically,

shifting the burden from the people who

are doing everything right to the people

who are trying to get a little extra

from the system,

that doesn't seem terrible. even though

it does have a price.

Um,

there's this guy Eli Mistell, you've

seen him. He looks like he has the big

white afro and uh he's often on MSNBC.

Well, he was on Joy Reed's podcast and

he said that uh that America is the bad

guys on the world stage and a menace to

free and peaceful people because America

is the one causing all the trouble. To

which I say, well, that's sort of true,

but I would say that America pursues its

national best interest, which is often

tied to its multinational profitability.

And uh that's not really pleasant for

the rest of the world.

But every country gets the opportunity

to pursue their own best interest. We

don't complain too much when other

countries do it. We just say, "Well,

obviously everybody pursues their own

best interests." So yeah, we're sort of

the bad guys to other countries

because we're doing the same thing

they're doing, pursuing our own best

interests.

So, he's kind of right and kind of wrong

at the same time.

CNN's Harry Enon

was uh blown away, as was I, by new data

showing that Democrats have shifted

massively from being pro-Israel

to being pro-Palestinian and

anti-Israel.

And the shift is enormous. Um, it's a

the uh the pro Palestinian

position is up by 43 points.

43 points. In other words, it's not even

close. That it's one of the few issues

where where it's just not close. So, the

Democrats are just anti-Israel, pro

Palestinian,

and the Republicans. I haven't seen the

Republican numbers, but probably not

that. My guess is that the Republicans

are still pro-Israel by a majority, but

I don't know.

So, obviously, the Gaza situation

um and the military might that Israel

has been employing with US support is

not popular,

but I didn't see that it could ever move

that much.

So apparently the uh

um something big is happening. I don't

know if it's a Tik Tok effect, a social

media effect, but if you take the Gaza

situation and you put it all over Tik

Tok

and social media, I can see how you

could turn half of the country, you

know, 180.

Looks like that's what happened.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

there's a bunch of CEOs who are now

saying that AI will vastly reduce the

number of jobs. Now remember, at the

moment, the number of jobs is looking

good. So employment looks pretty good

and we've had AI for

kind of two years

and so far not really any direct effect

on the overall job situation. definitely

affect some individual companies, but

overall employment stayed strong.

Um, and I'm wondering if this is an

example of the Adams law of slowmoving

disasters where if everyone can see the

problem coming like all these CEOs,

um, I think the the CEO of Anthropic,

which is an AI company,

says we'll see unemployment levels of 10

to 20% from AI replacing people. Now

that would be

unemployment of 20%.

That's depression level, isn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think

even the Great Depression

was around 20% unemployment.

That's hard to survive that level.

Um, and that I think uh

CEO of what Ford says that half of all

white collar workers might be replaced

by AI.

But I'm going to be a little bit

skeptical about these predictions. I

think it's a little bit too obvious and

easy to say that oh AI will replace a

bunch of workers. It, you know, if

you're wrong, nobody's going to be mad

at you. they'll just be happy that

nothing bad happened. And if you're

right, you get to say, "Look how right I

was." So, it's sort of a safe, easy,

routine thing to predict. Oh, yeah. The

AI will take half our jobs. But so far,

um, I I feel like it will definitely

take jobs in some businesses, and some

industries,

but I don't know. I feel like maybe as

many jobs will be created as there are

taken away. We'll see.

I'm a skeptic.

I'm a loss.

Um, apparently in LA there's some kind

of

u $30 minimum wage hike that was passed

by the city council. So, if you have a

hotel in LA,

you would have to pay all of your

workers a minimum of $30 an hour. Now,

the federal minimum wage is still like

$7.50,

but a lot of states have higher higher

ones, like $15 maybe. I don't know what

it is in California. Is it $15 minimum

wage? But for the hotels, it would be

$30 minimum wage. And of course, the

hotels are saying they can't survive

that. And maybe they can't.

Well, let's talk about uh Jerome Powell.

Does it feel to you that Jerome Powell

has that Joe Biden vibe now? When I see

pictures of Jerome Powell, he doesn't

look like he still has his fast.

[Laughter]

Now, it's still only based on the videos

and the pictures.

It's not even based on anything he says

or believes or anything like that. It's

based on just the vibe. He's got that

Joe Biden, you know, I stayed in the job

too long vibe.

But uh Bill Py is pointing out that when

uh Powell testified

uh to the Senate Banking Committee, so

that's a testimony under oath I think um

that he had answered some questions um

dishonestly and the questions were

involved a new building that was being

built for the Fed and he was being asked

about some of the alleged luxuries that

were being built into the building, I'll

call them luxuries, like a rooftop

garden and some stuff like that. And

that he must have said that they're not

planning that. And now we know that

maybe that is part of the plan. So if he

lied to Congress,

is that grounds for removing him from

the Fed? Because it was a big project.

It was I think it was over a billion

dollars in construction that they were

looking at.

Well, Bill Py has called this out as uh

potential grounds for removing him along

with being too late about everything.

So, and then Trump has uh agreed with

that um put to put more pressure on

Powell.

Um there's new video of this Zoran Mani

guy back in 2021. We already saw the

video where he said that the ultimate

goal is seizing the means of production

which confirms that he's a communist,

not not just a socialist, but actually

wants to go full communist, seizing the

means of production. In other words, the

government owning all the factories and

the the productions. I don't know. But

apparently he's he also in the similar

video in 2021

said something about um I think the

government taking over the pen houses

and turning them into lowcost housing.

So basically

getting rid of private ownership of

residential homes.

Now, you might argue that there's no

such thing as private ownership of homes

in the United States because if you're

paying property tax, which you are, um

if you stop paying the property tax, you

you'd be uh you jailed by the

government. So,

I you know, you could argue that we

already don't have private ownership of

business, but it's closer to private

than the idea of the government owning

it directly.

So yes, uh, Mom Donnie with his creepy

communist smile. That smile that every

time you see it, you say to yourself,

"Wait a minute, that smile looks like a

snake oil salesman. Somebody is trying

to put one over on me." He has the least

trustable face

because of that weird smile, the creepy

communist smile. Um, so we'll see if

that becomes an issue. Well, Newsmax is

talking about how the Washington Post

has a big um opinion piece about how

Trump can lead the US to a nuclear

energy revolution by supporting

innovation and removing bureaucratic

stuff and red tape and stuff. Now, hold

that in your brain.

Do you remember 2016 or so when I was

one of the people on social media who

was lobbying really hard for both sides

of the aisle to understand that nuclear

power was not just better than you

thought it was in terms of safety and

economics etc. but required that we

would never make it into the future as

an important country unless we had

turned around completely our nuclear

energy policies and made them, you know,

pro- nuclear power plants being built.

So that's now the common opinion on both

the left and the right because the

Washington Post opinion piece would

represent I think the left fully

embracing you know maybe not the left

left left but the ordinary left

embracing nuclear power as a requirement

but also the fact that they would write

an article saying that Trump might be

exactly the right person to get us there

because he's he's big on removing the,

you know, the unnecessary regulations.

Um, that's amazing. It's just amazing

that this even exists in the Washington

Post. And then I said to myself,

oh, wait a minute. Did the Washington

Post just think from, you know, first

principles and came to this idea that

now they can be fullthroatedly embracing

nuclear energy. Is that what just

happened?

Or or is it possible that the Washington

Post is owned by Jeff Bezos? It is. And

that Jeff Bezos needs massive amounts of

electricity to run his robot factories

and his own AI.

Oh yeah. So the owner of the Washington

Post absolutely cannot survive in the

future without massive nuclear power and

every other kind of energy.

So, did the Washington Post on their own

come up with a new love for nuclear

energy or or do they know who they work

for and they know that the business of

the owner, you know, the extended

business of all of his businesses can't

survive without a robust nuclear energy

industry in the United States.

Just asking

All right. According to modernity, John

Fleetwood, uh the Xfinity company, the

one who provides cable and Wi-Fi to your

house, at least uh does in my house, um

they now can spy on your physical

movements in your house via your Wi-Fi.

So, you've probably seen stories about

this where uh Wi-Fi can see interference

and it can draw a little picture of

where you are in your house. Did you

know that?

Now, that's not a big problem except

there's an allegation that Palunteer,

which is a big uh you know government

contracted company,

um that has connections to a whole bunch

of data about you.

So, are you do you feel okay that

Palunteer might I don't know this for

sure, but might someday have access to

the Wi-Fi movement information so they

could tell where you are in your house

and maybe even

decisions about what you might be doing

and what you might do in the future.

I don't know how much of this is real

and how much of this is people just

worrying that it could become real, but

it's pretty scary. So, I don't know if

it's real or just a potential real

thing.

It is real that they can determine where

you are. So, even even Xfinity is

advertising that. What we don't know or

I don't know is if Palenter is going to

have access to that data and use it in

some way you don't like.

All right. Um,

Fox News is reporting how the IAEA

uh has warned that Iran could restart

their uranium enrichment within months

despite the US strikes.

So,

do you buy that?

So, even Iran has admitted that the

nuclear program was hit hard and you

know a lot of destruction. But do you

believe the IAEA

who are experts in this field that they

could start enriching in a few months?

I don't know. I don't know how they

would know that. But we also wouldn't

know what they can do that we don't know

about. So

I don't know. So anyway, a part some

part bipartisan lawmakers, people on

both sides have proposed that we put

together a plan to sell B2 stealth

bombers to Israel so that we don't have

to be involved if Israel wants to rebomb

Iran. Is that a good idea or a terrible

idea?

Because I feel like Trump got a lot of

benefit from being the only one who

could do these bunker buster bombs.

If Israel could do it on its own, then

Trump would have had no leverage over

Israel, right? And we like it when um

you know, because we know Israel is

influential in the United States in

Congress.

Wouldn't it be good if there was some

influence that worked both ways and it

was pretty strong influence? Cuz then

you've got a more productive, you know,

ally situation where you're both you

both got your hand on a lever and uh

sometimes one prevails and sometimes the

other, but you know, you're both

pushing.

I don't know. I don't know if that's a

good idea or a bad idea.

Um, there's another report in Newsmax

that North Korea is going to be sending

25,000 25,000 soldiers to boost the uh

the Russian military in Ukraine.

25 to 30,000 more. Is that because

Russia is running out of troops?

Or whether they were running out or not,

it's just cheaper and easier to burn up

these North Korean soldiers who don't

even know why they're there. So, it

could be either one. I'm not sure I'd

read too much into it. All right,

that is all I have to say today. And

look how I came pretty close to 8:00.

So, did uh the big beautiful bill get

voted on?

You remember my prediction? My

prediction is that they would delay it

after January 1 or after July 4th.

Um, so I don't have a prediction about

whether it get signed, just a prediction

that they're not going to make the July

4th deadline. They tried and I think

there's still a really good chance

they're going to hit it. So, we'll we'll

compare my prediction that they won't

hit it to all the reporting that's a lot

smarter than me that says, "Yeah, it

looks like they're going to hit it."

So, uh I see in the comments that, uh

Jack Pobec thinks it will happen today.

I think most people think it will happen

today because Trump's going to put the

pressure from hell on the Republicans.

Trump really, really, really, really

wants this to happen before July 4th or

even on July 4th.

Um,

and he's going to push as hard as

anybody ever pushed anybody, but

anything to get it done. So, I would

agree with Jack that the odds are it'll

get done, but I'm still going to go with

my prediction that it won't

u just to be a contrarian. All right.

All right. That's all I got. I'm going

to say a few words to the people on

locals, my beloved subscribers on

locals. The rest of you, thanks for

joining and I will see you again

tomorrow. Same time, same place. Hope

you enjoyed it.