Episode 2916 CWSA 08/03/25

It will be uh quite a treat for you.

This is me playing drums that I did for my pre-show.

This is This is how bad I am.

>> Come on.

I'm not going to do that.

Instead, how is everybody?

Come on in.

Come on in.

We'll grab a chair.

It's Sunday where all the lazy podcasters are sleeping in, but you and I, we're better than that.

We're so much better than that.

All right, let's uh see if I can find this feed.

What's going on here?

And then I'll have all your comments.

I can see them without this, but that makes them faster.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that no one can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

To do that, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shells a canteen jugger.

A vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Go.

It's uh it's kind of amazing to me.

As far as I know, locals is the only platform where the the chatters can put pictures.

That must not be true, but it's the only one I know of.

All right.

Uh after the show today, if you're a ex subscriber of Owen Gregorian, he's going to have a little space event uh when I'm done.

But that's only for people who are subscribing to Owen.

And uh if you're not, why not?

You should be.

So go over there.

Owen Gregorian.

You can just search for him on X.

You'll find him.

Well, there's a new study from the Society for for the Study of Addiction.

Um it says that unwanted pregnancies surge with alcohol but not with cannabis.

You know who else knew that?

Well, here's yet another example where you could have saved some money by just asking me.

Scott, does alcohol make you do reckless things that you regret later?

Oh, yeah.

Yep.

That's what alcohol does.

Scott, does marijuana make you more cautious or more of a risk taker?

Well, honestly, probably makes you more cautious.

No, you didn't need to study this one.

I I could have pretty much taken care of this.

Scott, what do you think?

Well, sit down.

I'll tell you.

But according to the Western Journal and Michael Austin who's writing, did you know this that uh the American uh marriage stability is very high actually historically and stable.

So, for reasons that we hope are good reasons, um there's a lot less divorce happening in the United States.

But is that good news?

What would cause uh a stark decrease in divorces?

Well, one thing that would cause that is bad economics because the person uh who might want to leave says uh we can't really afford to have two lives.

So, I have a feeling, this is based on my own my own uh lack of research.

I have a feeling that uh what we're seeing is a lot of people who have marriages, but maybe they've decided it's just for financial reasons and for the kids and maybe career-wise.

Um, but they're seeing other people because they're not really a couple anymore.

I have, how many of you know somebody who lives as a couple, but long ago they made a friendly agreement that they would see other people and they're just not really a romantic couple.

Do any of you know anybody like that?

So, I wonder how that counts.

Does that count as a divorce or does that count as still married?

I I guess it would be still married, right?

So, I'm not positive these numbers are good news, but hey.

Um, apparently just 15% 15% of marriages that started between 2010 and 2012 ended in divorce within their first 10 years.

Because most of you would have said, I'll bet it's more like half of those people.

It was only 15%.

Again, might not be good news.

It might be just bad economics.

Well, you might know that uh Amazon is going to upgrade their little device whose name I shall not use for fear of activating it, Alexa.

But they're going to add AI to it.

Um it's taking a while, so they haven't rolled that out yet.

But they're considering, there's a report that says they're considering putting advertisements on it.

Now, I've heard of bad ideas in my time, but can you imagine a worse idea than asking your ALexa what the weather is or something like that and having to listen to an advertisement before I've told you the answer?

I would use that once.

just once.

I would never ever use it again if it gave me an advertisement before it gave me an answer.

Now, what might be true is they want to sell subscriptions and so they want to torture you a little bit with the advertisements that would go away if you got a subscription.

So, my guess is that while it's true that they might be considering it, it might I doubt it's the only way you could consume it.

So, we'll see.

There's a uh startup that does in vitro fertilization stuff um that can predict an embryo's IQ.

So before you uh choose which of your embryos to, you know, bring to fruition, I guess, um you can test them all, whichever whichever eggs you got going there, and you can figure out which one would be the smartest one.

How many of you think that should be illegal?

Well, it's illegal in a lot of countries, it turns out.

But it's not illegal in the US.

In the US, you can test the uh you can you can test for IQ before you decide to have the embryo brought to full adulthood, I guess.

Um but it can also test for 17 various diseases.

So, is that all good or is that all bad?

Well, you know, maybe it would uh lower healthc care costs.

Maybe there'd be some kind of hidden downside to this that is not obvious.

But I can tell you that you will be called a racist if you're in favor of it.

And don't get me started about um Sweeny.

All right.

The company the company name is Herasite.

They're like heretics.

That's funny.

Um according to Futurism, Victor Tanganger is writing that CEOs are starting to publicly brag about reducing their workforce with AI.

Do you all remember my prediction about how CEOs would act um when they're doing downsizing?

In the old days, if you downsized your staff, it would be seen by the market as, "Oh, I guess things are not going so well.

They had to downsize." Now the the opposite case would be if you've been around for a long time and somebody buys your company and you know they're getting rid of the fat sort of the Elon Musk buys X kind of method.

So sometimes it's taken as a positive when you decrease staff.

But in the era of AI, I don't believe any CEO will ever admit that they're just decreasing staff to save money and they're not doing anything to replace them because they weren't that important anyway.

I feel like they'll all say, "Uh, yeah, we're going to cut 10% because of uh oh, AI.

AI.

Yeah, yeah, we're going to use AI and cut by 10%." But they they never give you examples.

Now, if they said, "We got rid of our call centers and yeah, we're now we're using AI to take calls," I would say, "Oh, that's probably exactly what happened." But the only company I know that did that ended up changing their mind because the AI was hallucinating too much.

So, they had to quickly undo what they did and go back to humans.

And if you tell me that they've reduced their uh programming staff, you coders because coders are more efficient with AI, I kind of doubt it in the real world.

I kind of doubt it.

So anyway, to me it sounds like just something that the CEOs will say, not something that's happening yet.

At one point it will, but I don't think it's happening yet.

Well, uh, President Trump is telling Schumer to go to hell.

Um, so I was trying to ignore this story in the news because it's too boring and it has to do with process.

But the basic idea is that the Senate wanted to take their summer recess vacation.

probably all of them had plans, you know, and their family had plans and expects them to be there, but there was some need to approve a whole bunch of nominees that the Democrats were holding up.

So, there was some kind of an agreement to stay and very quickly um you know, vote on a whole bunch of nominees.

But then Schumer said, um, we're not going to play along unless you give us a billion dollars of funding for we don't even know what.

It was just a billion dollars.

And, uh, and of course he felt like he had the upper hand because he was going to keep the Republicans from doing what they needed to do, you know, for their family and their other obligations.

So Trump said, uh, go to hell.

and he he just shut down the whole process.

Now, do you agree with Trump that when you get blackmailed like that?

The correct response to being blackmailed is uh nope.

And if it costs us something, well, it costs us something, but nope.

We're not going to be blackmailed by, you know, some some crappy Chuck Schumer guy.

All right.

So, that story is boring, but it's happening.

Um, one of the things that so far has impressed me about the Trump administration is, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems they've shown a willingness to really get into a whole bunch of issues that are maybe not sexy, but really, really important to get fixed.

One of them is uh cleaning up the voter roles in all the states because there's a lot of suspicion among mostly Republicans that the voter roles have a bunch of dead people on them and somehow that's helping Democrats win.

I don't believe that that's a proven uh fact.

But if half the country is worried that that's the case, you need to fix that.

And I'm sure there's some problem.

I don't know what the problem is, but you know, certainly there's some problems there.

So, the Department of Justice, um, according to Justice News, John Solomon is, uh, going to do this in all the states.

So, here's my question.

What happens if cleaning up the voter roles makes a difference in all the races?

And then on top of that, what happens if there's some uh redistricting that happens, gerrymandering, and that makes a difference.

You know, I I didn't love it when the Democrats found clever process ways to win.

And I suppose you could say this is just a way to, you know, make it even or take away their advantage or something.

But I don't love the fact that our system is so obviously not about who voted for what.

It's almost entirely whose process um was used.

So if you don't redistrict, you get one answer.

If you do, you get the other.

Voting somewhat irrelevant.

Weirdly, um, the, uh, according to the postmillennial, the federal government now, thanks to the, uh, Justice Department removing a barrier, can conduct merit-based hiring.

Now, doesn't that sound like a joke?

Let me say that again.

And just imagine that I had to tell you this, and it's 2025.

that the federal government of the United States has now the ability to do merit-based hiring.

Now, I think what this referred to is the uh the ability to give people a test and say, "Here's the test.

If you pass this test, we could hire you." In the uh Carter administration, I guess that kind of thing was removed.

because it was racist.

Can Can you believe that for years our government has been run without a merit test?

We're just hiring people because of what they look like.

It kind of looks like that, doesn't it?

If you had to if you had to ask yourself, what went wrong?

How did we get to this place?

Well, maybe it has to do with decades and decades of not being able to check people's merit before hiring them, but we got the race right, I guess.

So, or meet Dillons all over that.

Um, but that's, you know, that's another example of Republicans fixing stuff under the hood.

you know, not really sexy stuff, but stuff that really did need to get done.

Um, and then Ron De.

Santis, Governor Dantis, is bragging that Florida, his state, is the first state to eliminate DEI from their public university system.

How would you like to be working in the DEI industry when the when the current government of the United States and several of the governors of big states have declared that the thing you're doing is should be illegal.

It's so bad it needs to be against the law.

And it is.

It is against the law.

But just imagine you're working in some blue state and some organization that hasn't yet been targeted by Trump and it's your job to do something which has been determined to be illegal in the United States.

And there's there are probably a million people whose uh business card have on it the equivalent of I'm a money launderer or yeah, I'm a drug dealer.

Uh I'm a DEI professional.

Kind of all the same.

These are these are job titles for criminals and probably there probably a million of them in the United States.

Um, I may have told you that the uh Department of uh Energy recently put out a report on climate change and uh because it's the Trump administration and not the prior administration.

Do do you believe that they said climate change is an existential risk and we should spend trillions of dollars to fix it?

No, he did not say that.

They said that uh it it often is being looked at wrong.

Climate change may or may not be a real thing, but the way we're addressing it was bash crazy because we couldn't really change it just in the United States.

You know, China and India, for example, are bigger contributors.

But um so here's what I would say about this.

I I saw that Judith Curry is a co-author of that paper.

How many of you recognize her name?

Judith Curry.

So, she's one of the climate experts who I would say would be a contrarian to the general consensus that climate change is going to kill us all.

And she's quite famous and very capable.

But I have to be honest, the the uh conclusion of the paper was sort of determined by who they picked to write it.

Would you agree?

If if you pick Judith Curry to be the co-author, you're not wondering how it's going to turn out because she's she's famous for being a non- alarmist about climate.

So, you kind of know which way it's going to go.

I don't know who her co-author was, but I'm positive it was not a climate alarmist.

So, here's the trick.

If you were a dumb citizen who did not watch the Coffee with Scott Adams podcast, you might say to yourself, "Huh, uh, these qualified, uh, scientists have a a different view and they've made their case.

We can compare it to the other cases and just see who's got it right.

Unless science works, you know, it's always always being updated.

So maybe we need to update it now." Well, okay, that would be the most generous way to look at it.

Here's the other way to look at it.

Whoever decided who the co-authors would be also decided the science because they knew damn well that the co-authors were going to be the non- alarmists.

So, of course, that's what they got.

Now, I happen to think that Judith Curry is one of the more credible, you know, useful people in the entire industry.

So, this isn't about her.

And I'm I'm completely on the same page with her, but I'm not an expert.

Uh I I just think her argument is stronger than the argument that she's going against.

Well, so, so now do you see a pattern emerging that our leaders are not so much selected by the voters as they are selected by whoever it is that redistricted and you know played with the rules of the election and then our science in this case is being determined by somebody who picked the co-authors.

So, you know, we just have this weird belief that voters are voting for things and science is running in this unbiased way.

Nothing like that's happening.

Not even a little bit.

Everything is rigged one way or the other.

Now, in this case, I like the way it was rigged.

So, normally I'm not supposed to about it, right?

If if things are rigged in your direction where where you get what you want, the uh the tradition is you're supposed to just shut up and go, but don't use words.

Don't be like me.

Um, so poor Bill Maher.

You know, there are once again lots of Bill Maher's TV show clips going around today and yesterday.

And poor poor bastard, he he's watched all the coverage of the Russia collusion hoax being determined to be completely a hoax and he's not convinced.

He still thinks it's real, that there was Russia collusion and that it was proven and it's obvious.

That's Bill Maher.

His job is to talk about the news.

That's his job.

And then he ran a clip to make his case.

Now, keep in mind this is obviously his strongest argument because he only showed one thing.

It doesn't mean there is only one part of his argument, but he would obviously not show the weak part of his argument if he's only going to show one thing.

So he shows a clip of uh Trump as president and he was at maybe Helsinki and he was at the podium and um nearby Putin who was also at the podium and there was a a group of reporters asking them questions and I'll paraphrase but one of them asked uh Putin did you want Trump to win the election and did you do anything to make that happen?

And Putin said, at least the interpreter said he said yes.

So that's Bill Maher's proof that not only did Russia help Trump, but he's just admitted it in a speech in public with cameras rolling and he knew he was doing it.

Uh, Bill, let me let me explain what you're saying.

Uh, this is cognitive dissonance.

If you were not deeply in some kind of weird TDS bubble, do you think you would see that the same way?

Do you think you would have imagined that Putin would say, "Oh, yeah.

I totally influenced your elections and he'd say it standing next to the president, Trump." And he would say it while the cameras are rolling and when he needed the United States to sort of like him.

so they could get what he wanted.

Didn't work out.

But do you really think?

Here's what I think happened.

It was a two-part question.

Did you want Trump to win?

And then secondly, did you help him win?

Putin says yes to the first part.

Now, is it true that Putin wanted Trump to win?

Who knows?

But what is the correct answer?

The correct answer, if you're Putin, is, "Oh, yeah, totally.

I want him to win because you're going to be working with that guy.

So, of course, he's going to, you know, blow smoke up his pant leg.

Um, so, oh yeah, we we totally wanted Trump to win.

We're so glad.

And Bill Maher thinks that none of the prosecutors or none of the people looking into it use that clip as any part of the evidentiary, you know, path.

There's nobody nobody in the Department of Justice or the FBI used that clip to make their case that Trump was part of the Russia collusion hoax.

Bill Maher had to go find his own clip and make his own case for Russia collusion and act like nobody else had noticed.

Uh that is really that borders on just terrible mental illness.

Now it is mental illness.

It's TDS.

And I don't say that in a looking down my nose kind of way cuz obviously human beings are easily easily hypnotized by this kind of thing.

And he's no exception.

You no matter how smart and well-informed you are doesn't protect you at all, not even a little bit from cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is completely unrelated to IQ and and knowledge.

That's a good example because he's smart and he's knowledgeable.

But it didn't seem even a little bit weird to him to go find his own evidence after all the looking into it from the FBI and the DOJ.

He just thought, well, they probably missed this video.

And then it gets worse.

He he kind of changes the topic to well the Russia collusion hoax uh certainly wasn't as bad as um January 6 insurrection.

He still thinks January 6 was an insurrection where the Republicans forgot to bring guns.

Now to say that that opinion is stupid is generous.

It's really just mental illness because there's nobody in the world who really believes Republicans try to overthrow a country and leaves their guns home.

Nobody thinks that.

Moreover, as I've said many times, have you ever seen any news program, left or right, so this includes you, uh, Fox News, interviewing people who were arrested on January 6 and saying to them, why were you there protesting?

Were did you believe that Trump had lost fair and square, but you wanted to overthrow the country with an insurrection and put him in anyway?

Or did you think that it was obvious that the election had just been rigged right in front of you because of the weird pattern of the voting, which everybody had seen by then, I think, and uh and that you were there to to make sure an insurrection hadn't just happened.

So, it was the opposite of an insurrection.

It was trying to make sure that one hadn't happened right in front of them.

And so they were willing to march in the capital to slow things down to find out.

Now the now the January 6 hoax and I call it a hoax.

Um well it wasn't it was a hoax that where's 100% chance that's just a hoax.

Sort of like the uh the Charlottesville event.

There's nothing you could tell me that would make me think that happened organically.

Nothing.

That was so obviously an anti-Trump op that worked really well, by the way.

It was genius.

They still use it.

They still act like it hasn't been debunked.

Um, Dolly says, "It's obvious that tomorrow is a serious alcoholic." Well, uh I don't know about that, but um I've listened to him on Club Random, his his podcasty thing, and uh I believe he does say he likes to he likes to drink a lot.

So, that may be true.

I don't know that he's he would disagree with you, actually.

Um Harry Anton uh who's becoming my favorite CNN character, their data and polling expert, he says that Trump's approval has uh increased at least with Republicans since the Epstein drama.

The poor Democrats, they're waiting for something, anything to finally make Trump less popular, at least with his own team.

and they're like, "Ah, this Epstein thing, this is really going to smash him down and people aren't going to vote for him and they're not going to show up in the midterms and stuff like that." Well, it turns out that since the Epstein thing came out, uh, Trump's approval on the CNN poll went from 86% and that's just Republicans to 88.

So, it improved and a Quinnipac poll went from 87 to 90.

So it went up.

Now I assume that the slightly just slightly and temporary reduction in his approval was probably from the tariffs.

But now that the tariffs appear to be uh at least maybe successful um if the only factor is Epstein, I don't I don't see people and and of course people are still waiting to see if there's more coming out.

So it's not like we think nothing more is coming out.

So maybe people are just wait and see.

All right.

Um, my state, California, uh, is starting to have a disturbing pattern.

Now, I didn't see this um, on a news site, but I saw it on a social media site.

It said that the Sacramento California school board um the entire board just resigned after they audited and found that $180 million of taxpayer fraud.

This is the Sacramento, California school board.

$180 million of taxpayer fraud.

Apparently, they were they had fake classrooms they were given money to and fake entities and fake projects.

$180 million.

Now, have I ever mentioned, of course I have, that wherever there's complexity and a lot of people working and a lot of money and time has gone by and it's always corrupt every time.

So, you could have asked me when when the Sacramento California School Board was first formed, whenever whenever they got access to deciding where money went, you could have called me up say, "Scott, um, do you think that there'll be massive fraud that comes out of this?" And I'll ask a few questions.

I go, "Okay, is it going to be a complex organization with lots of moving parts?" Yes.

Will uh they be assigning money to lots of different places and nobody's going to be checking?

Yes.

Um and will they be able to give that money to their cronies and people who donate to their uh whatever they do and whatever?

>> Yes.

The answer would be yes.

There was a 100% chance that was going to go corrupt.

So California, do you see the pattern?

If you give a lot of money to any complicated entity in California, they will form subcommittees and subcommittees and give it to NOS's and uh fake entities and their cousins and it'll all just disappear and then later somebody will audit it and say, "Ah, it's I don't know, we can't find it." Um, so here is uh one of my favorite categories for the podcast is when uh Democrats are insulting other Democrats, which we're seeing a lot lately.

So Harry Enon, going back to him on CNN, um was not buying Kla Harris's explanation that she didn't want to be part of a broken system and she was going to apply her leadership outside of government.

her leadership.

What exactly is she ever led?

She She led the Democratic party to complete destruction.

I would hate to be led that way.

Anyway, Harry Anton says he doesn't believe any of that basically.

Um so he's he's mocking her for obviously lying really that the real reason is her poll numbers are terrible.

there was a good chance she wouldn't win anything and so it's all And then I see a headline on X the Postmillennial is writing about this that uh Tish James she so she's the attorney general in uh New York State.

Um she's suing Trump to allow child sex changes in New York because I guess they got banned by executive order.

Now, are you having the same um same impression I am when you you see this headline, Tish James sues Trump to allow child sex changes in New York.

Doesn't it feel like that couldn't possibly be 2025?

Doesn't that feel like something from the old and stupid past?

It just doesn't even seem like it's real.

Like really, are we still talking about that?

and she's decided that of all the things she could spend her time on, she wants to spend her time on uh, you know, being a prominent Democrat anti-Trumper who wants child sex changes by surgery.

Unbelievable.

Someone needs to talk to her and say uh we Democrats would like to win another election someday um beyond New York City.

Even uh Senator John Fedman says that uh Trump's trade war is going well and he looked at uh he referred to Bill Maher as his oracle for his party.

They really need a better oracle.

Um and uh he's he says even Bill Maher says the the tariff war stuff looks like it's going to work out.

So Federman is got something good to say about Trump and uh CNN's Michael Smirkish was training his viewers that they lose credibility when they say everything that Trump does is a disaster because he pointed out uh come on is it not a good thing that the poorest border crossings have slowed to a trickle?

Is it not a good thing that our NATO allies have agreed to move from 2% to 5% of GDP?

And so here's the thing is CNN and CNN is complaining because voters Democrats don't have anything good to say about Trump.

Now, how could it be that all those Democrats have nothing good to say about Trump?

What would cause a situation like that?

Oh, I know.

They watch CNN.

So, he smirkes, who I like, by the way, he's he's very common sense-based guy.

So, he's he's an honest uh broker.

But uh what was left out of that story and there's obvious reason why is that the cause of Democrats thinking that 100% of what Trump does is a disaster is that they watch CNN.

They don't sit in a room by themselves and come up with that.

But what but to be fair uh this was on CNN.

So, Manish by amplifying the idea that Trump has done a few things right um is changing that.

So, good for him.

Um but as I often say, our political opinions are not independently arrived at.

They are assigned to us by our favorite media.

All right.

Jasmine Crockett.

Oh, this is funny.

You all know who Jasmine Crockett is, right?

She's a loudmouth uh idiot uh Democrat who's just got tons of attention.

Um and uh she just found out that if Texas gets away with a redistricting, which I think is in question, right?

There's some question about whether the redistricting will get approved, but if it does, uh they're going to draw her out of her own district.

So, they're basically going to redraw the map so that she wouldn't have a chance of getting uh reelected or that or that she just doesn't even exist.

She that they wouldn't need her next time.

So, this would be an example of the squeaky wheel getting greased cuz she was the squeakiest wheel.

So, Texas decided to grease her and they're they're going to grease her good.

They're greasing her hard.

So, I don't know if this is really happening, but to me, it would be hilarious if she spent all of her time tried to get the highest profile she possibly could and then text us.

I I have this Hold on.

I have this image in my head.

Really?

I don't have a single pen.

All right.

I have to use something I'll pretend is a pen.

I I have this image of somebody in Texas saying, "So, Jasmine, what's your address?" Apparently, they did call her to confirm her address, which is even funnier.

I guess they called everybody to confirm their address, the the representatives.

But they called her to confirm her address.

And now I just have this this image in my head of somebody in Texas saying, "Huh, all right.

There's your house.

All right.

Well, and you're gone.

So, she spends she spends all this energy to become this, you know, highprofile person in the Democratic party and she did a great job of getting attention.

And then there's somebody in Texas who just draws draws a circle around her house with a pencil and makes her go away.

Now remember I was saying earlier that if if the rigged system goes your way, you don't feel like it's rigged.

You just think it's funny.

Well, like I'm I'm literally laughing at it, but it's because it got rigged in my favor.

I I wanted that to happen.

Now, I don't know that it will happen.

You know, it was not a done deal by any any stretch, but uh I I should pause and say I'm not really in favor of a bunch of redistricting, gerrymandering.

You know, both sides do it, but is that you know, is that ideal?

Not really.

But this time it might work in my favor maybe.

Well, as you know, the president of El Salvador, Naib Buelli, um worked with his government to get rid of term limits so that he could be uh serving six-year terms.

I think that's up from four.

And he could be reelected as indefinitely if that's what the people want.

Now, people complained and called him a dictator for getting rid of the term limits.

But he has an argument on his side which isn't bad.

So here's his argument that he posted.

Um he said 90% of developed countries allow the indefinite reelection of their head of government.

Did you know that?

Did you know that 90% of developed countries >> allow their leader to just keep running and running and as long as they get reelected?

Um, and no one bats an eye, he says.

But when a small poor country like El Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly it's the end of democracy.

Of course, they'll rush to point out that a quote a parliamentary system isn't the same as a presidential one.

So most of those other countries he's talking about are a different system.

So if the party gets elected, then they pick their leader.

So they can keep picking the same one if they want.

A parliamentary system isn't the same as a presidential one.

They'll say, uh, as if that technicality justifies the double standard.

Is it a technicality?

I suppose he's right.

But let's be honest, that's just a pretext.

What do people really mean?

Well, because if El Salvador declared itself a parliamentary monarchy with the exact same rules as the UK, Spain, or Denmark, they still wouldn't support it.

In fact, they would go ballistic if that happened.

Why?

Because the problem isn't the system.

It's the fact that a poor country dares to act like a sovereign one.

Sovereign is not the opposite of poor.

So, I don't know.

Uh you're not supposed to do what they do.

You're supposed to do what you're told and you're expected to stay in your lane.

Um I feel like he's completely wrong with that argument.

Do you believe that there's anybody who's criticizing him who is thinking, "Oh, that's not something a small poor country can do." Literally, not one person probably had that thought.

And he's, you know, he's arguing it like we all know it, you know, uses uses phrases like uh uh it's the fact.

So that that's how you know somebody's lying.

Democrats do this all the time.

He goes, uh, because the problem isn't the system, it's the fact that a poor country dares to act like a sovereign one.

They would go ballistic.

Basically, all these it's just crazy So, I have to admit, um, he's got a reasonable argument that most of the big countries allow indefinite elections.

However, however, his argument for why it should be okay and why they're against him is obviously a lie.

Yeah, that's just a lie.

And I haven't seen him lie in a way that was everybody could tell was a lie.

So, this is sort of disappointing.

You know, he's such a capable leader and a friend of the United States.

So, I want to like him, but what's up with this?

I mean, this is just crazy So, we'll see.

Uh, according to Newsmax, Hamas's position at the moment is it won't disarm unless there can be a independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.

um who is advising Hamas?

If it's AI, they really need to get a better AI because um they're starting to remind me of that knight in Montipython.

Is it Montipython and the Holy Grail in which the knight uh is in a sword fight with the other character and he gets his arm cut off and then the other arm then both legs and he wants to keep fighting once he has no arms and no legs and Hamas is like that now like ah we got him now because um Great Britain and France and who else said that they are supporting a Palestinian state.

So now Hamas is like, "Ha, we got him now." But what do you think Israel is saying?

I think Israel is saying, "Oh, well, since our plan is to do everything we want with Gaza because you guys will never give up." Uh, I guess we have a free pass to just keep doing what we're doing.

And they do.

So Hamas, you really need better advisers because I'll tell you the one thing that is not going to happen in any world.

Not even a chance.

Is them getting an independent Palestinian state as a reward for taking all the hostages and killing all those people.

There is not the slightest chance, not the slightest tiniest little chance that Israel is going to reward them for taking hostages.

That's just not going to happen.

But anyway, there's Spunky just like that Monty Python knight.

Um, apparently India at one point Trump thought that maybe India was going to start buying less Russian oil, but uh source in India is saying that's not true.

They're going to be buying all kinds of Russian oil.

Um so so just hold this in your mind for a second.

All right?

Because there's a story that comes after this where this is important.

So hold in your mind that India uh gets most of their oil from Russia which funds Russia and their war etc.

and uh and Trump def very much doesn't want them to be buying that oil from Russia.

So, hold that in your head and we're going to move to the next story.

A drone attack by Ukraine that was 500 miles um past the front lines of battle in into Russia.

They sent a drone attack 500 miles into Russia that blew up a Russian oil refinery.

Um, so I'm starting to wonder I wonder if all those improved weapons that Trump says he's going to sell to Ukraine, do you think that will include weapons that could if they wanted to blow up a bunch of Russian oil assets such that India just wouldn't be able to buy enough oil from Russia because Russia wouldn't be able to produce it?

Is that coming?

Because it feels like that would probably cross some line.

But I also thought that when their pipeline got blown up.

If it's possible to blow up their pipeline, what else can you blow up and get away with it?

So maybe India has some uh some surprises coming and Russia too.

We'll see.

Uh Tesla got slapped with, according to Just the News, a $243 million in damages.

Um the lawsuit because I guess early on uh their car hit a couple and killed them.

It It was in self-driving mode, but it was in supervised self-driving mode, and the driver already admitted he was using his phone and wasn't paying attention.

So that's before anybody was supposed to not pay attention and they still lost.

So the guy driving the car had already admitted he was 100% uh liable cuz he knew he knew the car was supposed to be supervised and the technology was new, but he didn't do it and then two people died and still Tesla loses and is liable for 243 million.

Amazing.

Did you know that the price of beef I don't eat beef so I didn't know this is way up?

Did you all know that?

That the price of beef is way up.

I guess there are fewer cows or at least beef cows and uh it's not going to correct itself for at least a year or so depending on weather and cows and stuff like that.

All right.

Well, enjoy your beef if you can afford it.

And uh Russia has a plan to start a human trial for a mRNA based cancer vaccine that would be uh not really a vaccine.

It would be to treat people for their specific kind of cancer.

So they would modify each vaccine for each person.

And they're looking for volunteers and they're going to run this thing in 2025.

So, you know what I say?

Hurry up.

Hurry up.

Maybe it works.

You never know.

I believe that the US was looking at the exact same thing.

An mRNA platform vaccine that wasn't really vaccine, just was modified to treat a specific person.

Well, the New Jersey Institute of Technology used AI to find uh five new powerful battery materials that could replace lithium.

Now, I don't know if this is real because we're at that period in history where people know they can get attention by saying AI made the difference.

Oh, we need the AI.

We never could have done this without the AI.

But allegedly they use the AI to look through a gazillion alternatives for materials and it came up with some that are very promising.

So we may be close to the point where you just don't need the uh rare earth minerals so much.

AI will just figure out how to do it without them.

Maybe.

You never know.

All right, that's all I had to talk about today, ladies and gentlemen.

Um, I'll remind you that if you're a subscriber to Owen Gregorian on X that he's got a uh spaces in a few minutes, but just for his subscribers.

So, if you don't subscribe to him, you should on X and uh you'll love these spaces.

All right.

Um, AI clone stand in for podcast.

Really?

Is that true?

I'm just reading this.

The Reuben report has an AI clone experiment standing in for him on his podcast for August.

He he always takes August off.

Huh.

Um I'm pretty sure that's not going to work.

So, you know, I looked into cloning myself, but the hallucination factor is through the roof.

I suppose if if a human edited it to get rid of the hallucinations maybe.

So I'll watch.

All right.

I'm going to talk uh privately to the beloved subscribers of locals and that'll happen in 30 seconds.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

See you same time tomorrow, same place.

It will be uh quite a treat for you.

This is me playing drums that I did for

my pre-show.

This is This is how bad I am.

>> Come on.

I'm not going to do that. Instead,

how is everybody? Come on in.

Come on in.

We'll grab a chair.

It's Sunday where all the lazy

podcasters are sleeping in, but you and

I, we're better than that.

We're so much better than that.

All right, let's uh see if I can find

this feed.

What's going on here?

And then I'll have all your comments.

I can see them without this, but that

makes them faster.

[Music]

[Music]

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience to levels that no one

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains.

To do that, all you need is a copper mug

or a glass of tanker shells a canteen

jugger.

A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join

me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

the dopamine of the day. The thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.

It's uh it's kind of amazing to me. As

far as I know, locals is the only

platform where the the chatters can put

pictures.

That must not be true, but it's the only

one I know of. All right. Uh after the

show today, if you're a ex subscriber of

Owen Gregorian, he's going to have a

little space event uh when I'm done. But

that's only for people who are

subscribing to Owen. And uh if you're

not, why not? You should be. So go over

there. Owen Gregorian. You can just

search for him on X. You'll find him.

Well, there's a new study from the

Society for for the Study of Addiction.

Um it says that unwanted pregnancies

surge with alcohol but not with

cannabis.

You know who else knew that?

Well, here's yet another example where

you could have saved some money by just

asking me. Scott, does alcohol make you

do reckless things that you regret

later? Oh, yeah. Yep. That's what

alcohol does. Scott, does marijuana make

you more cautious or more of a risk

taker? Well, honestly, probably makes

you more cautious.

No, you didn't need to study this one. I

I could have pretty much taken care of

this. Scott, what do you think? Well,

sit down. I'll tell you.

But according to the Western Journal and

Michael Austin who's writing, did you

know this that uh the American

uh marriage stability is very high

actually historically and stable.

So, for reasons that we hope are good

reasons, um there's a lot less divorce

happening in the United States. But is

that good news?

What would cause uh a stark decrease in

divorces?

Well, one thing that would cause that is

bad economics because the person uh who

might want to leave says uh we can't

really afford to have two lives. So, I

have a feeling,

this is based on my own my own uh lack

of research. I have a feeling that uh

what we're seeing is a lot of people who

have marriages, but maybe they've

decided it's just for financial reasons

and for the kids and maybe career-wise.

Um, but they're seeing other people

because they're not really a couple

anymore.

I have, how many of you know somebody

who lives as a couple, but long ago they

made a friendly agreement that they

would see other people and they're just

not really a romantic couple. Do any of

you know anybody like that? So, I wonder

how that counts. Does that count as a

divorce or does that count as still

married?

I I guess it would be still married,

right?

So, I'm not positive these numbers are

good news, but hey. Um, apparently just

15%

15% of marriages that started between

2010 and 2012 ended in divorce within

their first 10 years. Because most of

you would have said, I'll bet it's more

like half of those people. It was only

15%.

Again, might not be good news. It might

be just bad economics.

Well, you might know that uh Amazon is

going to upgrade their little device

whose name I shall not use for fear of

activating it, Alexa.

But they're going to add AI to it. Um

it's taking a while, so they haven't

rolled that out yet. But they're

considering, there's a report that says

they're considering putting

advertisements on it. Now, I've heard of

bad ideas in my time, but can you

imagine a worse idea than asking your

ALexa

what the weather is or something like

that and having to listen to an

advertisement before I've told you the

answer? I would use that once.

just once. I would never ever use it

again if it gave me an advertisement

before it gave me an answer. Now, what

might be true is they want to sell

subscriptions and so they want to

torture you a little bit with the

advertisements that would go away if you

got a subscription. So, my guess is

that while it's true that they might be

considering it, it might I doubt it's

the only way you could consume it. So,

we'll see.

There's a uh startup that does in vitro

fertilization stuff um that can predict

an embryo's IQ.

So before you uh choose which of your

embryos to, you know, bring to fruition,

I guess, um you can test them all,

whichever whichever eggs you got going

there, and you can figure out which one

would be the smartest one.

How many of you think that should be

illegal? Well, it's illegal in a lot of

countries, it turns out. But it's not

illegal in the US. In the US, you can

test the uh you can you can test for IQ

before you decide to have the embryo

brought to

full adulthood, I guess. Um but it can

also test for 17 various diseases.

So,

is that all good or is that all bad?

Well, you know, maybe it would uh lower

healthc care costs.

Maybe there'd be some kind of hidden

downside to this that is not obvious.

But I can tell you that you will be

called a racist if you're in favor of

it.

And don't get me started about

um Sweeny.

All right.

The company the company name is

Herasite.

They're like heretics. That's funny.

Um according to Futurism, Victor

Tanganger is writing that CEOs are

starting to publicly brag about reducing

their workforce with AI.

Do you all remember my prediction about

how CEOs would act um when they're doing

downsizing?

In the old days, if you downsized your

staff, it would be seen by the market

as, "Oh, I guess things are not going so

well. They had to downsize." Now the the

opposite case would be if you've been

around for a long time and somebody buys

your company and you know they're

getting rid of the fat sort of the Elon

Musk buys X kind of method. So sometimes

it's taken as a positive when you

decrease staff. But in the era of AI,

I don't believe any CEO will ever admit

that they're just decreasing staff to

save money and they're not doing

anything to replace them

because they weren't that important

anyway. I feel like they'll all say,

"Uh, yeah, we're going to cut 10%

because of uh oh, AI. AI. Yeah, yeah,

we're going to use AI and cut by 10%."

But they they never give you examples.

Now, if they said, "We got rid of our

call centers and yeah, we're now we're

using AI to take calls," I would say,

"Oh, that's probably exactly what

happened." But the only company I know

that did that ended up changing their

mind because the AI was hallucinating

too much. So, they had to quickly undo

what they did and go back to humans. And

if you tell me that they've reduced

their uh programming staff, you coders

because coders are more efficient with

AI, I kind of doubt it

in the real world. I kind of doubt it.

So anyway, to me it sounds like just

something that the CEOs will say, not

something that's happening yet. At one

point it will, but I don't think it's

happening yet.

Well, uh, President Trump is telling

Schumer to go to hell.

Um, so I was trying to ignore this story

in the news because it's too boring and

it has to do with process. But the basic

idea

is that the Senate wanted to take their

summer recess vacation. probably all of

them had plans, you know, and their

family had plans and expects them to be

there, but there was some need to

approve a whole bunch of nominees that

the Democrats were holding up. So, there

was some kind of an agreement to stay

and very quickly um you know, vote on a

whole bunch of nominees. But then

Schumer said, um, we're not going to

play along unless you give us a billion

dollars of funding for we don't even

know what. It was just a billion

dollars. And,

uh, and of course he felt like he had

the upper hand because he was going to

keep the Republicans from doing what

they needed to do, you know, for their

family and their other obligations.

So Trump said, uh, go to hell. and he he

just shut down the whole process.

Now, do you agree with Trump

that when you get blackmailed like that?

The correct response to being

blackmailed is uh nope. And if it costs

us something, well, it costs us

something, but nope. We're not going to

be blackmailed by, you know, some some

crappy Chuck Schumer guy. All right.

So, that story is boring, but it's

happening.

Um, one of the things that so far has

impressed me about the Trump

administration is, correct me if I'm

wrong, but it seems they've shown a

willingness to really get into a whole

bunch of issues that are maybe not sexy,

but really, really important to get

fixed. One of them

is uh cleaning up the voter roles in all

the states because there's a lot of

suspicion among mostly Republicans that

the voter roles have a bunch of dead

people on them and somehow that's

helping Democrats win. I don't believe

that that's a proven uh fact. But if

half the country is worried that that's

the case, you need to fix that. And I'm

sure there's some problem. I don't know

what the problem is, but you know,

certainly there's some problems there.

So, the Department of Justice,

um, according to Justice News, John

Solomon is, uh, going to do this in all

the states. So, here's my question. What

happens

if cleaning up the voter roles makes a

difference in all the races?

And then on top of that, what happens if

there's some uh redistricting that

happens, gerrymandering, and that makes

a difference.

You know, I I didn't love it when the

Democrats found clever process ways to

win. And I suppose you could say this is

just a way to, you know, make it even or

take away their advantage or something.

But I don't love the fact that our

system is so obviously not about who

voted for what. It's almost entirely

whose process

um was used. So if you don't redistrict,

you get one answer. If you do, you get

the other.

Voting somewhat irrelevant. Weirdly,

um, the, uh,

according to the postmillennial, the

federal government now, thanks to the,

uh, Justice Department removing a

barrier, can conduct merit-based hiring.

Now, doesn't that sound like a joke?

Let me say that again. And just imagine

that I had to tell you this, and it's

2025.

that the federal government of the

United States has now the ability to do

merit-based hiring.

Now, I think what this referred to is

the uh the ability to give people a test

and say, "Here's the test. If you pass

this test, we could hire you."

In the uh Carter administration, I guess

that kind of thing was removed. because

it was racist.

Can Can you believe that for years our

government has been run without a merit

test? We're just hiring people because

of what they look like. It kind of looks

like that, doesn't it? If you had to if

you had to ask yourself, what went

wrong? How did we get to this place?

Well, maybe it has to do with decades

and decades of not being able to check

people's merit before hiring them,

but we got the race right, I guess. So,

or meet Dillons all over that.

Um,

but that's, you know, that's another

example of Republicans fixing stuff

under the hood. you know, not really

sexy stuff, but stuff that really did

need to get done.

Um, and then Ron DeSantis, Governor

Dantis, is bragging that Florida, his

state, is the first state to eliminate

DEI from their public university system.

How would you like to be working in the

DEI industry

when the when the current government of

the United States and several of the

governors of big states have declared

that the thing you're doing is should be

illegal.

It's so bad it needs to be against the

law. And it is. It is against the law.

But just imagine you're working in some

blue state and some organization that

hasn't yet been targeted by Trump

and it's your job to do something which

has been determined to be illegal in the

United States.

And there's there are probably a million

people whose uh business card have on it

the equivalent of I'm a money launderer

or

yeah, I'm a drug dealer. Uh I'm a DEI

professional. Kind of all the same.

These are these are job titles for

criminals

and probably there probably a million of

them in the United States.

Um,

I may have told you that the uh

Department of uh Energy

recently put out a report on climate

change and uh because it's the Trump

administration and not the prior

administration. Do do you believe that

they said climate change is an

existential risk and we should spend

trillions of dollars to fix it? No, he

did not say that. They said that uh

it it often is being looked at wrong.

Climate change may or may not be a real

thing, but the way we're addressing it

was bash crazy because we couldn't

really change it just in the United

States. You know, China and India, for

example, are bigger contributors.

But um

so here's what I would say about this. I

I saw that Judith Curry is a co-author

of that paper. How many of you recognize

her name? Judith Curry. So, she's one of

the climate experts who I would say

would be a contrarian to the general

consensus that climate change is going

to kill us all. And she's quite famous

and very capable. But I have to be

honest, the the uh conclusion of the

paper was sort of determined by who they

picked to write it. Would you agree?

If if you pick Judith Curry to be the

co-author,

you're not wondering how it's going to

turn out because she's she's famous

for being a non- alarmist about climate.

So,

you kind of know which way it's going to

go. I don't know who her co-author was,

but I'm positive it was not a climate

alarmist.

So,

here's the trick.

If you were a dumb citizen who did not

watch the Coffee with Scott Adams

podcast, you might say to yourself,

"Huh, uh, these qualified, uh,

scientists have a a different view and

they've made their case. We can compare

it to the other cases and just see who's

got it right. Unless science works, you

know, it's always always being updated.

So maybe we need to update it now."

Well, okay, that would be the most

generous way to look at it. Here's the

other way to look at it. Whoever decided

who the co-authors would be also decided

the science

because they knew damn well that the

co-authors were going to be the non-

alarmists. So, of course, that's what

they got. Now, I happen to think that

Judith Curry is one of the more

credible, you know, useful people in the

entire industry. So, this isn't about

her. And I'm I'm completely on the same

page with her, but I'm not an expert.

Uh I I just think her argument is

stronger than the argument that she's

going against.

Well,

so, so now do you see a pattern emerging

that our leaders are not so much

selected by the voters as they are

selected by whoever it is that

redistricted

and you know played with the rules of

the election

and then our science

in this case is being determined by

somebody who picked the co-authors.

So, you know, we just have this weird

belief that voters are voting for things

and science is running in this unbiased

way. Nothing like that's happening. Not

even a little bit. Everything is rigged

one way or the other. Now, in this case,

I like the way it was rigged. So,

normally I'm not supposed to about

it, right? If if things are rigged in

your direction where where you get what

you want, the uh the tradition is you're

supposed to just shut up and go,

but don't use words.

Don't be like me. Um, so poor Bill

Maher. You know, there are once again

lots of Bill Maher's TV show clips going

around today and yesterday. And

poor poor bastard, he he's watched all

the coverage of the Russia collusion

hoax being determined to be completely a

hoax

and he's not convinced. He still thinks

it's real,

that there was Russia collusion and that

it was proven and it's obvious.

That's Bill Maher. His job is to talk

about the news. That's his job. And then

he ran a clip to make his case. Now,

keep in mind this is obviously his

strongest argument because he only

showed one thing. It doesn't mean there

is only one part of his argument, but he

would obviously not show the weak part

of his argument if he's only going to

show one thing. So he shows a clip of uh

Trump as president and he was at maybe

Helsinki and he was at the podium and um

nearby Putin who was also at the podium

and there was a a group of reporters

asking them questions and I'll

paraphrase but one of them asked uh

Putin did you want Trump to win the

election and did you do anything to make

that happen? And Putin said, at least

the interpreter said he said yes.

So that's Bill Maher's proof that not

only did Russia help Trump, but he's

just admitted it in a speech in public

with cameras rolling and he knew he was

doing it.

Uh, Bill, let me let me explain what

you're saying. Uh, this is cognitive

dissonance.

If you were not deeply in some kind of

weird TDS bubble, do you think you would

see that the same way? Do you think you

would have imagined that Putin would

say, "Oh, yeah. I totally influenced

your elections and he'd say it standing

next to the president, Trump." And he

would say it while the cameras are

rolling and when he needed the United

States to sort of like him. so they

could get what he wanted. Didn't work

out.

But do you really think? Here's what I

think happened. It was a two-part

question. Did you want Trump to win? And

then secondly, did you help him win?

Putin says yes to the first part. Now,

is it true that Putin wanted Trump to

win? Who knows? But what is the correct

answer? The correct answer, if you're

Putin, is, "Oh, yeah, totally. I want

him to win because you're going to be

working with that guy. So, of course,

he's going to, you know, blow smoke up

his pant leg. Um, so, oh yeah, we we

totally wanted Trump to win. We're so

glad.

And Bill Maher thinks that none of the

prosecutors or none of the people

looking into it use that clip as any

part of the evidentiary,

you know, path. There's nobody nobody in

the Department of Justice or the FBI

used that clip to make their case that

Trump was part of the Russia collusion

hoax. Bill Maher had to go find his own

clip

and make his own case for Russia

collusion and act like nobody else had

noticed.

Uh that is really

that borders on just terrible mental

illness. Now it is mental illness. It's

TDS. And I don't say that in a looking

down my nose kind of way cuz obviously

human beings are easily easily

hypnotized by this kind of thing. And

he's no exception. You no matter how

smart and well-informed you are doesn't

protect you at all, not even a little

bit from cognitive dissonance. Cognitive

dissonance is completely unrelated to IQ

and and knowledge. That's a good example

because he's smart and he's

knowledgeable.

But it didn't seem even a little bit

weird to him to go find his own evidence

after all the looking into it from the

FBI and the DOJ. He just thought, well,

they probably missed this video.

And then it gets worse. He he kind of

changes the topic to well the Russia

collusion hoax uh certainly wasn't as

bad as um January 6 insurrection.

He still thinks January 6 was an

insurrection where the Republicans

forgot to bring guns.

Now to say that that opinion is stupid

is generous. It's really just mental

illness because there's nobody in the

world who really believes Republicans

try to overthrow a country and leaves

their guns home. Nobody thinks that.

Moreover, as I've said many times, have

you ever seen any news program,

left or right, so this includes you, uh,

Fox News, interviewing people who were

arrested on January 6 and saying to

them, why were you there protesting?

Were did you believe that Trump had lost

fair and square, but you wanted to

overthrow the country with an

insurrection and put him in anyway? Or

did you think that it was obvious that

the election had just been rigged right

in front of you because of the weird

pattern of the voting, which everybody

had seen by then, I think, and uh and

that you were there to to make sure an

insurrection hadn't just happened. So,

it was the opposite of an insurrection.

It was trying to make sure that one

hadn't happened right in front of them.

And so they were willing to march in the

capital to slow things down to find out.

Now the now the January 6 hoax and I

call it a hoax. Um well it wasn't it was

a hoax that where's 100% chance that's

just a hoax. Sort of like the uh the

Charlottesville event.

There's nothing you could tell me that

would make me think that happened

organically.

Nothing. That was so obviously an

anti-Trump op that worked really well,

by the way. It was genius.

They still use it. They still act like

it hasn't been debunked.

Um, Dolly says, "It's obvious that

tomorrow is a serious alcoholic." Well,

uh I don't know about that, but um I've

listened to him on Club Random, his his

podcasty thing, and uh I believe he does

say he likes to he likes to drink a lot.

So, that may be true. I don't know that

he's he would disagree with you,

actually.

Um Harry Anton

uh who's becoming my favorite CNN

character,

their data and polling expert, he says

that Trump's approval has uh increased

at least with Republicans since the

Epstein drama. The poor Democrats,

they're waiting for something, anything

to finally make Trump less popular, at

least with his own team. and they're

like, "Ah, this Epstein thing,

this is really going to smash him down

and people aren't going to vote for him

and they're not going to show up in the

midterms and stuff like that." Well, it

turns out that since the Epstein thing

came out, uh, Trump's approval on the

CNN poll went from 86% and that's just

Republicans to 88. So, it improved and a

Quinnipac poll went from 87 to 90. So it

went up. Now I assume that the slightly

just slightly and temporary reduction in

his approval was probably from the

tariffs.

But now that the tariffs appear to be uh

at least maybe successful

um

if the only factor is Epstein,

I don't I don't see people

and and of course people are still

waiting to see if there's more coming

out. So it's not like we think nothing

more is coming out. So maybe people are

just wait and see. All right. Um, my

state, California,

uh, is starting to have a disturbing

pattern.

Now, I didn't see this

um, on a news site,

but I saw it on a social media site. It

said that the Sacramento California

school board um the entire board just

resigned after they audited and found

that $180 million of taxpayer fraud.

This is the Sacramento, California

school board. $180 million of taxpayer

fraud. Apparently, they were they had

fake classrooms they were given money to

and fake entities and fake projects.

$180 million.

Now, have I ever mentioned, of course I

have,

that wherever there's complexity and a

lot of people working and a lot of money

and time has gone by and it's always

corrupt every time. So, you could have

asked me when when the Sacramento

California School Board was first

formed, whenever whenever they got

access to deciding where money went, you

could have called me up say, "Scott,

um, do you think that there'll be

massive fraud that comes out of this?"

And I'll ask a few questions. I go,

"Okay, is it going to be a complex

organization with lots of moving parts?"

Yes. Will uh they be assigning money to

lots of different places and nobody's

going to be checking? Yes. Um and will

they be able to give that money to their

cronies and people who donate to their

uh whatever they do and whatever?

>> Yes. The answer would be

yes. There was a 100% chance that was

going to go corrupt. So California,

do you see the pattern? If you give a

lot of money to any complicated entity

in California, they will form

subcommittees and subcommittees and give

it to NOS's and uh fake entities and

their cousins and it'll all just

disappear and then later somebody will

audit it and say, "Ah, it's I don't

know, we can't find it."

Um, so here is uh one of my favorite

categories for the podcast is when uh

Democrats are insulting other Democrats,

which we're seeing a lot lately. So

Harry Enon, going back to him on CNN, um

was not buying Kla Harris's explanation

that she didn't want to be part of a

broken system and she was going to apply

her leadership outside of government.

her leadership.

What exactly is she ever led? She She

led the Democratic party to complete

destruction.

I would hate to be led that way. Anyway,

Harry Anton says he doesn't believe any

of that basically. Um

so he's he's mocking her for obviously

lying really that the real reason is her

poll numbers are terrible. there was a

good chance she wouldn't win anything

and so it's all

And then I see a headline on X the

Postmillennial is writing about this

that uh Tish James she so she's the

attorney general in uh New York State.

Um

she's suing Trump to allow child sex

changes in New York because I guess they

got banned by executive order. Now, are

you having the same um same impression I

am when you you see this headline, Tish

James sues Trump to allow child sex

changes in New York. Doesn't it feel

like that couldn't possibly be 2025?

Doesn't that feel like something from

the old and stupid past? It just doesn't

even seem like it's real.

Like really, are we still talking about

that?

and she's decided that of all the things

she could spend her time on,

she wants to spend her time on

uh, you know, being a prominent Democrat

anti-Trumper who wants child sex changes

by surgery.

Unbelievable.

Someone needs to talk to her and say uh

we Democrats would like to win another

election someday

um beyond New York City.

Even uh Senator John Fedman says that uh

Trump's trade war is going well and he

looked at uh he referred to Bill Maher

as his oracle for his party.

They really need a better oracle. Um and

uh he's he says even Bill Maher says the

the tariff war stuff looks like it's

going to work out. So Federman is got

something good to say about Trump

and uh CNN's Michael Smirkish was

training his viewers that they lose

credibility when they say everything

that Trump does is a disaster because he

pointed out uh come on is it not a good

thing that the poorest border crossings

have slowed to a trickle? Is it not a

good thing that our NATO allies have

agreed to move from 2% to 5% of GDP?

And

so here's the thing is CNN and CNN is

complaining because voters Democrats

don't have anything good to say about

Trump.

Now, how could it be that all those

Democrats have nothing good to say about

Trump? What would cause a situation like

that? Oh, I know. They watch CNN.

So, he smirkes, who I like, by the way,

he's he's very common sense-based guy.

So, he's he's an honest uh broker. But

uh what was left out of that story and

there's obvious reason why

is that the cause of Democrats thinking

that 100% of what Trump does is a

disaster is that they watch CNN.

They don't sit in a room by themselves

and come up with that.

But what

but to be fair uh this was on CNN. So,

Manish by amplifying the idea that Trump

has done a few things right um is

changing that. So, good for him.

Um but as I often say, our political

opinions are not independently arrived

at. They are assigned to us by our

favorite media.

All right. Jasmine Crockett.

Oh, this is funny. You all know who

Jasmine Crockett is, right? She's a

loudmouth uh idiot uh Democrat who's

just got tons of attention.

Um

and uh she just found out that if Texas

gets away with a redistricting, which I

think is in question, right? There's

some question about whether the

redistricting will get approved,

but if it does, uh they're going to draw

her out of her own district. So, they're

basically going to redraw the map so

that she wouldn't have a chance of

getting uh reelected or that or that she

just doesn't even exist. She that they

wouldn't need her next time. So, this

would be an example of the squeaky wheel

getting greased cuz she was the

squeakiest wheel. So, Texas decided to

grease her and they're they're going to

grease her good. They're greasing her

hard. So, I don't know if this is really

happening, but to me, it would be

hilarious if she spent all of her time

tried to get the highest profile she

possibly could and then text us.

I I have this Hold on.

I have this image in my head.

Really? I don't have a single pen. All

right. I have to use something I'll

pretend is a pen.

I I have this image of somebody in Texas

saying, "So,

Jasmine, what's your address?"

Apparently, they did call her to confirm

her address,

which is even funnier. I guess they

called everybody to confirm their

address, the the representatives. But

they called her to confirm her address.

And now I just have this this image in

my head of somebody in Texas saying,

"Huh, all right. There's your house. All

right. Well, and you're gone.

So, she spends she spends all this

energy to become this, you know,

highprofile person in the Democratic

party and she did a great job of getting

attention. And then there's somebody in

Texas who just draws draws a circle

around her house with a pencil and makes

her go away.

Now remember

I was saying earlier that if if the

rigged system goes your way, you don't

feel like it's rigged. You just think

it's funny. Well, like I'm I'm literally

laughing at it, but it's because it got

rigged in my favor. I I wanted that to

happen. Now, I don't know that it will

happen. You know, it was not a done deal

by any any stretch, but uh I I should

pause and say I'm not really in favor of

a bunch of redistricting,

gerrymandering.

You know, both sides do it, but is that

you know, is that ideal? Not really. But

this time it might work in my favor

maybe.

Well, as you know, the president of El

Salvador, Naib Buelli,

um worked with his government to get rid

of term limits so that he could be uh

serving six-year terms. I think that's

up from four. And he could be reelected

as indefinitely if that's what the

people want. Now, people complained and

called him a dictator for getting rid of

the term limits.

But he has an argument on his side which

isn't bad. So here's his argument that

he posted. Um

he said 90% of developed countries allow

the indefinite reelection of their head

of government. Did you know that? Did

you know that 90% of developed countries

>> allow their leader to just keep running

and running and as long as they get

reelected?

Um, and no one bats an eye, he says. But

when a small poor country like El

Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly

it's the end of democracy. Of course,

they'll rush to point out that a quote a

parliamentary system isn't the same as a

presidential one. So most of those other

countries he's talking about are a

different system. So if the party gets

elected, then they pick their leader. So

they can keep picking the same one if

they want.

A parliamentary system isn't the same as

a presidential one. They'll say, uh, as

if that technicality justifies the

double standard.

Is it a technicality? I suppose he's

right. But let's be honest, that's just

a pretext.

What do people really mean? Well,

because if El Salvador declared itself a

parliamentary monarchy with the exact

same rules as the UK, Spain, or Denmark,

they still wouldn't support it. In fact,

they would go ballistic if that

happened. Why? Because the problem isn't

the system. It's the fact that a poor

country dares to act like a sovereign

one. Sovereign is not the opposite of

poor. So, I don't know. Uh you're not

supposed to do what they do. You're

supposed to do what you're told and

you're expected to stay in your lane. Um

I feel like he's completely wrong with

that argument.

Do you believe that there's anybody

who's criticizing him who is thinking,

"Oh, that's not something a small poor

country can do."

Literally, not one person probably had

that thought. And he's, you know, he's

arguing it like we all know it, you

know, uses uses phrases like uh uh it's

the fact.

So that that's how you know somebody's

lying. Democrats do this all the time.

He goes, uh, because the problem isn't

the system, it's the fact that a poor

country dares to act like a sovereign

one. They would go ballistic. Basically,

all these it's just crazy So, I

have to admit, um, he's got a reasonable

argument that most of the big countries

allow indefinite elections. However,

however, his argument for why it should

be okay and why they're against him is

obviously a lie.

Yeah, that's just a lie. And I haven't

seen him lie in a way that was everybody

could tell was a lie. So, this is sort

of disappointing.

You know, he's such a capable leader and

a friend of the United States. So, I

want to like him, but what's up with

this? I mean, this is just crazy

So, we'll see. Uh, according to Newsmax,

Hamas's position at the moment is it

won't disarm unless there can be a

independent Palestinian state

with its capital in Jerusalem.

um

who is advising Hamas? If it's AI, they

really need to get a better AI because

um they're starting to remind me of that

knight in Montipython.

Is it Montipython and the Holy Grail in

which the knight uh is in a sword fight

with the other character and he gets his

arm cut off and then the other arm then

both legs and he wants to keep fighting

once he has no arms and no legs and

Hamas is like that now like ah we got

him now because um Great Britain and

France and who else said that they are

supporting a Palestinian state. So now

Hamas is like, "Ha, we got him now."

But what do you think Israel is saying?

I think Israel is saying, "Oh, well,

since our plan is to do everything we

want with Gaza because you guys will

never give up." Uh, I guess we have a

free pass to just keep doing what we're

doing. And they do. So Hamas, you really

need better advisers because I'll tell

you the one thing that is not going to

happen in any world. Not even a chance.

Is them getting an independent

Palestinian state as a reward for taking

all the hostages and killing all those

people. There is not the slightest

chance, not the slightest tiniest little

chance that Israel is going to reward

them for taking hostages.

That's just not going to happen. But

anyway, there's Spunky just like that

Monty Python

knight.

Um, apparently India

at one point Trump thought that maybe

India was going to start buying less

Russian oil, but uh source in India is

saying that's not true. They're going to

be buying all kinds of Russian oil. Um

so so just hold this in your mind for a

second. All right? Because there's a

story that comes after this where this

is important. So hold in your mind that

India uh gets most of their oil from

Russia

which funds Russia and their war etc.

and uh

and Trump def very much doesn't want

them to be buying that oil from Russia.

So, hold that in your head and we're

going to move to the next story. A drone

attack by Ukraine that was 500 miles um

past the front lines of battle in into

Russia. They sent a drone attack 500

miles into Russia that blew up a Russian

oil refinery.

Um,

so I'm starting to wonder I wonder if

all those improved weapons that Trump

says he's going to sell to Ukraine, do

you think that will include weapons that

could if they wanted to blow up a bunch

of Russian oil assets such that India

just wouldn't be able to buy enough oil

from Russia because Russia wouldn't be

able to produce it?

Is that coming? Because it feels like

that would probably cross some line. But

I also thought that when their pipeline

got blown up. If it's possible to blow

up their pipeline,

what else can you blow up and get away

with it? So maybe India has some uh some

surprises coming and Russia too. We'll

see.

Uh Tesla

got slapped with, according to Just the

News, a $243 million in damages. Um the

lawsuit because I guess early on

uh their car hit a couple and killed

them. It It was in self-driving mode,

but it was in supervised self-driving

mode, and the driver already admitted he

was using his phone and wasn't paying

attention. So that's before anybody was

supposed to not pay attention and they

still lost.

So the guy driving the car had already

admitted he was 100% uh liable cuz he

knew he knew the car was supposed to be

supervised and the technology was new,

but he didn't do it and then two people

died

and still Tesla loses and is liable for

243 million. Amazing. Did you know that

the price of beef I don't eat beef so I

didn't know this is way up? Did you all

know that? That the price of beef is way

up. I guess there are fewer cows or at

least beef cows and uh it's not going to

correct itself for at least a year or so

depending on weather and cows and stuff

like that.

All right. Well, enjoy your beef if you

can afford it.

And uh Russia has a plan to start a

human trial for a mRNA based cancer

vaccine

that would be uh not really a vaccine.

It would be to treat people for their

specific kind of cancer. So they would

modify each vaccine for each person.

And they're looking for volunteers and

they're going to run this thing in 2025.

So, you know what I say? Hurry up. Hurry

up. Maybe it works. You never know. I

believe that the US was looking at the

exact same thing. An mRNA platform

vaccine that wasn't really vaccine, just

was modified to treat a specific person.

Well, the New Jersey Institute of

Technology used AI to find uh five new

powerful battery materials that could

replace lithium.

Now, I don't know if this is real

because we're at that period in history

where people know they can get attention

by saying AI made the difference. Oh, we

need the AI.

We never could have done this without

the AI. But allegedly they use the AI to

look through a gazillion alternatives

for materials and it came up with some

that are very promising. So we may be

close to the point where you just don't

need the uh rare earth minerals so much.

AI will just figure out how to do it

without them.

Maybe. You never know.

All right, that's all I had to talk

about today, ladies and gentlemen. Um,

I'll remind you that if you're a

subscriber to Owen Gregorian on X that

he's got a uh spaces in a few minutes,

but just for his subscribers. So, if you

don't subscribe to him, you should on X

and uh you'll love these spaces. All

right.

Um,

AI clone stand in for podcast. Really?

Is that true? I'm just reading this. The

Reuben report has an AI clone experiment

standing in for him on his podcast for

August. He he always takes August off.

Huh.

Um I'm pretty sure that's not going to

work.

So, you know, I looked into cloning

myself, but the hallucination factor is

through the roof. I suppose if if a

human

edited it to get rid of the

hallucinations maybe.

So I'll watch.

All right. I'm going to talk uh

privately to the beloved subscribers of

locals and that'll happen in 30 seconds.

The rest of you, thanks for joining. See

you same time tomorrow, same place.