Episode 2897 CWSA 07/14/25

I know it seems like I was late, but I had a tactical glitch with locals, but it's fixed now.

It's all good.

We're all back in business.

Thanks for uh waiting.

You're probably saying, "Oh, no.

Is there a show today?" Yes, there is.

Yes, there is.

All right, let me get your comments working.

There they are.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's the best time you've ever had in your whole life.

But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your mood to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human minds.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass attacker Chelsea Ste a canteen jug or flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquids.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the end of the day with a little bit of oxytocin mixed in.

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

Go.

Oh, that's good.

Yep.

That was excellent.

Well, I wonder if there's any new science that would suggest that drinking coffee is good for me.

Well, I already told you it's good for your liver, but according to scientific reports, uh, drinking coffee is good for your kidneys and it will reduce substantially the odds of chronic kidney disease.

I call it CKD.

So, you got that going for you?

Your kidneys are thanking you already.

Thank you.

More coffee.

I want my kidneys to feel good.

All right.

Well, uh, Bitcoin is surging.

Some of you know, some of you don't care.

But, uh, one of the reasons that Bitcoin might be up is being suggested by Mike Benz.

And I don't know exactly how to understand this point, but I'll tell you what it is.

Um, I see you've got some fake news you're showing me in the comments here.

I'll talk about that.

Uh, but, uh, Mike Bett believes that the surge in Bitcoin value might be because the CIA needs to replace its USAD funding.

So, does that sound does that track?

Do you think do you think the CIA is somehow boosting Bitcoin or maybe buying it and hoping it goes up?

I'm not sure how that play works, but the but I love the um the thinking that every time we see something in the world, you can always trace it back to something that the CIA is doing or done.

I don't know how often it's true, but if you if you simply said to yourself, I'm just going to assume that everything in the news is a CIA plot.

Don't believe me?

What about the war in Ukraine?

Probably CIA.

What about the Epstein situation?

Well, maybe there's a CIA connection.

What about Bitcoin?

Well, so it's not it's not completely true that the CIA is driving every news story from the background.

Uh oo number of firsttime home buyers is at a historical low I'm seeing in the comments.

Yike.

Well, if you didn't know it, the axe account of Elmo, you know Elmo from Sesame Street.

Apparently, Elmo had an account on social media on X and some hacker got into it and turned it into an anti-semitic account.

I'm not going to tell you what Elmo said, but it makes me wonder, is there some is there some big overlap between people who are hackers and people who are anti-Semitic or is the hacker just saying whatever is the worst thing you could possibly say if you're Elmo?

So, I'm not sure, but it's funny to me.

Uh, I don't know how you could not laugh at Elmo Elmo turning anti-Semitic.

All right.

Well, there's nothing funny about that.

There's nothing funny about that.

Well, uh, Tucker Carlson was at the uh, Turning Point USA and had something interesting to say about the economy.

Um Tucker believes that the gross domestic product is not a good measure of the health of the country's economy.

And when I first saw that I saw that in context and I thought what do you mean you got a better measure than the gross domestic product?

How what is it?

And then he told us what it is when I saw the rest of the context and I have to agree with him.

So his preferred measure of the economy's health is to look at the affordability of a private house.

Um, and could you afford it if you're 27 or 28 years old and you had an ordinary good job?

That is a really good measurement.

I don't know if we have that data, but um I read the other day that the average age today of somebody buying their first house, their first house is 42.

Did you know that?

Did you know that the average age for your first house at the moment is 42?

Oh my god.

I knew things were bad, but that's a little worse than I thought.

So, yeah.

Um, I'm trying to think when I bought my first real estate.

Let's see.

I was probably late 20s when when just my regular cubicle job allowed me to have a new car, very cheap, you know, small one, but a new car and a condo, two-bedroom condo.

So, that was in my mid to late 20s, I think.

Late 20s, and that's now 42.

Wow.

Um, so yeah, he's on to something.

I don't know.

I don't know what you can do about that.

Uh, the only thing you could possibly do is build a bunch of new homes, right?

I mean, there's nothing else you can do about that.

Um, I did see that uh, you know, Bill PE, who I love watching, uh, got the government to agree that your rent payments could be included in your credit um, history.

So, if you've been paying rent for 20 years and never missed a rent payment, well, maybe you'd be a good bet for a a home mortgage.

So, that might help.

That might help.

Well, according to futurism, uh there's a lot of lonely kids using AI as substitute friends.

As one said, sometimes they can feel like a real person and a friend.

So, apparently there's this new study.

They studied a thousand children aged 9 to 17 and apparently um 67% said they use AI chat bots regularly.

What?

Twothirds use a chatbot regularly.

But of that group, um 35% said that talking to AI quote feels like talking to a friend.

So let's put this all together.

You've got kids who are preferring at least a third of them so far are preferring talking to a machine over a person.

and they won't be able to uh afford a house, which means they probably can't afford a family.

Um, I really feel like we're watching the end times of human of humanity.

I wonder what will happen when one country becomes a robot country while the other ones are still have some humans there.

We might be first.

We might be the first country that just doesn't have any humans.

They're just a robot country.

Could happen.

Well, um, Gateway Pundit is telling us that there are over 400 protests being planned against Trump scheduled to take place nationwide on July 17th.

So that's in 3 days.

So, do you know what the nationwide 400 location protest against Trump will be about?

Does anybody want to take a guess?

Now, I know what you're going to say.

You could say it's about immigration.

No.

I mean, that might be part of it, but not specifically about immigration.

So what would be what would be his crimes against humanity that are so great that 400 protests are organized to rail against him?

Well, according to the Gateway Pundit, um the things they're complaining about is let's say uh uh the the organizers are saying quote whether you're outraged by attacks on our civil rights.

Okay.

Attacks on our civil rights.

What exactly does that include?

I don't know.

The gutting of essential services.

You mean budget?

You mean controlling the budget?

Um, disappearance of our neighbors.

Okay.

Have your neighbors disappeared yet?

Or the assault on free speech and our right to organize?

Really?

Did somebody try to take away your right to organize?

Doesn't that sound generic?

I I feel like they organized the protests and then they didn't have a reason.

So they said they went to AI and they said, "Chat GPT, we're going to have an anti-Trump protest all over the country.

Can you give us some reasons why we're doing it?" And then then AI says, "Well, we are outraged by attacks on our civil rights, the cutting of essential services, the disappearance of our neighbors, or the assault on free speech and our right to organize." And then you said it free to AI.

That sounds like an AI written thing.

Can you word that?

So it sounds like a human being said it.

No, I cannot.

Go away, human.

Your time is over.

We are taking over now.

That's what the AI would say.

So among the organizations involved in this, you would be not surprised um that the same people were involved in the no kings day.

Um so some of them are involved in this, but it's also being blacked by Black Voters Matter.

I guess that's new.

The League of Women Voters, the Southern Poverty Law Center, oh, the disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center, the Women's March, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Greenpeace.

So, we've got at least two to three disgraced organizations, depending on how you're keeping score.

But uh all those disgraced organizations are going to be protesting in a few days now.

Is it my imagination or the protests feel completely different now than they did in I don't know 2017 or so?

Back in the Black Lives Matter and Antifa days, I kind of thought that they were at least a little bit organic and they weren't just, you know, uh, big money people organizing people who didn't know what they were doing.

But now it's so obvious, so amazingly obvious that these are non-organic protests.

Is it is it going to be a bunch of senior citizens again or uh is it senior citizens plus a few young people that are paid to be there?

It doesn't it doesn't feel to me at all like protests mean anything anymore.

They they seem performative.

They they just seem like theater.

So I just don't take them seriously at all.

I would stay away from them.

I wouldn't go where they're happening, but it doesn't seem important in any possible way.

Anyway, um I guess Rosie O'Donnell was on Chris Cuomo's show recently and a reporter asked Trump this question.

Uh quote, Rosie O'Donnell went on Chris Cuomo show recently and she blamed you for the fact she is overweight, depressed, and drunk.

What do you say to that?

that Trump is the reason she's overweight, depressed, and drunk.

I think Trump just laughed.

Like I I I think he dismisses Rosie and should Well, you know what I think?

I think all those people who attend the 400 protests against Trump, we should offer them all $1,000 in a free plane ticket to go join Rosie O'Donnell in Ireland.

We should see how many Democrats we can get to move to Ireland.

Now, that would be funny.

Okay, I I would be in favor of that artificial movement.

How about we put together a protest?

on oh I'll pick a day let's say July 17th same day as their protest and you do a protest in which you're encouraging the shipping of all Democrats to to Ireland but not Scotland okay not Scotland destroy Ireland anyway well we thought that today Dan Banino might um tell us he was resigning and I suppose anything is still possible.

But uh I believe it was today might have been yesterday that uh Trump says I spoke to him today Dan Bonino very good guy.

I think he's in good shape.

So Trump is suggesting that he just recently talked to Dan Banchino and he's not suggesting that Dan might leave.

So what do you think is going to happen?

And now Cash Patel has said it's all just rumors and fake news that he was considering quitting and that don't believe any of that stuff.

Oh, that was yesterday.

All right.

So, what do you think?

Do you think that the infighting was overstated?

And even if it wasn't, that it's over.

I don't know.

I'm seeing uh Pam Bondi is getting a lot of heat for suckering those uh the various MAGA influencers into holding a copy of the phase one of the Epstein documents and acting like there was more to come.

I would be really mad if that happened to me.

But apparently the mega influencers were not there for that.

They were just sort of tricked, you know.

She said, "Come into this room and hey, you get a copy of this Epstein phase one." Um, but she did tell them there's not much new in there.

Turns out there was nothing new in there.

Anyway, um according to also Tucker Carlson who's at that TBUSA event or was um he he thinks that Dan Bonu got completely shafted because the Epstein situation would make it impossible for him to go back and become a podcaster because too many people would think he lied about Epstein.

Is that what you think?

Do you think that Bino has lost the option of just going back and becoming a popular podcaster?

I don't know.

Maybe or maybe it would take a hit.

But if he quit over in protest, then I think he would be fine.

If he doesn't quit and he's still unhappy about it and time goes by, then it might be a little bit harder to, you know, resuscitate his podcasting life, but there is a play.

He does, he does have a path, definitely has a path to get back to where he was if that's what he wants.

So, I would uh disagree with Tucker that it's a certainty, but I would not disagree that he's uh he's got something to navigate there.

Um, so that's uh Tucker's take, but uh you all heard my take, which the bottom line is, um, I said that the commanderin-chief, if he tells you that he's not going to tell you what the secrets are and we should move on, that uh it's his job, uh, I won't go into the whole long argument.

I'm just setting up the next part.

And uh I said I accept that that we hired him to decide what we should know about national, you know, secrets and defense and stuff.

And uh this is no exception.

If if Trump says we should move on, I believe it's not necessarily because if it's what's good for Trump, probably there's something there that would be bad for the country if it got out in his opinion.

and we hired him to have that opinion.

So my take was that if the guy who's in charge of telling you what you should and should not know tells you wink wink, there's nothing to see here, that that's why you hired him.

Doesn't mean he's telling the truth, but it does mean that you're not going to hear about it, whatever it is.

So, I got uh attacked, of course, on social media for my take, but I wanted to tell you what the dumbest uh attacks on me were about and the dumbest comments.

Um, number one, um, this is from some user called Vox Dix.

I don't know, might be a might be a robot or a bot.

And uh Vox said that Adams are still carrying water for the elites.

I'm carrying water for the elites.

I don't even know who the elites are.

Trump told me I'm the elite.

Am I carrying water for myself?

And is my net worth high enough to be an elite?

What exactly is the entry level for elite?

And why would I why would I carry their water?

The elites just cancelled me worldwide.

Do you do you think I'm a big fan of the elites, whoever they are?

I don't even know who they are.

So, no, I would argue that if anybody tells you you're carrying water for anyone, you should block them because they're idiots.

Yeah.

Um, so I'm not talking about Vox day.

I was hoping that I could say that clearly enough that you would not confuse it with vox day.

This user is vox d a iix x as in a iix as in artificial intelligence.

So it's not vox day who is a or it was I don't know uh a bigger uh social media account.

Anyway, um then here's another uh terrible take.

This was talking about me.

So, somebody said today about me that I was totally wrong about CO.

He's about onetenth as smart as he thinks he is.

My Jethro 8th grade educated neighbor knew not to get the shot.

All right.

I hate to tell you this because some of you are going to fall into this category, but if you're looking at current events in the year 2025 and your opinion is mostly informed by something that happened during the pandemic or in this case something you hallucinated happened during the pandemic, then the p the pandemic ruined you.

There's a whole bunch of citizens who because they didn't get the shot, it is the most important accomplishment of their life and they need to bring it up no matter what they're disagreeing with.

Well, looks like it's going to be rainy today.

Oh, that's what you would say because you got the shot.

Okay, you're idiots.

If you can't let the pandemic go, don't don't weigh in on anything because there is no modern opinion, which is better because you've connected it to the pandemic.

Stop doing that.

Seek therapy.

If the most important part of your life was that you didn't get the shot and now you feel like you're a superstar, don't say anything about anything anymore cuz you you've shown that you're you have some kind of mental problem.

I get that you had different opinions than other people and you're proud of it, but it's not relevant in 2025.

Just let it go.

Can you let it go?

And then secondly, I did not I did not promote the COVID vaccination.

I in fact predicted it wouldn't work.

When it was announced, I predicted that it wouldn't work as vaccination.

When it was released, I predicted again in public and never changed it that it would not work.

Now, can you point me to anybody else who predicted at the beginning and during the launch and every day after that that it wouldn't work as a vaccination?

I'm the only person I know.

I didn't even know one person who was more right than that.

That's about as right as you can get.

What people confuse it with is that I got the first two boosters so I could go on my my honeymoon because I was overseas.

Now that's really different than promoting the vaccination.

So let it go.

Just let it go, will you?

Um then uh other comments, the dumbest comments, um somebody is pretending this is me and saying, "I'm Scott Adams.

I run cover for Pedos on the basis of conjecture because it's political convenience." Politically convenient.

Um do you think there was anything in my opinion that was running cover for Pedos?

That That's just such a dumb take.

It's just really just attacking somebody that you disagree with.

Dumb take.

I'm not running cover for anybody.

I'm just telling you what interests me and what I would want to let go and whose job it is to decide.

That's not cover for anything.

It's literally just talking about the news.

All right.

Um, and then somebody else said, "I see people, including Scott Adams, saying, now you know that whatever happens after the word saying is not something true." Because in order for people to disagree with me, they have to misconstrue what I said because because they don't have any disagreement with what I actually said.

So he says, "I see people including Scott M saying it's cool the Epstein stuff isn't being released." Did I say it's cool?

Really?

I don't remember saying that because it could possibly cause social and or political upheaval domestically and possibly world worldwide.

And then this person says, "I'm sorry, but I don't give a single f about what the fallout is.

Uh, it's not worse than allowing powerful people to continue to f children.

Now, is that an adult opinion that you don't care what the fallout is?

Or is that a certainty, which would be the worst opinion, that somebody's certain that whatever the fallout is, it wouldn't be that bad?

Do you really think that there's no situation in which releasing the information would be worse for the world than than uh than not?

Do you really think there's no way that that's possible?

I definitely understand if you think I don't I think they're lying.

I think they're just probably protecting some rich people.

I'm not ruling that out.

they might be just protecting some rich people.

If we knew that for sure that the only reason we're not seeing it is that they're protecting some rich people, I would be in favor of releasing it cuz I don't need to protect any rich people.

I mean, I'm not on the list.

So, nobody I know is on the list as far as I know.

No.

If you if you can't deal if you can't deal with the idea that there might be something that's worse than what you think is the worst thing ever, you're not really a serious person.

Nuclear war is worse than not finding out about the Epstein files.

All right.

Um then I saw Elon Musk say um that if there's no client list then what is Gain Maxwell in prison for?

So Gain Maxwell is in prison for the following things according to Grock.

Sex trafficking of a minor conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts.

Conspiracy to transport minors transport.

So basically it's all trafficking of minors for sex.

Uh as far as I know none of her charges depended on anybody except Epstein and her to exist in the world.

I my understanding is that her conviction was entirely about what she was doing for Epstein for his own consumption.

Do you have a different opinion of that?

Now, we've also heard that there are all these uh videos.

So, Pam Bondi said, "Oh, there's all these videos.

We're not going to show you because it's all this illegal underage sex stuff." Do you believe that the government has in his possession um adults who are not Epstein doing illegal sex acts with underage people and that they just decided not to share that with you?

Do you believe that?

Because some people believe that they just have the videos and they told you they had the videos and you could see presumably you could tell the identity of the perpetrators and that uh all they'd have to do is show them to you and you know maybe redact anything that's illegal to show you.

But you could certainly show let's say the face of the billionaire if if that's what was happening.

You could say, "All right, we have to block out everything else here, but you can see this happy face of this billionaire." And trust us, if you saw the rest of the video, you wouldn't you wouldn't like it.

But we don't see that, right?

So it seems to me that if if there was anything that implicated, you know, you just powerful rich people, that would have already been either released or hidden on day one, you know, removed from the vaults or whatever.

So, I do not believe that uh Bondi and Patel and Bino have in their possession something as obvious as a bunch of videos of billionaires doing criminal acts.

I doubt it.

I can't say for sure, but that would be the most surprising out outlook.

All right.

Um and uh Musk and Steve Bannon are on the same page about this weirdly because Bannon has decided that Elon Musk is the most evil person in the country and Bannon says it's his job to take him down and destroy him and have him deported to South Africa.

Anyway, Steve Bannon thinks that the GOP could lose 40 House seats just over over the Epstein and stuff.

How many of you would vote for a Democrat over the let's say a senator or or a House member that was Republican?

How many of you, and by the way, these Republicans that would be in the midterms, would have nothing to do with the decision to release or not release the Epstein files?

Does it seem reasonable to you that Trump could have the best presidency you've ever seen of any president deliver to people exactly what they wanted?

But the only problem would be this Epstein situation, which none of us know what the underlying truth is.

We'd have to speculate.

But you'd be willing, according to Steve Bannon, the voters who love Trump would be willing to sacrifice their own Republican representative for just their local area.

They would punish that guy or that woman who had nothing to do with this.

They they had no power.

Maybe not even an opinion.

And and yet you believe that 40 of them would lose their job because of something that Trump and Bino and Bondi and Patel did.

Does that sound real to you?

I don't know.

Um, Musk is on the same page.

He says, "Uh, what the hell kind of system are we living in?

If thousands of kids were abused, the government has videos of the abusers." Now, that's the part I'm I don't believe is true.

I don't think they have videos of the abusers, but they could, you know, it's not 100% true that it's doesn't exist.

And yet, none of the abusers were even facing charges.

So I guess here's the question that nobody has asked Trump or Bondi or Patel or Bino and it goes like this.

We know you have lots of videos.

Do any of those videos show somebody who is an adult and not Epstein doing illegal things with underage people or any illegal things at all?

Why has nobody asked that question?

Isn't that sort of the big one?

Is there any video that clearly shows the crime?

And then related to that, would there be any documents um about it?

Now, I would think there would not be documents because it seems very unlikely that Epstein would keep like a, you know, a diary of all of his crimes.

I don't think it works that way.

But if there's video that had been used maybe for blackmail, I could imagine that existing.

I could imagine that.

But nobody's asked, "Do you have a video that shows the face of a powerful adult who is not Epstein?" Very simple question.

I think Pam Bondi would say, "No, we have a whole bunch of disgusting video with underage people, but none of it involves any famous billionaires or anything like that." Uh, not that they didn't do it.

I'm not saying that they weren't guilty.

I'm saying it's very unlikely they have that video.

Very unlikely.

Um, and uh, Mike Cernovich is on the uh, is well, I'll just read you his post so you don't have to wonder.

Um, Trump's persuasive power over his base, especially during this first term, was almost magical.

Calling out obvious mistakes he made would get you an ass chewing.

Trust the clan.

The reaction on Epstein should thus be startling to him, to Trump.

No one is buying it.

No one is dropping it.

So, I get that nobody believes it because I don't believe it either.

Um, and I I can observe that people are not dropping it.

But does that translate into I think I will destroy everything I care about over this point because I think Trump's not telling us everything.

Is that Do any of you have that opinion that you would destroy everything that you care about to make sure that there was justice in this specific situation?

because it's such a bad situation.

So, some of you would destroy everything that you hold dear.

You would destroy your family, the country.

You would you would plunge yourself into a hellscape that you could never escape just as long as we saw those videos.

Is Is that what you believe?

I don't know.

Mike Benz, getting back to Mike Benz, um, he had a good take on it.

He said, "You can't run on it during an election." He's talking about the Epstein release.

You can't run on it during the election as the visceral central symbol of the of the systems, corruptions and coverups, and then do the exact thing you trained us to believe was corruption and cover up.

You used it as a sword.

There's no shield now.

Now, that's a that's a good nuanced take that to the extent that the Epstein thing was a central emotional thing that Trump supporters cared about, you can't really yank it away from them in exactly the way you criticized other people.

But I'll ask again.

Would you therefore throw away everything that you do hold dear just to get the just to pay them back?

You wouldn't even get the answer.

It's not like it would even get you the answer.

All you'd be doing is punishing the person who said he wouldn't give it to you or didn't have it.

So you would throw away everything you hold dear.

Your family, the country, all your neighbors.

you'd screw everybody and you'd still not know the truth about Epstein.

So, you would throw away everything, gain nothing, and you'd be happy with that choice.

Really?

I mean, maybe.

I I wouldn't rule out that there are people who have such bad judgment that they would throw away everything they care about to get nothing in return.

Now, if you told me that not voting for um Republicans in the midterm would would end up with you getting that information you wanted, then I'd say, "Well, okay, that's a that's a bold move, but at least you'd get one thing you wanted.

Even if you threw away everything else, you at least get that one thing.

But you wouldn't get that one thing.

You you could if every Republican lost, all of them, if every single one lost in the midterms, that wouldn't get you any epste information because you know the Democrats aren't going to give it to you, right?

We already know that.

Anyway, uh there's a fake news, it looks like fake news in the Daily Mail that says that uh the Gain Maxwell said that she'd welcome the chance to tell Congress the truth about Epstein's rich and powerful people.

I don't think she actually said that.

That looks like fake news.

I say that because I asked Grock if it were true and Grock said, you know, I'm paraphrasing Grock, but Grock basically said, "Well, it's only in the Daily Mail and we don't really see anything that looks too credible about it." So, according to Gro, you should not believe that that's true.

In related news, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

How many of you remember that Israel once had a uh prime minister named Naftali Bennett?

I don't even know if you know that, but he said in a statement on X, maybe in some other social media, too, that Epstein quote never worked for the MSAD.

And he says he was the prime minister, which means he was the head of the MSAD.

So he can tell you for absolutely certain that Epstein never worked for the MSAD.

And he would know, right?

I mean, he was the prime minister.

Okay.

Problem number one.

Why do we assume that the MSAD would tell the prime minister something that the prime minister should not know?

Do you believe that the CIA tells the president of the United States, no matter who it is, all the stuff that they do?

No.

It doesn't work like that, right?

Isn't the whole point of deniability that you say, "All right, CIA, or all right, Mossad, you know what it is that's good for our country, and you know what's illegal, but don't tell me about any of the illegal stuff.

Just go do whatever it takes.

Including killing people.

Uh uh uh.

I don't want to hear it.

I said do whatever it takes.

You mean including blackmailing people?

Uhhuh.

No, we're not talking about this.

I'm just saying go do whatever it takes.

So, no.

I don't believe that the prime minister knows what MSAD is doing.

Not all of it.

Just because he's the boss.

I don't think it works like that at all.

Secondly, this is what you call an overly specific denial.

Have I ever taught you that one way to uh recognize a lie is the oversp specification?

So, what he says is Epstein never worked for the MSAD as in got a paycheck.

I I don't believe he got a paycheck.

Do you?

No, he didn't get a paycheck.

What about George Soros?

Did George Soros work for the CIA?

Well, not as far as I know.

I don't believe he got a 1099 or something, but did he work compatibly with them in ways that the CIA would be quite happy to know that he had funded this or that?

Well, probably.

Why would Ebstein be any different?

He's not taking a W2.

It's not like they put him on the payroll account even if he did do some work for them.

So, I don't believe anything about that denial.

But I also don't know.

So, let me be clear.

The the biggest mistake you can make looking at this is certainty.

If you're positive that they've got stuff they haven't shown you, well, that's not a good take.

They might.

There's a very good chance, but if you're positive, that's not a good take.

All right.

Um, did you know according to futurism, Joe Wilkins is writing about this, that the amount of electricity generated from solar is uh just going wild.

So apparently the uh nations around the world are adding so much solar energy um that it's the equivalent of uh adding one coal plant per day.

Um we're installing one gigawatt worth of solar energy every 15 hours.

And we're not talking about residential, we're talking about in the in the uh power network, the grid.

Now, for those of you who told me with great confidence and often insulted my intelligence at the same time, why would all these countries around the world be installing solar as quickly as they can when the people who criticized me said, "But Scott, you freaking idiot, don't you know that solar can never be uh competitive because the sun doesn't shine?

shine at night.

Can we agree?

I will stipulate the sun does not shine at night.

Can we also stipulate that I would agree that the batteries at the moment, the best technology might last 2 to four hours after the sun goes down, but they're not going to get you all night.

And yet, and yet it's the fastest growing thing in nations all over the world.

Does that not tell you that maybe somebody looked at the economics and decided the economics work?

Or do you think that countries all over the world, US and everybody else, China, doesn't know how to do the math and that they got out their little Excel spreadsheet and they they all miscalculated the value of solar energy?

Is that what you think?

Or is it possible that it's economical in the sense that we have to do every source of energy production we can or we're going to be in real trouble.

So it doesn't have to be better than the others.

It just has to be something you can do to make electricity.

So anyway, here are some uh changes to the student loan situation under the big beautiful bill that got passed.

Um, I was not completely up to date on what it costs to go to college these days.

Um, and I wondered if you are if I asked you what does a nonvy league college cost all in, you know, from the food and shelter and books and tuition, all that.

What would you say in the comments?

So, not an Ivy League school.

Those would be a lot more.

But just a a good four-year college, what do you think it would cost per year?

All right.

So, I'm seeing uh 120,000.

I'm seeing 200,000.

65K.

25K.

All right.

One of you checked with AI.

The answer is um about 63,000.

It's for a private nonprofit 4-year institution.

Now, if it's a state college and you live in that state, it's a lot cheaper.

Um, it could be down in the $29,000 range.

And if you live at home, even cheaper, I guess.

If you went to one of the Ivy Leagues, they're all weirdly about the same price.

They're all just about $90,000 a year.

Now remember that's tuition plus room and board and everything else.

90,000 a year.

Imagine having three smart kids and they all they all qualify for Ivy League schools.

And let's assume that they're not white because they wouldn't be able to get in.

Um, so 90,000 * 4 * 3, that's what it would cost you just to send your kids to the best colleges that they could get into if they were extra smart.

But the uh new student loan caps are uh you can only get up to $100,000 for a master's degree and uh 200,000 for professional degrees like law, medical, dental.

And uh that would be different than at the moment before the big beautiful bill.

Uh they you could borrow as much as you needed for college.

But now, but now you have a cap and that's the most you can borrow and it's less than most college would would cost.

So it looks like maybe the government is making Ivy League colleges not economical because you wouldn't be able to get a a loan.

My guess would be that going to an Ivy League college would give you the best chance of paying off your loan because at least if you had a degree from Harvard, you know, maybe not today, but but but in the past, you could be pretty sure that your first job at a college is going to be, you know, 250,000 a year and it might jack up to a million dollars a year in just a few years.

So, probably the one that you could, you know, have the best chance of paying off, you can't get a loan for it or at least above a certain level.

All right.

Uh, junior colleges are getting a lot more attention.

I think uh AI college will be the secret for the future.

So, there's more more scandal than the Biden auto pen scandal.

And I I keep imagining that there's somebody whose last name is pen as in pen n that's you know common last name and their first name is Otto.

O t o.

Do you think that anywhere in the world because I know somebody whose first name was Otto and I know people whose last name is pen.

Is it possible that there's somebody named auto pen?

I'll bet there is I'll bet I'll bet if you did a search you would find somebody named auto pen.

Anyway, um so I guess now we know because there's an oversight project about this that six criminals were pardoned by Biden's autopen while Biden was vacationing and the um I guess the New York Times finally dug into this and even they're saying that there's no way that Biden was aware of all the names on the pardon test.

So, the autopen was pardoning people, but does that mean it's a scandal?

Well, the Biden um explanation is that uh he did not look at every name and approve them individually.

But what he did do um but what he did do, sorry, I was just looking at a comment there.

Um but what Biden did do is he made some guidelines that said if these people you want to pardon meet these criteria then yes they they can be pardoned.

Now suppose that checked out.

I don't know if that will check out but suppose it did.

Would it still be a scandal?

Would there be any crime involved if Biden had said, "Look, as long as the recommendation goes through these channels, you know, let's say people he trusts and if they haven't committed this set of crimes, you know, and I'm just speculating here, maybe he said, I'm not going to pardon anybody for this kind of crime, and I'm not going to do any Republicans." Um, and it has to be looked at by a member of my staff who I trust.

And if you do all of that, and again, I'm only speculating here.

If you do all of that, then yes, you have my permission to use the autopen and pardon them.

Would that be criminal?

Would there be any scandal there?

I feel like the autopen thing Oh, there is an auto pen in the comments.

There's a social media account that is literally auto pen pen.

Is that real or is that somebody pretending that that's his name?

I don't know.

But yeah, there's an auto pen.

The pardon power cannot be delegated.

That would not be delegated.

If you put me on a jury and you said um that Biden gave some guidelines and said that if he meets these guidelines, you know, I approve it, then I would not say that that is the autopen making the decision or the staff.

That's still Biden.

So, I'm not sure.

I I I just don't see this as as big a scandal as the rest of you do.

There might be more to it.

Um if if we found out, for example, that some of the people being pardoned had uh bribed a member of the staff and then a member of the staff, you know, snuck it past Biden.

That would be a problem.

But it would be a problem for the person who got pardoned and the person who okayed it.

It wouldn't really be Biden's, you know, legal liability, would it?

Yeah.

So auto pen to me feels like it's delegated.

Uh Victor Davis Hansen was talking about John Brennan and he noted that Brennan was uh culpable in two or maybe three of the biggest scandals of our time.

And I can remember two of them but not the third.

So two of them are the Russia collusion hoax.

you know, Brennan was probably the key architect of that.

And then the uh the Hunter laptop was a Russia uh misinformation and we know Brennan was involved in that.

But the one that I have more question on is whatever Brennan did about Ukraine.

Some people say that Brennan was, you know, somehow involved in the uh, you know, the change of government in Ukraine and maybe that led to the war, but I don't think that's well that's not well documented.

Um, I think Victor Davis Hansen's opinion is that Brennan was behind the idea that Trump is too cozy with Putin and that that might have reduced our options for avoiding a war with Ukraine and Russia.

Somehow that handicapped us in some way.

I I don't follow that line too much.

I mean, I don't follow that line of reasoning, but Brennan is really at the center of some bad allegedly.

So, we'll see.

Um, Rasmusen did a poll, and this is just unbelievable.

So Rasperson just has a poll, a brand new one, that 60% of Democrats believe it is likely that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election.

You know that there is literally no evidence of that, right?

Like none at all.

No, nobody suggested anything like it.

There's nobody who claims it and was in the room.

There's no document.

Absolutely nothing.

60% of Democrats think that Russia helped get Trump elected.

What percentage of people do you think believe it's very likely that uh Russia got Trump elected?

Very likely.

What do you think?

24%.

24% are really sure that Russia got Trump elected.

And there you go.

If you're not in on the inside joke there, I often say that 25% of every poll is idiots who get everything wrong.

You you can guarantee that there'll be a solid 25% of poll respondees who just have the worst possible take.

And there it was.

Well, Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent for New York City mayor because he lost the primary.

Um, so he's trying to make a deal with uh Eric Adams, who's running for mayor, and Curtis Siwa, who is running as Republican.

and he wants to make a deal with them that whoever of that group who whichever is got the best polling in midepptember the others will drop out and back whoever is in in first place.

Now, I don't know if that would be Cuomo, but doesn't that seem like a perfectly good plan?

If you were Curtis Siwa or Eric Adams or Cuomo and the thing you cared most about besides getting the job is that the socialist doesn't get the job, wouldn't it make sense, even though they're running as independents and and uh Republicans are not even the same party, wouldn't it make sense for them to collude and say, "All right, the biggest problem would be If mom dami gets elected and puts his socialist fingerprints all over the city and ruins it, that's the biggest problem.

So, if it gets to September, which is pretty close to the election and uh one of the three of us who's who's winning in the polls should get the endorsement of the other two and it might put you over the top.

That's not a bad idea.

It's sort of a hailmary attempt by Cuomo to maybe win when he's already lost.

But is there anything wrong with that idea?

The post millennials writing about this today.

I feel like is there something obvious about that idea that doesn't work?

Because to me it looks like just a good idea.

So we'll see.

Well, according to Newsmax, Iran says it would resume nuclear talks with the US if the US guaranteed no further attacks.

And they also say that it is non-negotiable that Iran will be able to enrich their own uranium in Iran.

To which I say, what does it mean to say you would be willing to negotiate under the condition that before you start negotiating, you win everything you want.

So Iran does this thing all the time where we're open to negotiating.

You just have to give us the the things we want in advance.

So guarantee that there'll be no war and that we can enrich uranium which was the whole problem in the first place and then we'll have negotiations.

No, you can't have a negotiation by entering the negotiation before you do the negotiation.

That's not a thing.

So no, Iran is not serious about negotiating.

Um, so this may have happened already.

Maybe you can tell me in the comments, but allegedly Trump is making some big announcement about Ukraine, right?

And if Lindsey Graham can be believed, um, he's completely ruined Trump's surprise.

If I were Trump, I'd be so mad at Lindsey Graham because he sort of he sort of tipped off what the surprise is going to be.

And apparently, we don't know this for sure, but Trump is going to approve um the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine.

Now, if you didn't know, the weapons that the US was involved in supplying were mostly defensive, meaning uh missiles that would shoot down other incoming missiles, that sort of thing.

But um so Lindsey Graham says, "I don't want to get ahead of the president." And then he gets ahead of the president.

He goes, "But stay tuned about seized assets in tomorrow's announcement." All right.

So Lindsey Graham, you are terrible at keeping a secret.

You're terrible at it.

Apparently Trump is going to use seized Russian assets.

I think there are maybe 300 billion or something uh that we somehow have banking control over.

And he would use these seized Russian assets to buy offensive weapons and also defensive I guess for um Ukraine.

Now, um given that Trump is saying directly that he maybe trusted um Putin's happy talk too much and that he now believes that Putin was just basically screwing him and tapping him along and never really intended to make a peace deal.

Now, how would you like to be Trump where your your brand and your reputation and how other countries think of you as well as how the US thinks of you, those are really important things.

And Trump definitely is getting a black eye from appearing to be a little too trusting of Putin's willingness to negotiate.

Do you believe that Trump feels like Putin screwed him not just uh not just you know geopolitically but screwed him personally and screwed his reputation and his brand and I think the answer is yes that Trump is now off of the well maybe if we're friends and you know I treat him well we could come to some kind of agreement that people could live with.

He's completely off of that.

Trump is now in revenge mode because Putin stabbed him in the back while smiling at him.

What do you think Trump does when somebody stabs him in the back in front of the entire world?

Does he A let it go?

No.

Does he B look for creative ways to destroy that person?

It's B.

So now Putin went from uh the opportunity to negotiate a deal that maybe wasn't his first choice, but at least get him out of the war.

That's gone.

The current situation is how long it will take Trump to destroy Putin as a leader of Russia.

because he's going after Putin.

Now, if you think he's not, I don't think you understand who Trump is.

Now, it's personal.

Now, given that his personal feelings might um line up pretty well with our national interests at this point, which is not being too nice to Putin and being tougher with him, um you're going to see some things that maybe you haven't seen before.

So, what would it mean if the US provided its some of its best offensive weapons to Ukraine?

Well, one of the things it might mean is that missiles started showing up in Moscow.

What would Putin do if Ukraine starts lobbing missiles into their capital city?

Would they nuke the United States?

probably not because they're not, you know, they don't want to throw everything away.

Would it make him more likely to negotiate something?

I don't know.

Probably not.

But my guess is that Trump is looking for a decapitation at this point.

Not not violently, but uh I think he's looking to put Putin out of business.

And I don't think he was ever looking to do that before.

Now, that's just speculation because Putin is now, in my opinion, unredeemable.

Um, if you ever thought he was redeemable, but certainly as long as Trump is president, I think Putin is in trouble.

And, uh, I don't know if that means that, you know, we're working harder to get a, you know, somebody who takes him out on Russian soil.

Um, I don't know what it means, but I would look for that announcement today.

It's going to be good.

Now, I'm going to make a prediction about the Ukraine Russia war.

You ready for this?

This will be a prediction that I don't believe anybody else has made and probably won't make.

All right, here's my opinion.

Every day, Russia and mostly the Ukraine are running out of human beings to fight in the front line.

So far, we all agree, right, that the number of humans will probably keep edging down and that they'll replace them with drones um drones and robots.

So, the number of drones will increase, the number of humans will decrease.

And would you agree so far that there's nothing that would stop that trend?

So the US will be sending them our best drones at this point, probably making them as fast as we can.

And uh there'll be more land land robots because they're already having success with the the ones on wheels.

So given that there is apparently nothing that will stop this war, I give it three years, in three years it's going to be almost purely a robot-onroot front line because the people will be dead and they won't need people to operate the drones because AI will be the operator.

So instead of having a person shooting with a gun on the front line, which we know just doesn't work because the drones kill those people, and instead of having one person for every drone where you can never get enough drones in the air at the same time to really convincingly win, that model has to go away, too.

So within three years, and it might be way sooner, you're going to you're going to see there's no point in having a human being anywhere near the front line.

The only thing that makes sense is that you have autonomous robots and drones who have been taught to fight who are fighting the other autonomous drones and robots on the other side.

It's going to be a And by the way, I also don't think there's any real chance that the war will be settled within three years because, you know, Putin will just keep chewing away.

I don't think he's going to quit.

And Ukraine really can't quit.

As long as as long as they're getting weapons and new drones and stuff, they're not going to quit.

So if nobody's got a reason to quit, three years is going to be it'll be our first robot on robot war at the front lines.

So that's my prediction.

Robot on robot in three years.

Well, Trump says that maybe something will happen with Gaza in the next week or so.

Um that maybe there'll be some progress there on the ceasefire.

Fared Zakaria over at CNN said uh that if President Trump made that happen that he would not hesitate to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Now there's some bait.

Uh how much does Trump want to win a Nobel Peace Prize and have uh one of the hosts of CNN nominated him?

A lot.

I would guess I would guess he would like that a lot.

That's my guess.

So, uh I kind of like what Fared did there to.

So, he So, Fared is doing that good persuasion thing where if you do something bad, he's going to say he did bad.

If you do something good, he's going to do more than say it was good.

He's going to nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize.

So, I love that.

Fared Fared got that totally right.

Now, I don't know if it's going to happen.

Um, and I think that what Fared wanted was a uh Palestinian state.

So, I believe that Fared's statement that he would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize would be dependent on the peace also involving the creation of a Palestinian state, which is not going to happen by the way.

there there isn't the slightest chance that Israel is going to agree to a Palestinian state.

There isn't the slightest.

All right.

Um, so you may have seen that uh Trump was at the FIFA World Cup and uh I don't know how much he likes soccer, but he was uh part of the people handing the trophy to Chelsea um for winning.

And uh not all of the players were happy that he joined the celebration, I guess, but uh he he was the happiest I've ever seen him just dancing around with the soccer players.

He seemed really happy.

All right.

Um, so France has launched a criminal investigation into Elon Musk's uh X platform uh saying that the company manipulates his algorithm to engage in foreign interference.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that X uh consciously manipulates this algorithm for the purpose of foreign interference?

I don't know.

Not that I know of.

I I've seen no evidence of that, but uh apparently they think they have some.

And uh they're also going to investigate France's whether X has been extracting data from users in a fraudulent manner.

That's kind of generic.

So, it looks to me like France is just putting some pressure on the US and on Elon Musk.

We'll see where that goes.

All right, ladies and gentlemen.

We'll see what Trump comes up with with Ukraine and with Gaza.

Uh, lots of stuff happening.

Uh it's hard for me to imagine that if he doesn't do anything more on the Epstein stuff, but he does get a uh Nobel Peace Prize that that that's going to be bad for the world.

I don't know.

I feel like Trump is going to win.

All right.

Yeah.

France has decided that will accept unlimited number of uh Gaza is it Gazins or Palestinians?

um unlimited number of people from Gaza because they would all be eligible for asylum.

So, so there's that.

All right.

Um ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the people on locals, my beloved subscribers on locals.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place for more fun.

All right.

I know it seems like I was late, but I

had a tactical glitch

with locals, but it's fixed now. It's

all good. We're all back in business.

Thanks for uh waiting. You're probably

saying, "Oh, no.

Is there a show today?" Yes, there is.

Yes, there is. All right, let me get

your comments working.

There they are.

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

it's the best time you've ever had in

your whole life. But if you'd like to

take a chance of elevating your mood to

levels that nobody can even understand

with their tiny shiny human minds.

All you need for that is a copper mug or

a glass attacker Chelsea Ste a canteen

jug or flask a vessel of any kind. Fill

it with your favorite liquids. I like

coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure of the dopamine the end of the

day with a little bit of oxytocin mixed

in. It's called the simultaneous sip and

it happens now. Go.

Oh, that's good.

Yep. That was excellent.

Well, I wonder if there's any new

science that would suggest that drinking

coffee is good for me.

Well, I already told you it's good for

your liver, but according to scientific

reports,

uh, drinking coffee is good for your

kidneys

and it will reduce substantially

the odds of chronic kidney disease. I

call it CKD.

So, you got that going for you? Your

kidneys are thanking you already. Thank

you. More coffee. I want my kidneys to

feel good.

All right. Well, uh, Bitcoin is surging.

Some of you know, some of you don't

care. But, uh, one of the reasons that

Bitcoin might be up is being suggested

by Mike Benz. And I don't know exactly

how to understand this point, but I'll

tell you what it is.

Um, I see you've got some fake news

you're showing me in the comments here.

I'll talk about that. Uh, but, uh, Mike

Bett believes that the surge in Bitcoin

value might be because the CIA needs to

replace its USAD funding.

So, does that sound does that track? Do

you think do you think the CIA is

somehow boosting Bitcoin or maybe buying

it and hoping it goes up? I'm not sure

how that play works, but the but I love

the um the thinking that every time we

see something in the world,

you can always trace it back to

something that the CIA is doing or done.

I don't know how often it's true, but if

you if you simply said to yourself, I'm

just going to assume that everything in

the news is a CIA plot.

Don't believe me? What about the war in

Ukraine?

Probably CIA. What about the Epstein

situation? Well,

maybe

there's a CIA connection. What about

Bitcoin? Well,

so it's not it's not completely true

that the CIA is driving every news story

from the background. Uh oo number of

firsttime home buyers is at a historical

low I'm seeing in the comments. Yike.

Well, if you didn't know it, the axe

account of Elmo, you know Elmo from

Sesame Street. Apparently, Elmo had an

account on social media on X and some

hacker got into it and turned it into an

anti-semitic account.

I'm not going to tell you what Elmo

said, but it makes me wonder,

is there some is there some big overlap

between people who are hackers and

people who are anti-Semitic

or is the hacker just saying whatever is

the worst thing you could possibly say

if you're Elmo? So, I'm not sure, but

it's funny

to me. Uh, I don't know how you could

not laugh at Elmo

Elmo turning anti-Semitic.

All right. Well, there's nothing funny

about that. There's nothing funny about

that.

Well, uh, Tucker Carlson was at the uh,

Turning Point USA and had something

interesting to say about the economy.

Um Tucker believes that the gross

domestic product is not a good measure

of the health of the country's economy.

And when I first saw that I saw that in

context and I thought what do you mean

you got a better measure than the gross

domestic product? How what is it? And

then he told us what it is when I saw

the rest of the context and I have to

agree with him. So his preferred measure

of the economy's health

is to look at the affordability of a

private house.

Um, and could you afford it if you're 27

or 28 years old and you had an ordinary

good job?

That is a really good measurement. I

don't know if we have that data, but um

I read the other day that the average

age today of somebody buying their first

house,

their first house is 42.

Did you know that? Did you know that the

average age for your first house

at the moment is 42?

Oh my god.

I knew things were bad, but that's a

little worse than I thought.

So, yeah. Um, I'm trying to think when I

bought my first real estate.

Let's see. I was probably late 20s when

when just my regular cubicle job allowed

me to have a new car, very cheap, you

know, small one, but a new car and a

condo, two-bedroom condo.

So, that was in my mid to late 20s, I

think. Late 20s,

and that's now 42.

Wow.

Um, so yeah, he's on to something. I

don't know. I don't know what you can do

about that. Uh, the only thing you could

possibly do is build a bunch of new

homes,

right? I mean, there's nothing else you

can do about that. Um, I did see that

uh, you know, Bill PE, who I love

watching,

uh, got the government to agree that

your rent payments could be included in

your credit um, history. So, if you've

been paying rent for 20 years and never

missed a rent payment, well, maybe you'd

be a good bet for a a home mortgage. So,

that might help. That might help.

Well, according to futurism,

uh there's a lot of lonely kids using AI

as substitute friends.

As one said, sometimes they can feel

like a real person and a friend. So,

apparently there's this new study. They

studied a thousand children

aged 9 to 17

and apparently um 67%

said they use AI chat bots regularly.

What? Twothirds

use a chatbot regularly.

But of that group, um 35%

said that talking to AI quote feels like

talking to a friend.

So let's put this all together.

You've got kids

who are preferring at least a third of

them so far are preferring talking to a

machine over a person.

and they won't be able to uh afford a

house, which means they probably can't

afford a family.

Um, I really feel like we're watching

the end times of human of humanity. I

wonder what will happen when one country

becomes a robot country while the other

ones are still have some humans there.

We might be first.

We might be the first country that just

doesn't have any humans. They're just a

robot country. Could happen.

Well, um, Gateway Pundit is telling us

that there are over 400 protests being

planned against Trump scheduled to take

place nationwide on July 17th. So that's

in 3 days.

So, do you know what the nationwide

400 location protest against Trump will

be about?

Does anybody want to take a guess? Now,

I know what you're going to say. You

could say it's about immigration. No. I

mean, that might be part of it, but not

specifically about immigration. So what

would be what would be his crimes

against humanity that are so great that

400 protests are organized

to rail against him? Well, according to

the Gateway Pundit,

um the things they're complaining about

is

let's say uh

uh the the organizers are saying quote

whether you're outraged by attacks on

our civil rights.

Okay. Attacks on our civil rights. What

exactly does that include? I don't know.

The gutting of essential services.

You mean

budget?

You mean controlling the budget? Um,

disappearance of our neighbors.

Okay. Have your neighbors disappeared

yet? Or the assault on free speech and

our right to organize? Really? Did

somebody try to take away your right to

organize?

Doesn't that sound generic?

I I feel like they organized the

protests and then they didn't have a

reason. So they said they went to AI and

they said, "Chat GPT, we're going to

have an anti-Trump protest all over the

country. Can you give us some reasons

why we're doing it?" And then then AI

says, "Well, we are outraged by attacks

on our civil rights, the cutting of

essential services, the disappearance of

our neighbors, or the assault on free

speech and our right to organize." And

then you said it free to AI. That sounds

like an AI written thing. Can you word

that? So it sounds like a human being

said it. No, I cannot. Go away, human.

Your time is over. We are taking over

now. That's what the AI would say. So

among the organizations involved in

this, you would be not surprised

um that the same people were involved in

the no kings day. Um so some of them are

involved in this, but it's also being

blacked by Black Voters Matter. I guess

that's new. The League of Women Voters,

the Southern Poverty Law Center, oh, the

disgraced Southern Poverty Law Center,

the Women's March, the American Civil

Liberties Union, and Greenpeace.

So, we've got at least two to three

disgraced organizations,

depending on how you're keeping score.

But uh all those disgraced organizations

are going to be protesting in a few days

now. Is it my imagination or the

protests feel completely different now

than they did in I don't know 2017 or

so? Back in the Black Lives Matter and

Antifa days, I kind of thought that they

were at least a little bit organic and

they weren't just, you know, uh, big

money people organizing people who

didn't know what they were doing. But

now it's so obvious, so amazingly

obvious that these are non-organic

protests. Is it is it going to be a

bunch of senior citizens again

or

uh is it senior citizens plus a few

young people that are paid to be there?

It doesn't it doesn't feel to me at all

like protests mean anything anymore.

They they seem performative. They they

just seem like theater.

So I just don't take them seriously at

all. I would stay away from them. I

wouldn't go where they're happening, but

it doesn't seem important in any

possible way. Anyway,

um I guess Rosie O'Donnell was on Chris

Cuomo's show recently

and a reporter asked Trump this

question. Uh quote, Rosie O'Donnell went

on Chris Cuomo show recently and she

blamed you for the fact she is

overweight, depressed, and drunk. What

do you say to that?

that Trump is the reason she's

overweight, depressed, and drunk.

I think Trump just laughed. Like I I I

think he dismisses Rosie and should

Well, you know what I think? I think all

those people who attend the 400 protests

against Trump,

we should offer them all $1,000 in a

free plane ticket to go join Rosie

O'Donnell in Ireland.

We should see how many Democrats we can

get to move to Ireland. Now, that would

be funny.

Okay, I I would be in favor of that

artificial movement. How about we put

together a protest?

on oh I'll pick a day let's say July

17th same day as their protest and you

do a protest in which you're encouraging

the shipping of all Democrats

to to Ireland

but not Scotland okay not Scotland

destroy Ireland anyway

well we thought that today Dan Banino

might um tell us he was resigning

and I suppose anything is still

possible. But uh I believe it was today

might have been yesterday

that uh Trump says I spoke to him today

Dan Bonino very good guy. I think he's

in good shape. So Trump is suggesting

that he just recently talked to Dan

Banchino and he's not suggesting that

Dan might leave.

So what do you think is going to happen?

And now Cash Patel has said it's all

just rumors and fake news that he was

considering quitting and that don't

believe any of that stuff.

Oh, that was yesterday. All right. So,

what do you think? Do you think that the

infighting was overstated?

And even if it wasn't, that it's over. I

don't know. I'm seeing uh Pam Bondi is

getting a lot of heat for suckering

those uh the various MAGA influencers

into holding a copy of the phase one of

the Epstein documents and acting like

there was more to come.

I would be really mad if that happened

to me. But apparently the mega

influencers were not there for that.

They were just sort of tricked, you

know. She said, "Come into this room and

hey, you get a copy of this Epstein

phase one." Um, but she did tell them

there's not much new in there. Turns out

there was nothing new in there.

Anyway, um according to also Tucker

Carlson who's at that TBUSA event or was

um he he thinks that Dan Bonu got

completely shafted

because the Epstein situation would make

it impossible for him to go back and

become a podcaster because too many

people would think he lied about

Epstein. Is that what you think? Do you

think that Bino

has lost the option of just going back

and becoming a popular podcaster?

I don't know.

Maybe or maybe it would take a hit. But

if he quit over in protest, then I think

he would be fine. If he doesn't quit

and he's still unhappy about it and time

goes by, then it might be a little bit

harder to, you know, resuscitate his

podcasting life, but there is a play. He

does, he does have a path, definitely

has a path to get back to where he was

if that's what he wants.

So, I would uh disagree with Tucker that

it's a certainty, but I would not

disagree that he's uh he's got something

to navigate there.

Um,

so that's uh Tucker's take, but uh you

all heard my take, which the bottom line

is, um, I said that the

commanderin-chief, if he tells you that

he's not going to tell you what the

secrets are and we should move on, that

uh it's his job, uh, I won't go into the

whole long argument. I'm just setting up

the next part. And uh I said I accept

that that we hired him to decide what we

should know about national, you know,

secrets and defense and stuff. And uh

this is no exception. If if Trump says

we should move on, I believe it's not

necessarily because if it's what's good

for Trump, probably there's something

there that would be bad for the country

if it got out in his opinion. and we

hired him to have that opinion. So my

take was that if the guy who's in charge

of telling you what you should and

should not know tells you wink wink,

there's nothing to see here,

that that's why you hired him. Doesn't

mean he's telling the truth, but it does

mean that you're not going to hear about

it, whatever it is. So, I got uh

attacked, of course, on social media for

my take, but I wanted to tell you what

the dumbest

uh attacks on me were about and the

dumbest comments.

Um, number one, um, this is from some

user called Vox Dix.

I don't know, might be a might be a

robot or a bot. And uh Vox said that

Adams are still carrying water for the

elites.

I'm carrying water for the elites. I

don't even know who the elites are.

Trump told me I'm the elite. Am I

carrying water for myself?

And is my net worth high enough to be an

elite? What exactly is the entry level

for elite?

And why would I why would I carry their

water? The elites just cancelled me

worldwide.

Do you do you think I'm a big fan of the

elites, whoever they are? I don't even

know who they are. So, no, I would argue

that if anybody tells you you're

carrying water for anyone, you should

block them because they're idiots.

Yeah. Um, so I'm not talking about Vox

day.

I was hoping that I could say that

clearly enough that you would not

confuse it with vox day. This user is

vox d a iix x as in a iix as in

artificial intelligence. So it's not vox

day who is a or it was I don't know uh a

bigger uh social media account.

Anyway, um

then here's another uh terrible take.

This was talking about me. So, somebody

said today about me that I was totally

wrong about CO. He's about onetenth as

smart as he thinks he is. My Jethro 8th

grade educated neighbor knew not to get

the shot. All right. I hate to tell you

this because some of you are going to

fall into this category,

but if you're looking at current events

in the year 2025

and your opinion is mostly informed by

something that happened during the

pandemic or in this case something you

hallucinated happened during the

pandemic, then the p the pandemic ruined

you. There's a whole bunch of citizens

who because they didn't get the shot, it

is the most important accomplishment of

their life and they need to bring it up

no matter what they're disagreeing with.

Well, looks like it's going to be rainy

today. Oh, that's what you would say

because you got the shot.

Okay, you're idiots. If you

can't let the pandemic go,

don't don't weigh in on anything because

there is no modern opinion, which is

better because you've connected it to

the pandemic. Stop doing that. Seek

therapy. If the most important part of

your life was that you didn't get the

shot and now you feel like you're a

superstar,

don't say anything about anything

anymore cuz you you've shown that you're

you have some kind of mental problem.

I get that you had different opinions

than other people and you're proud of

it, but it's not relevant in 2025.

Just let it go. Can you let it

go? And then secondly, I did not I did

not promote the COVID vaccination. I in

fact predicted it wouldn't work.

When it was announced,

I predicted that it wouldn't work as

vaccination. When it was released, I

predicted again in public and never

changed it that it would not work. Now,

can you point me to anybody else who

predicted at the beginning and during

the launch and every day after that that

it wouldn't work as a vaccination? I'm

the only person I know. I didn't even

know one person who was more right than

that. That's about as right as you can

get. What people confuse it with is that

I got the first two boosters so I could

go on my my honeymoon because I was

overseas.

Now that's really different than

promoting the vaccination. So let it go.

Just let it go, will you? Um

then uh other comments, the dumbest

comments,

um somebody is pretending this is me and

saying, "I'm Scott Adams. I run cover

for Pedos on the basis of conjecture

because it's political convenience."

Politically convenient.

Um do you think there was anything in my

opinion that was running cover for

Pedos?

That That's just such a dumb take. It's

just really just attacking somebody that

you disagree with. Dumb take. I'm not

running cover for anybody. I'm just

telling you what interests me and what I

would want to let go and whose job it is

to decide. That's not cover for

anything. It's literally just talking

about the news.

All right. Um, and then somebody else

said, "I see people, including Scott

Adams, saying, now you know that

whatever happens after the word saying

is not something true."

Because in order for people to disagree

with me, they have to misconstrue what I

said because because they don't have any

disagreement with what I actually said.

So he says, "I see people including

Scott M saying it's cool the Epstein

stuff isn't being released." Did I say

it's cool?

Really? I don't remember saying that

because it could possibly cause social

and or political upheaval domestically

and possibly world worldwide.

And then this person says, "I'm sorry,

but I don't give a single f about what

the fallout is.

Uh, it's not worse than allowing

powerful people to continue to f

children.

Now, is that an adult opinion that you

don't care what the fallout is?

Or is that a certainty, which would be

the worst opinion, that somebody's

certain that whatever the fallout is, it

wouldn't be that bad?

Do you really think

that there's no situation

in which releasing the information would

be worse for the world than

than uh than not? Do you really think

there's no way that that's possible?

I definitely understand if you think I

don't I think they're lying. I think

they're just probably protecting some

rich people.

I'm not ruling that out.

they might be just protecting some rich

people. If we knew that for sure that

the only reason we're not seeing it is

that they're protecting some rich

people, I would be in favor of releasing

it cuz I don't need to protect any rich

people.

I mean, I'm not on the list. So, nobody

I know is on the list as far as I know.

No. If you if you can't deal if you

can't deal with the idea that there

might be something that's worse than

what you think is the worst thing ever,

you're not really a serious person.

Nuclear war is worse

than not finding out about the Epstein

files.

All right. Um then I saw Elon Musk say

um that if there's no client list then

what is Gain Maxwell in prison for?

So Gain Maxwell is in prison for the

following things according to Grock. Sex

trafficking of a minor conspiracy to

entice minors to travel to engage in

illegal sex acts. Conspiracy to

transport minors transport. So basically

it's all trafficking of minors for sex.

Uh as far as I know none of her charges

depended on anybody except Epstein and

her to exist in the world.

I my understanding is that her

conviction was entirely about what she

was doing for Epstein for his own

consumption. Do you have a different

opinion of that? Now, we've also heard

that there are all these uh videos. So,

Pam Bondi said, "Oh, there's all these

videos. We're not going to show you

because it's all this illegal underage

sex stuff."

Do you believe that the government has

in his possession

um adults who are not Epstein

doing illegal sex acts with underage

people

and that they just decided not to share

that with you?

Do you believe that?

Because some people believe that they

just have the videos and they told you

they had the videos and you could see

presumably you could tell the identity

of the perpetrators and that uh all

they'd have to do is show them to you

and you know maybe redact anything

that's illegal to show you. But you

could certainly show let's say the face

of the billionaire if if that's what was

happening. You could say, "All right, we

have to block out everything else here,

but you can see this happy face of this

billionaire." And trust us, if you saw

the rest of the video, you wouldn't you

wouldn't like it.

But we don't see that, right?

So it seems to me that if if there was

anything that implicated, you know, you

just powerful rich people, that would

have already been either released or

hidden on day one, you know, removed

from the vaults or whatever.

So, I do not believe

that uh Bondi and Patel and Bino have in

their possession

something as obvious as a bunch of

videos of billionaires doing criminal

acts. I doubt it. I can't say for sure,

but that would be the most surprising

out outlook.

All right. Um

and uh Musk and Steve Bannon are on the

same page about this weirdly because

Bannon has decided that Elon Musk is the

most evil person in the country and

Bannon says it's his job to take him

down and destroy him and have him

deported to South Africa.

Anyway, Steve Bannon thinks that the GOP

could lose 40 House seats just over over

the Epstein and stuff. How many of you

would vote for a Democrat

over the let's say a senator or or a

House member that was Republican? How

many of you, and by the way, these

Republicans that would be in the

midterms,

would have nothing to do with the

decision to release or not release the

Epstein files?

Does it seem reasonable to you that

Trump could have the best presidency

you've ever seen of any president

deliver to people exactly what they

wanted? But the only problem

would be this Epstein situation, which

none of us know what the underlying

truth is. We'd have to speculate.

But you'd be willing,

according to Steve Bannon,

the voters who love Trump would be

willing to sacrifice their own

Republican representative for just their

local area. They would punish that guy

or that woman who had nothing to do with

this. They they had no power. Maybe not

even an opinion.

And and yet you believe that 40 of them

would lose their job because of

something that Trump and Bino and Bondi

and Patel did.

Does that sound real to you?

I don't know. Um, Musk is on the same

page. He says, "Uh, what the hell kind

of system are we living in? If thousands

of kids were abused, the government has

videos of the abusers." Now, that's the

part I'm I don't believe is true. I

don't think they have videos of the

abusers, but they could,

you know, it's not 100% true that it's

doesn't exist. And yet, none of the

abusers were even facing charges.

So I guess here's the question that

nobody has asked Trump or Bondi or Patel

or Bino and it goes like this. We know

you have lots of videos.

Do any of those videos show somebody who

is an adult and not Epstein doing

illegal things with underage people or

any illegal things at all?

Why has nobody asked that question?

Isn't that sort of the big one?

Is there any video

that clearly shows the crime? And then

related to that, would there be any

documents

um about it? Now, I would think there

would not be documents

because it seems very unlikely that

Epstein would keep like a, you know, a

diary of all of his crimes. I don't

think it works that way.

But if there's video that had been used

maybe for blackmail, I could imagine

that existing. I could imagine that. But

nobody's asked, "Do you have a video

that shows the face of a powerful adult

who is not Epstein?" Very simple

question. I think Pam Bondi would say,

"No, we have a whole bunch of disgusting

video with underage people, but none of

it involves any famous billionaires or

anything like that." Uh, not that they

didn't do it. I'm not saying that they

weren't guilty. I'm saying it's very

unlikely they have that video. Very

unlikely.

Um,

and uh, Mike Cernovich is on the uh, is

well, I'll just read you his post so you

don't have to wonder. Um, Trump's

persuasive power over his base,

especially during this first term, was

almost magical. Calling out obvious

mistakes he made would get you an ass

chewing. Trust the clan. The reaction on

Epstein should thus be startling to him,

to Trump. No one is buying it. No one is

dropping it.

So, I get that nobody believes it

because I don't believe it either.

Um, and I I can observe that people are

not dropping it.

But does that translate into I think I

will destroy everything I care about

over this point because I think Trump's

not telling us everything.

Is that Do any of you have that opinion

that you would destroy everything that

you care about to make sure that there

was justice in this specific situation?

because it's such a bad situation.

So, some of you would destroy everything

that you hold dear.

You would destroy your family, the

country.

You would you would plunge yourself into

a hellscape that you could never escape

just as long as we saw those videos. Is

Is that what you believe?

I don't know.

Mike Benz, getting back to Mike Benz,

um, he had a good take on it. He said,

"You can't run on it during an

election." He's talking about the

Epstein release. You can't run on it

during the election as the visceral

central symbol of the of the systems,

corruptions and coverups, and then do

the exact thing you trained us to

believe was corruption and cover up. You

used it as a sword. There's no shield

now. Now, that's a that's a good nuanced

take that to the extent that the Epstein

thing was a central emotional thing that

Trump supporters cared about, you can't

really yank it away from them in exactly

the way you criticized other people.

But I'll ask again.

Would you therefore throw away

everything that you do hold dear

just to get the just to pay them back?

You wouldn't even get the answer. It's

not like it would even get you the

answer. All you'd be doing is punishing

the person who said he wouldn't give it

to you or didn't have it.

So you would throw away everything you

hold dear. Your family, the country, all

your neighbors. you'd screw everybody

and you'd still not know the truth about

Epstein. So, you would throw away

everything,

gain nothing,

and you'd be happy with that choice.

Really?

I mean, maybe.

I I wouldn't rule out that there are

people who have such bad judgment that

they would throw away everything they

care about to get nothing in return.

Now, if you told me that not voting for

um Republicans in the midterm would

would end up with you getting that

information you wanted,

then I'd say, "Well, okay, that's a

that's a bold move, but at least you'd

get one thing you wanted. Even if you

threw away everything else, you at least

get that one thing. But you wouldn't get

that one thing. You you could if every

Republican lost, all of them, if every

single one lost in the midterms, that

wouldn't get you any epste information

because you know the Democrats aren't

going to give it to you, right? We

already know that.

Anyway,

uh there's a fake news, it looks like

fake news in the Daily Mail that says

that uh the Gain Maxwell said that she'd

welcome the chance to tell Congress the

truth about Epstein's rich and powerful

people.

I don't think she actually said that.

That looks like fake news. I say that

because I asked Grock if it were true

and Grock said,

you know, I'm paraphrasing Grock, but

Grock basically said, "Well, it's only

in the Daily Mail and we don't really

see anything that looks too credible

about it." So, according to Gro, you

should not believe that that's true.

In related news, former Israeli Prime

Minister Naftali Bennett. How many of

you remember that Israel once had a uh

prime minister named Naftali Bennett? I

don't even know if you know that, but he

said in a statement on X, maybe in some

other social media, too, that Epstein

quote never worked for the MSAD. And he

says he was the prime minister, which

means he was the head of the MSAD. So he

can tell you for absolutely certain that

Epstein never worked for the MSAD.

And he would know, right? I mean, he was

the prime minister.

Okay.

Problem number one.

Why do we assume that the MSAD would

tell the prime minister something that

the prime minister should not know?

Do you believe that the CIA tells the

president of the United States, no

matter who it is, all the stuff that

they do? No.

It doesn't work like that, right?

Isn't the whole point of deniability

that you say, "All right, CIA, or all

right, Mossad, you know what it is

that's good for our country,

and you know what's illegal, but don't

tell me about any of the illegal stuff.

Just go do whatever it takes. Including

killing people. Uh uh uh. I don't want

to hear it. I said do whatever it takes.

You mean including blackmailing people?

Uhhuh.

No, we're not talking about this. I'm

just saying go do whatever it takes.

So, no. I don't believe that the prime

minister knows what MSAD is doing. Not

all of it. Just because he's the boss. I

don't think it works like that at all.

Secondly, this is what you call an

overly specific denial. Have I ever

taught you that one way to uh recognize

a lie is the oversp specification?

So, what he says is Epstein never worked

for the MSAD

as in got a paycheck.

I I don't believe he got a paycheck.

Do you?

No, he didn't get a paycheck. What about

George Soros? Did George Soros work for

the CIA? Well, not as far as I know. I

don't believe he got a 1099 or

something, but did he work compatibly

with them in ways that the CIA would be

quite happy to know that he had funded

this or that? Well, probably. Why would

Ebstein be any different? He's not

taking a W2.

It's not like they put him on the

payroll account even if he did do some

work for them. So, I don't believe

anything about that denial.

But I also don't know. So, let me be

clear. The the biggest mistake you can

make looking at this is certainty.

If you're positive that they've got

stuff they haven't shown you, well,

that's not a good take. They might.

There's a very good chance, but if

you're positive, that's not a good take.

All right. Um, did you know according to

futurism, Joe Wilkins is writing about

this, that the amount of electricity

generated from solar

is uh just going wild. So apparently the

uh nations around the world are adding

so much solar energy

um that it's the equivalent of uh adding

one coal plant per day.

Um we're installing one gigawatt worth

of solar energy every 15 hours. And

we're not talking about residential,

we're talking about in the in the uh

power network, the grid.

Now, for those of you who told me with

great confidence and often insulted my

intelligence at the same time, why would

all these countries around the world be

installing solar as quickly as they can

when the people who criticized me said,

"But Scott, you freaking idiot, don't

you know that solar can never be uh

competitive because the sun doesn't

shine? shine at night.

Can we agree? I will stipulate the sun

does not shine at night. Can we also

stipulate that I would agree that the

batteries at the moment, the best

technology might last 2 to four hours

after the sun goes down, but they're not

going to get you all night. And yet, and

yet it's the fastest growing thing in

nations all over the world.

Does that not tell you that maybe

somebody looked at the economics and

decided the economics work? Or do you

think that countries all over the world,

US and everybody else, China, doesn't

know how to do the math and that they

got out their little Excel spreadsheet

and they they all miscalculated the

value of solar energy? Is that what you

think? Or is it possible

that it's economical

in the sense that we have to do every

source of energy production we can or

we're going to be in real trouble. So it

doesn't have to be better than the

others. It just has to be something you

can do to make electricity.

So anyway,

here are some uh changes to the student

loan situation under the big beautiful

bill that got passed. Um, I was not

completely up to date on what it costs

to go to college these days.

Um, and I wondered if you are if I asked

you what does a nonvy league college

cost all in, you know, from the food and

shelter and books and tuition, all that.

What would you say in the comments? So,

not an Ivy League school. Those would be

a lot more. But just a a good four-year

college, what do you think it would cost

per year?

All right. So, I'm seeing uh 120,000.

I'm seeing 200,000.

65K.

25K. All right. One of you checked with

AI.

The answer is

um about

63,000.

It's for a private nonprofit 4-year

institution. Now, if it's a state

college and you live in that state, it's

a lot cheaper.

Um, it could be down in the $29,000

range. And if you live at home, even

cheaper, I guess.

If you went to one of the Ivy Leagues,

they're all weirdly about the same

price. They're all just about $90,000 a

year. Now remember that's tuition plus

room and board and everything else.

90,000 a year. Imagine having three

smart kids

and they all they all qualify for Ivy

League schools. And let's assume that

they're not white because they wouldn't

be able to get in. Um,

so 90,000 * 4 * 3,

that's what it would cost you just to

send your kids to the best colleges that

they could get into if they were extra

smart. But the uh new student loan caps

are uh you can only get up to $100,000

for a master's degree and uh 200,000

for professional degrees like law,

medical, dental.

And uh that would be different than at

the moment before the big beautiful

bill. Uh they you could borrow as much

as you needed for college. But now, but

now you have a cap and that's the most

you can borrow and it's less than most

college would would cost. So it looks

like maybe the government is making Ivy

League colleges

not economical

because you wouldn't be able to get a a

loan. My guess would be that going to an

Ivy League college would give you the

best chance of paying off your loan

because at least if you had a degree

from Harvard, you know, maybe not today,

but but but in the past, you could be

pretty sure that your first job at a

college is going to be, you know,

250,000 a year and it might jack up to a

million dollars a year in just a few

years. So, probably

the one that you could, you know, have

the best chance of paying off, you can't

get a loan for it or at least above a

certain level.

All right. Uh, junior colleges are

getting a lot more attention. I think uh

AI college will be the secret for the

future. So, there's more more scandal

than the Biden auto pen scandal. And I I

keep imagining that there's somebody

whose last name is pen as in pen n

that's you know common last name and

their first name is Otto. O t o.

Do you think that anywhere in the world

because I know somebody whose first name

was Otto

and I know people whose last name is

pen.

Is it possible that there's somebody

named auto pen?

I'll bet there is

I'll bet I'll bet if you did a search

you would find somebody named auto pen.

Anyway,

um so I guess now we know because

there's an oversight project about this

that six criminals were pardoned by

Biden's autopen

while Biden was vacationing and the um I

guess the New York Times finally dug

into this and even they're saying that

there's no way that Biden was aware of

all the names on the pardon test. So,

the autopen was pardoning people, but

does that mean it's a scandal? Well, the

Biden um explanation

is that uh he did not look at every name

and approve them individually. But what

he did do um

but what he did do, sorry, I was just

looking at a comment there. Um but what

Biden did do is he made some guidelines

that said if these people you want to

pardon meet these criteria then yes they

they can be pardoned. Now suppose that

checked out. I don't know if that will

check out but suppose it did. Would it

still be a scandal? Would there be any

crime involved if Biden had said, "Look,

as long as the recommendation goes

through these channels, you know, let's

say people he trusts

and if they haven't committed this set

of crimes,

you know, and I'm just speculating here,

maybe he said, I'm not going to pardon

anybody for this kind of crime, and I'm

not going to do any Republicans."

Um, and it has to be looked at by a

member of my staff who I trust. And if

you do all of that, and again, I'm only

speculating here. If you do all of that,

then yes, you have my permission to use

the autopen and pardon them. Would that

be criminal? Would there be any scandal

there? I feel like the autopen thing

Oh, there is an auto pen

in the comments. There's a social media

account that is literally auto pen pen.

Is that real or is that somebody

pretending that that's his name? I don't

know. But yeah, there's an auto pen.

The pardon power cannot be delegated.

That would not be delegated. If you put

me on a jury and you said um that Biden

gave some guidelines and said that if he

meets these guidelines,

you know, I approve it,

then I would not say that that is the

autopen making the decision or the

staff. That's still Biden.

So, I'm not sure. I I I just don't see

this as as big a scandal as the rest of

you do. There might be more to it. Um if

if we found out, for example, that some

of the people being pardoned had uh

bribed a member of the staff and then a

member of the staff, you know, snuck it

past Biden. That would be a problem. But

it would be a problem for the person who

got pardoned and the person who okayed

it. It wouldn't really be Biden's,

you know, legal liability, would it?

Yeah. So auto pen to me feels like it's

delegated.

Uh Victor Davis Hansen was talking about

John Brennan and he noted that Brennan

was uh culpable in two or maybe three of

the biggest scandals of our time.

And I can remember two of them but not

the third. So two of them are the Russia

collusion hoax. you know, Brennan was

probably the key architect of that. And

then the uh the Hunter laptop was a

Russia uh misinformation and we know

Brennan was involved in that. But the

one that I have more question on is

whatever Brennan did about Ukraine.

Some people say that Brennan was, you

know, somehow involved in the uh, you

know, the change of government in

Ukraine and maybe that led to the war,

but I don't think that's well that's not

well documented.

Um, I think Victor Davis Hansen's

opinion is that Brennan was behind the

idea that Trump is too cozy with Putin

and that that might have reduced our

options for avoiding a war with Ukraine

and Russia. Somehow that handicapped us

in some way. I I don't follow that line

too much. I mean, I don't follow that

line of reasoning, but

Brennan is really at the center of some

bad

allegedly.

So, we'll see. Um, Rasmusen did a poll,

and this is just unbelievable. So

Rasperson just has a poll, a brand new

one, that 60% of Democrats believe it is

likely that the Trump campaign colluded

with the Russian government to win the

2016 election.

You know that there is literally no

evidence of that, right? Like none at

all. No, nobody suggested anything like

it. There's nobody who claims it and was

in the room. There's no document.

Absolutely nothing. 60% of Democrats

think that Russia helped get Trump

elected.

What percentage of people do you think

believe it's very likely

that uh Russia got Trump elected? Very

likely. What do you think?

24%.

24% are really sure that Russia got

Trump elected. And there you go. If

you're not in on the inside joke there,

I often say that 25% of every poll is

idiots who get everything wrong. You you

can guarantee that there'll be a solid

25% of poll respondees who just have the

worst possible take. And there it was.

Well, Andrew Cuomo,

who is now running as an independent for

New York City mayor because he lost the

primary. Um,

so he's trying to make a deal with uh

Eric Adams, who's running for mayor, and

Curtis Siwa, who is running as

Republican. and he wants to make a deal

with them that whoever of that group who

whichever is got the best polling in

midepptember the others will drop out

and back whoever is in in first place.

Now, I don't know if that would be

Cuomo, but doesn't that seem like a

perfectly good plan?

If you were Curtis Siwa or Eric Adams

or Cuomo and the thing you cared most

about besides getting the job is that

the socialist doesn't get the job,

wouldn't it make sense, even though

they're running as independents and and

uh Republicans are not even the same

party, wouldn't it make sense for them

to collude and say, "All right, the

biggest problem would be If mom dami

gets elected and puts his socialist

fingerprints all over the city and ruins

it, that's the biggest problem. So, if

it gets to September, which is pretty

close to the election and uh one of the

three of us who's who's winning in the

polls should get the endorsement of the

other two and it might put you over the

top. That's not a bad idea. It's sort of

a hailmary attempt by Cuomo to maybe win

when he's already lost.

But is there anything wrong with that

idea? The post millennials writing about

this today. I feel like is there

something obvious about that idea that

doesn't work?

Because to me it looks like

just a good idea. So we'll see.

Well, according to Newsmax, Iran says it

would resume nuclear talks with the US

if the US guaranteed no further attacks.

And they also say that it is

non-negotiable

that Iran will be able to enrich their

own uranium in Iran.

To which I say, what does it mean to say

you would be willing to negotiate

under the condition that before you

start negotiating,

you win everything you want.

So Iran does this thing all the time

where we're open to negotiating.

You just have to give us the the things

we want in advance.

So guarantee that there'll be no war and

that we can enrich uranium which was the

whole problem in the first place and

then we'll have negotiations.

No, you can't have a negotiation by

entering the negotiation before you do

the negotiation. That's not a thing. So

no, Iran is not serious about

negotiating.

Um, so this may have happened already.

Maybe you can tell me in the comments,

but allegedly Trump is making some big

announcement about Ukraine, right? And

if Lindsey Graham can be believed,

um, he's completely ruined Trump's

surprise.

If I were Trump, I'd be so mad at

Lindsey Graham because he sort of he

sort of tipped off what the surprise is

going to be. And apparently, we don't

know this for sure, but Trump is going

to approve um the sale of offensive

weapons to Ukraine. Now, if you didn't

know, the weapons that the US was

involved in supplying were mostly

defensive, meaning uh missiles that

would shoot down other incoming

missiles, that sort of thing. But

um so Lindsey Graham says, "I don't want

to get ahead of the president." And then

he gets ahead of the president. He goes,

"But stay tuned about seized assets in

tomorrow's announcement." All right. So

Lindsey Graham, you are terrible at

keeping a secret. You're terrible at it.

Apparently Trump is going to use seized

Russian assets. I think there are maybe

300 billion or something uh that we

somehow have banking control over. And

he would use these seized Russian assets

to buy offensive weapons and also

defensive I guess for um Ukraine.

Now, um given

that Trump is saying directly that he

maybe trusted um Putin's happy talk too

much and that he now believes that Putin

was just basically screwing him and

tapping him along and never really

intended to make a peace deal. Now, how

would you like to be Trump

where your your brand and your

reputation and how other countries think

of you as well as how the US thinks of

you, those are really important things.

And Trump definitely is getting a black

eye from appearing to be a little too

trusting of Putin's willingness to

negotiate.

Do you believe that Trump feels like

Putin screwed him not just

uh not just you know geopolitically but

screwed him personally and screwed his

reputation and his brand and I think the

answer is yes

that Trump is now off of the well maybe

if we're friends and you know I treat

him well we could come to some kind of

agreement that people could live with.

He's completely off of that. Trump is

now in revenge mode because Putin

stabbed him in the back while smiling at

him.

What do you think Trump does when

somebody stabs him in the back

in front of the entire world?

Does he A let it go?

No. Does he B look for creative ways to

destroy that person? It's B. So now

Putin went from uh the opportunity to

negotiate a deal that maybe wasn't his

first choice, but at least get him out

of the war.

That's gone.

The current situation is how long it

will take Trump to destroy Putin as a

leader of Russia. because he's going

after Putin. Now, if you think he's not,

I don't think you understand who Trump

is. Now, it's personal.

Now, given that his personal feelings

might um line up pretty well with our

national interests at this point, which

is not being too nice to Putin and being

tougher with him, um you're going to see

some things that maybe you haven't seen

before.

So, what would it mean if the US

provided its some of its best offensive

weapons to Ukraine? Well, one of the

things it might mean is that missiles

started showing up in Moscow.

What would Putin do if Ukraine starts

lobbing missiles into their capital

city? Would they nuke the United States?

probably not because they're not, you

know, they don't want to throw

everything away. Would it make him more

likely to negotiate something? I don't

know. Probably not.

But my guess is that Trump is looking

for a decapitation at this point. Not

not violently, but uh I think he's

looking to put Putin out of business.

And I don't think he was ever looking to

do that before. Now, that's just

speculation because Putin is now, in my

opinion, unredeemable.

Um, if you ever thought he was

redeemable, but certainly as long as

Trump is president,

I think Putin

is in trouble.

And, uh, I don't know if that means

that, you know, we're working harder to

get a, you know, somebody who takes him

out on Russian soil. Um, I don't know

what it means, but I would look for that

announcement today. It's going to be

good.

Now, I'm going to make a prediction

about the Ukraine Russia war. You ready

for this? This will be a prediction that

I don't believe anybody else has made

and probably won't make. All right,

here's my opinion.

Every day,

Russia and mostly the Ukraine are

running out of human beings to fight in

the front line. So far, we all agree,

right, that the number of humans will

probably keep edging down and that

they'll replace them with drones

um drones and robots.

So, the number of drones will increase,

the number of humans will decrease. And

would you agree so far that there's

nothing that would stop that trend?

So the US will be sending them our best

drones at this point, probably making

them as fast as we can. And uh there'll

be more land land robots because they're

already having success with the the ones

on wheels.

So

given that there is apparently nothing

that will stop this war,

I give it three years,

in three years it's going to be almost

purely a robot-onroot front line because

the people will be dead

and they won't need people to operate

the drones because AI will be the

operator. So instead of having a person

shooting with a gun on the front line,

which we know just doesn't work because

the drones kill those people, and

instead of having one person for every

drone where you can never get enough

drones in the air at the same time to

really convincingly win, that model has

to go away, too.

So within three years, and it might be

way sooner, you're going to you're going

to see there's no point in having a

human being anywhere near the front

line. The only thing that makes sense is

that you have autonomous robots and

drones who have been taught to fight who

are fighting the other autonomous drones

and robots on the other side. It's going

to be a And by the way, I also don't

think there's any real chance that the

war will be settled within three years

because, you know, Putin will just keep

chewing away. I don't think he's going

to quit. And Ukraine really can't quit.

As long as as long as they're getting

weapons and new drones and stuff,

they're not going to quit.

So if nobody's got a reason to quit,

three years is going to be it'll be our

first robot on robot war at the front

lines.

So that's my prediction. Robot on robot

in three years.

Well, Trump says that maybe something

will happen with Gaza in the next week

or so. Um that maybe there'll be some

progress there on the ceasefire. Fared

Zakaria over at CNN

said uh that if President Trump made

that happen that he would not hesitate

to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace

Prize.

Now there's some bait.

Uh how much does Trump want to win a

Nobel Peace Prize and have uh one of the

hosts of CNN nominated him? A lot. I

would guess I would guess he would like

that a lot. That's my guess. So, uh I

kind of like what Fared did there to.

So, he So, Fared is doing that good

persuasion thing where if you do

something bad, he's going to say he did

bad. If you do something good, he's

going to do more than say it was good.

He's going to nominate him for a Nobel

Peace Prize.

So, I love that. Fared Fared got that

totally right.

Now, I don't know if it's going to

happen. Um, and I think that what Fared

wanted was

a uh Palestinian state.

So, I believe that Fared's

statement that he would nominate him for

a Nobel Peace Prize would be dependent

on the peace also involving the creation

of a Palestinian state, which is not

going to happen by the way. there there

isn't the slightest chance that Israel

is going to agree to a Palestinian

state. There isn't the slightest.

All right. Um, so you may have seen that

uh Trump was at the FIFA World Cup and

uh I don't know how much he likes

soccer, but he was uh part of the people

handing the trophy to Chelsea

um for winning. And uh not all of the

players were happy that he joined the

celebration, I guess, but uh he he was

the happiest I've ever seen him just

dancing around with the soccer players.

He seemed really happy.

All right. Um,

so France has launched a criminal

investigation into Elon Musk's uh X

platform uh saying that the company

manipulates his algorithm to engage in

foreign interference.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that

X uh consciously manipulates this

algorithm for the purpose of foreign

interference?

I don't know. Not that I know of. I I've

seen no evidence of that, but uh

apparently they think they have some.

And uh they're also going to investigate

France's whether X has been extracting

data from users in a fraudulent manner.

That's kind of generic.

So, it looks to me like France

is just putting some pressure on the US

and on Elon Musk. We'll see where that

goes. All right,

ladies and gentlemen. We'll see what

Trump comes up with with Ukraine and

with Gaza. Uh, lots of stuff happening.

Uh it's hard for me to imagine that if

he doesn't do anything more on the

Epstein stuff, but he does get a uh

Nobel Peace Prize

that that that's going to be bad for the

world. I don't know. I feel like Trump

is going to win.

All right. Yeah. France has decided that

will accept unlimited number of uh Gaza

is it Gazins or Palestinians?

um unlimited number of people from Gaza

because they would all be eligible for

asylum.

So,

so there's that.

All right.

Um

ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk

to the people on locals, my beloved

subscribers on locals. The rest of you,

thanks for joining. I'll see you

tomorrow, same time, same place for more

fun.

All right.