Episode 2918 CWSA 08/05/25

Oh, there you there you are.

Come on in.

There's plenty of room.

Come on in for the Tuesday morning that you deserve.

Well, it looks like the stock market's up a little bit.

Nothing to be too excited about, but a little bit.

Let me get your comments working and then we'll see what's what.

Uhoh.

What was that?

Uhoh.

It's a cat.

A cat has visited my office and will be torturing me any moment now.

No.

Don't knock all my papers off my desk.

Oh, well, it's going to be one of those mornings, isn't it?

I got the cat attack.

It's always Gary.

Gary is the the troublemaker.

Gary, I gave you food.

I gave you I golfed with you this morning before the show.

my indoor putting green, which you miss if you're not a subscriber.

All right, I'm gonna do my show, cat or not.

Did I scare you?

All right, well, hang in there.

Good morning and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's Skull Coffee with Scott Adams and Gary the Cat.

And uh you've never had a better time.

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

All you need for that is a copper monger glass of tankered shells or styen jugger flask.

A vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

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

Go.

Gary, come over here.

So good.

Actually, it wasn't very good, but it's better if I tell you it was.

All right.

Well, uh, let me, uh, check the news to see if there's any science that maybe they could have just skipped by asking me.

Um, oh, here's some, um, courtesy of Swansea University.

Kathy Thomas is writing that it's not just how many sexual partners you've had, because you know how people always say, "What's your body count?" And they mean, you know, how many people have you had sex with?

And uh allegedly some people don't want to have a life partner who have had lots of sexual partners.

Now, how many of you are in that category?

You would not marry somebody who had lots of sexual partners.

But this new information tells you it's not just how many partners your potential romantic mate has.

It's also when it happened.

But that makes sense because if somebody said to you, well, you know, honestly, I had uh 30 30 partners, but they were all in my 20s and since then really it's been, you know, one, I'd say, h 30s a lot.

But really, it only happened in your 20s and it's been 10 years.

Yeah.

Okay, that's not so bad.

See, it's not so bad if it was a long time ago.

But alternately, you could say, "What's your body count?" And somebody would say, "Five." And you'd be all, "Five?

Okay, in modern day, that's not too bad.

I mean, you know, fewer is better, but five is not too bad." And then you say, "Five this morning," and then it suddenly seems bad again.

See, it's all about the timing.

Just have to ask me.

Well, JP Morgan is predicting that Apple is likely to launch a foldable i.

Phone in September of 2026.

Do you believe that JP Morgan actually knows what Apple plans to do in September of a year from now?

I have my doubts that JP Morgan knows that at all, but maybe.

I would love a foldable phone as long as it's not more more unwieldy than my normal phone when I put it in my pocket.

Well, there's a legal AI startup.

Legal meaning that they deal with the law, not that they just haven't broken it.

Um, and it's called Harvey.

And it's already worth a Oh, it has a hund00 million in annual recurring revenue already.

It's only a few years old.

And I guess it does for lawyers um what a lawyer would have to do normally.

So it helps your lawyers be more efficient.

So you need less of them I guess.

So that's happening.

So the the it does make sense that the legal profession, which if we're being honest, the reason that the law is as complicated as it is is so that lawyers can take your money.

Because I'm pretty sure if if the law said you must simplify everything you say in a contract that you wouldn't need nearly as many lawyers.

But um AI can do all the complicated stuff.

So lawyers won't be able to say, "Well, you'll never be able to do this on your own, so I have to do it." You're going to be, "Well, I could just show this to Chat GBT, and it probably tells me what to negotiate, what to accept." So I do think the legal domain um maybe half of it will be entirely just decimated by AI.

Maybe half.

I think there's going to be a half that AI can't do.

A little bit more humanoriented, but maybe half of the legal profession will go away.

Well, apparently American Eagle Stock uh that's the company that uh Sydney Sweeney did her commercial for.

You all know about that.

And uh Trump said some positive things about the company and their stock was up 20%.

Some said 23.

I don't know if it's still up today, but the stock is up.

You know what the weirdest thing about the Sydney Sweeney having good jeans commercial is?

We all just sort of accepted that she's a skinny woman with large breasts.

Do you know how many skinny women who have large breasts got there because of good jeans as opposed to good doctor?

Now, there is no indication that Sydney Sweeney has had a boob job.

There's no indication that she doesn't say she has.

There's no nobody else has either.

And indeed, she said that she had big boobs when she was in high school and it was kind of a problem.

To which I say, um, there was something I learned in my 20s and I'm going to stick with it.

And it goes like this.

There's no such thing as a skinny girl with big tits.

not not organically there there are plenty of them uh who got surgery which by the way I'm not judging I have you know I have no bad things to say about it if it works for you and you want it and it looks good and you know you don't have any side effects great.

Um, but am I supposed to believe that she's the world's only skinny chick with gigantic boobs and it just happened cuz she has good jeans?

No.

I'm sorry.

I can't go that far.

Well, that could be the end of my show because I've got a cat laying on my notes who seems very, very happy being there.

All right.

But I can pull my notes out and she'll never even notice anyway.

But like I say, she might she might be the only one who just has natural different genes.

Maybe.

Well, Tesla has decided uh that they've got some kind of a pay deal with Elon.

you know, that they were going to give him many billions of dollars and some Delaware judge decided that uh he didn't earn it, so he didn't get it.

But now Tesla has decided to give him 96 million shares of Tesla, which would be about 29 billion worth of value based on Korea's stock price.

But 29 billion might seem like a lot.

Is that a funny statement?

29 billion.

It might seem like a lot, but it's less than the 50 billion that he was actually contractually uh entitled to.

So, we'll see if anything happens there.

Meanwhile, in other news, Gary, in other news, uh NASA chief Sean Duffy has announced plans that um they're going to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the US's.

So, we're going to be racing China, uh, mostly China, I guess, to be the first country to have a nuclear reactor on the moon because whoever gets that going first is going to be able to do a base and whoever does the base is going to have some, you know, military control and functional and economic control of the moon.

So, let's get those nukes up there, huh?

Shall we?

Um, and then I saw a uh compilation clip yesterday of How many of you remember this?

Do you remember the 2016 election cycle and then Trump gets elected and then every time you turned on the TV, the the bad Democrats were saying and I and I quote and I quote, um, "The walls are closing in on Trump." Do you remember that?

And so I was watching a compilation clip of it from back in those days.

It was just one weasel after another.

The walls are closing in on Trump.

What it usually meant is the Russia collusion hoax.

And given that we we know that they knew, at least the insiders knew it wasn't real, how many of the other people knew it wasn't real?

I feel as if everybody who used that phrase on TV, the walls are closing in on Trump because you and Brandon used it.

It it it feels to me that that revealed their entire network.

It feels to me that if you just did a replay of all the people who use that phrase, the walls are closing in, you would know all the people who had illegally, you know, been part of the plot, cuz it's just too big a coincidence.

And now we now we notice that the uh all the bad people have mo moved to uh Trump as an authoritarian.

And I'll bet I'll bet it's the same, you know, the same phenomenon that there's a bunch of insiders who have colluded to say, "All right, we're all going to say that it's this or it's that.

We're all going to say authoritarian." Now, can you correct me on this if I'm wrong?

There's nothing like this on the right.

Right?

Because nobody has ever come to me and said, "All right, now we're all going to say this.

I've never heard that.

And while it is true that people on the right will end up saying things, you know, that they heard on Fox News and things, it's not nearly as bad as this, you know, where they just sort of mocking bird say that, you know, the repeat the same thing.

He's an authoritarian.

And the fact that they're calling him an authoritarian for firing the head of the Bureau of Statistics because she was completely wrong on her statistics.

Isn't that usually why people get fired?

All right.

Uh we're going to hire you to be the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and your main job will be to tell us how many, you know, new jobs were created.

All right.

Got it.

Um, if you're off by 10,000% and the entire news cycle has passed before you correct it, we're going to fire you because that's not really good in the statistics.

Wouldn't that be fair?

But we're pretending that firing somebody for being consistently completely wrong about the only thing that they're there to do, which is pres present statistics, that's not a problem.

Now, the background might be, I presume, that our statistics have always been that bad.

Um, but for whatever reason, we just started accepting it as normal.

And Trump Trump sees one example and he just says, "You're fired." That's the way you should run that.

If they do it one time, come with you with numbers which are completely ridiculous.

And here's the important point.

They knew the numbers were ridiculous when they presented them and they didn't warn anybody.

You know, if if they had said, "All right, we have preliminary numbers, but honestly, you shouldn't use them because in two months these will be revised and they could be revised just really radically.

So, you shouldn't make any decisions based on these numbers." If they had said that, I would have said, "All right, you know, don't fire that person.

They told you everything they knew.

Did the best they could." But if you're not if you're not presenting the numbers as likely to be revised by 10,000% or whatever it was, yeah, you got to get fired.

I said the very next story here is according to the post millennial Thomas Stevenson is writing that jobs for nativeborn Americans have increased by nearly 2 million.

So that was pretty good right that jobs for nativeborn Americans are up by two million.

Um do you know where they got that statistic?

Um would you be surprised to learn it comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

It comes from the same source as the woman who just got fired for presenting employment numbers that are complete And then the very next story is, well, according to the Bureau of Label Labor Statistics, we got a lot of American jobs.

I'm going to say there's nothing we can believe from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So, that'll be my take.

Now, I don't know who has the cutest podcast going, but it might be me.

I mean, it might be me.

I do have a cat asleep in my arms here.

All right, what else we got going on?

Um, so the uh effort by RFK Jr.

to ban food stamp use for soda and for candy.

I think they're just banning it for soda.

Um, did you know that we spend $45 million a day on SNAP?

I guess that's food stamps.

Is SNAP the same thing as food stamps?

It's in the same story.

$45 million a day.

That's how far we are from people being able to feed themselves.

Not very close.

$400 million a day.

Holy cow.

Anyway, but anyway, that looks like that uh change will happen.

Um so there's a podcast between Charlemagne the God and Stephen A.

Smith.

Um and Stephen A.

Smith is calling out Kla Harris for saying she didn't want to be part of the broken system when in fact um she was a career politician so she was you know she had plenty of chances to fix that broken system if that was going to happen.

So I guess Smith said you're a career politician.

You've been there practically all your life.

He wasn't talking to her.

He was talking about her.

My god, you've been part of it and now you're saying it's broken.

That means you couldn't do much so much to fix it when you you was in it.

Um, the system was broken long before Donald Trump got into office.

Charlemagne said, "Well, how many think that's a good point that she was in the system and failed to fix it?" Um, the system that's broken is just that anytime you have a complicated system and lots of people involved and lots of money, it's always corrupt.

That's it.

What exactly was she supposed to fix?

Was Kla Harris supposed to single-handedly fix the part that the world is full of corrupt people who will take any opportunity to steal What What was she supposed to do?

That that's not really an insightful comment.

No, there's not really any chance that Kla Harris could have fixed what was broken about the system.

It's it's way more broken than one person could have, you know, tweaked a few things and getting it going again.

Um and then uh separately Charlamagne was taking a phone call from a caller who was saying some good things about uh Trump and the caller said uh I feel like this is one of the first presidents that's actually doing what they said they was going to do.

There's a And by the way, I feel like we should just accept that the words was and were should just be used interchangeably instead of being all pedantic about it.

Like like this sentence, I feel like this is one of the first presidents is actually doing what they said they was was going to do.

Now you know exactly what they mean, right?

So why is it, you know, wrong to say was and right to say were when you know exactly what he means?

I feel like we need to loosen up on that.

Anyway, so the caller says that Trump was doing everything he said he was going to do and Charlemagne corrected him and said, "Uh, well, no, not necessarily because uh Trump said on day one he was going to bring the price of groceries down." And uh he he didn't do that.

And the caller the caller says, "Everybody everybody know in your right mind there's no way somebody could do something instantly." And I think to myself, did somebody really have to explain that to Charlemagne that when Trump said, "I'll end the war in one day and I'll bring down egg prices in one day." Do do we really have to explain it that that didn't literally mean one day?

And here this caller, I love the way the caller says it.

Everybody know in their right mind there's no way somebody's going to do something instantly.

Right.

Exactly.

Everybody in their right mind knew that he just meant it was a priority.

Did he treat it like a priority?

Well, what are you going to do about it?

I mean, he did all the things you can do something about it.

He went after the eggs.

He did lower the price of gas, but inflation isn't exactly the kind of thing that you can deal with instantly.

So, you know, I'm not even sure exactly what the government can do in general, except not make terrible mistakes.

All right.

Um, I've been watching some videos of uh Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren uh backing Mandani Mami Mami Zoran Mani of who's running for mayor of New York City.

Um, and I'm liking I heard Jesse Waters use it.

I don't know if he came up with it, but Kami Mandami.

Kami Mandami is a pretty good nickname because it just I just want to say it.

Kami Mandami.

So, that's very effective.

Good job, Jesse.

But Elizabeth Warren is all in on his socialist uh agenda.

and uh she is wise enough to know as are most of the Democrats that he finally he kind of solved the puzzle and the puzzle was is there anything that Democrats can say that will be you know persuasive to voters and the answer is yes the affordability approach that Mandami is using absolutely is the right approach because it's easy to understand etc.

The problem is that how do you actually do the affordability?

Well, he's got a bunch of ideas that um we know always fail or we think we know that.

We think we're that smart.

So, he had an idea for a government um government grocery stores.

Well, that's been tried and didn't work anywhere.

Um, and then I guess something about free transportation and some other free stuff.

And uh, you can't get that stuff unless you're you're raising taxes on people, etc.

So, it's hard to get there.

But here's what Elizabeth Warren has added to his framing that those potential solutions that Zoran is mentioning are experiments.

In other words, they're not committing to, oh yeah, no matter what, we're going to have government grocery stores, but rather committing to an experiment in which they see if there's any way you can make a government grocery store be additive without being a huge disaster.

to which I say that really unfortunately that's a pretty effective approach because you know most people would say ha it's been tried and it didn't work.

Well if she calls it experimental she just has to say yeah we're going to try doing it a different way and if it doesn't work we'll try something else or we'll abandon it.

And then I go, "Ah, oh, that makes sense." Because I don't know for sure that there's no way you could ever do anything that was additive for some number of poor people who were using their SNAP benefits to buy soda.

I maybe maybe I I'm open to the experiment.

So, she has very cleverly shifted it from I have these specific ideas of how to get you some affordability.

She's shifted it to we can play with this.

We can experiment with this and it's pretty clever if he buys it.

If he doesn't buy into the experiment part of the frame where nobody else does, then it won't go anywhere.

But I think she's smart to put it put it in that frame.

Um, according to ADP, the payroll service company, um, private company hiring has bounced back and they've hired 104,000 people since July.

Uh, I saw unusual whales and I count on X reporting that.

To which I say, does ADP really know that?

Why does the government not know about jobs when jobs are mostly uh payroll is mostly automated?

If if payroll is automated pretty much everywhere, are you telling me that the government can't figure out how many paychecks are out there and know that there are more of them or less of them?

Does the government really not know how many people paid um let's say disability tax?

this past month.

We really don't know that the money is taken out of people's accounts and goes into another account and we don't know.

We can't measure the volume of that every month to know if it's a more or more or fewer people are on payroll.

So, I don't know.

It seems to me this is a very fixable problem.

Um, how many of you have had the experience that when one hoax is revealed, it changes how you feel about the other alleged hoaxes?

Has anybody had that yet?

Um, here's one that uh here's one that's affecting me.

I think maybe Mike Benz is is affecting my brain on this as well.

If we did not know, and we do know that the Russia collusion hoax was orchestrated by the CIA, the CIA and the FBI and the highest levels of our elected officials, if we didn't know that that all really happened in the real world, would you be willing to believe that the two assassination attempts against the president may have had a US government connection?

I probably would have rejected that automatically if if if there had never been a President Kennedy assassination in which in hindsight, it seems, I think, obvious that our CIA was intimately involved in that.

If you had never heard of that, it would be pretty hard to imagine that it could ever happen again, you know, or the for the first time in your opinion if you didn't know that it happened once.

And then we find out that in our lifetime, the worst political act we've ever seen, which was the Russia collusion hoax, you know, the the degree of coordination behind that and the RIO like number of crimes that are probably kicked up is unlike anything I've ever seen.

And then I hear Mike Benton say that uh that Ruth Rou u t the guy who hid by the uh Trump golf course and got caught before he fired that uh he apparently had some state department connections.

All right.

Well, you know, maybe that's a coincidence, right?

He just had some state department connections.

I mean, you have some State Department connections, right?

Don't you don't all of you have I don't.

No, you don't.

You don't have any State Department connections.

But apparently he did.

And then uh the the shooter at the Butler event, Crooks was his name, he had these encrypted apps, which seems a little weird for a loner.

Um he was weirdly successful in his operational endeavors.

Weirdly um because it turned out that the Department of Homeland Security which was a sitting in for the so uh Secret Service.

So Secret Service was spread thin that week because they had you know different jobs they had to handle at the same time.

So the Department of Homeland Security, at least one subset of them, stood in to do extra security and then everything went wrong.

Did you know, Mike Benz reminds us that uh apparently crooks would often go to a gun range that was the same one that the Department of Homeland Security typically used, or at least one department within it.

Now, these are just connections, right?

There there's no no direct smoking gun that says, "Oh, the State Department sent this guy or that the Department of Homeland Security was well aware of this guy." I don't have that.

We're not at that level of any kind of proof of anything.

But my question was, if we had never seen that Kennedy had in fact been murdered by our own government and CIA, it looks like, and if we didn't know for sure that the Russia collusion hoax was organized by the highest levels of our own government, and they're still hiding it.

If we didn't know that, I wouldn't I wouldn't even blink if somebody said, "Oh, these people have connections.

They've got connections to the State Department.

I would have said, "Oh, it's a big world.

People know people.

Doesn't mean anything." But now I just assume there's something to it.

I I'm so far into the conspiracy theory world just of the conspiracies that we know a lot about.

We know which parts are true.

that uh I find it hard to believe that both of those shooters were operating independently.

How many of you think that both of them, you know, there might be a difference between them, but how many of you think that both of them were doing it absolutely independently?

It had nothing to do with any US government influence.

Nobody tried to hypnotize them or pay them off or anything else.

I don't know.

It's a little bit harder to believe that they were operating independently given what we know about everything else lately.

Well, um this story might be a little bit of fake news, but I'm not sure yet.

So, keep an eye on this one.

But, uh, apparently the Trump administration, um, was going to say it was going to cut federal emergency funding to cities and states that, um, allowed boycots of Israel or pursued boycots of Israel.

Now, apparently that uh created a uproar um on the base.

So, it wasn't it wasn't just uh um it wasn't just Democrats complaining about Trump.

It was his own base saying, "Wait, wait, wait.

What are you telling me that a city is going to lose emergency funds because they backed a boycott of another country?

That's not exactly America first." And uh so looks like the Trump administration backed off of that.

So that will not be a requirement.

But in order to get that funding, you have to not be involved in DEI or immigration violations according to the AF post.

All right.

Um, in other news where Trump is punishing people, a lot of the news is Trump punishing people.

Have you noticed that?

It started slow, but now there's like four stories of Trump just punishing somebody with a government purse.

So, apparently the White House is putting together an executive order to punish banks for discriminating against conservatives.

Now, I don't know if that means only in the past or if currently that's happening.

And also the White House is preparing to crack down the banks that have debanked u Bitcoin and crypto companies.

Wall Street Journal is reporting.

So if you're keeping track, have you he figured out which oligarchs uh Trump is in favor of?

He is apparently not too keen on the oligarchs who are bankers.

He's going after the bankers.

Uh he's not too keen on the oligarchs that are big pharma because he's going after the big pharma, right?

He's not too keen on the oligarchs who are oil companies because even though he's drill baby drill and trying to make it easy to drill, the net effect is drives down oil prices.

So I ask you again, which which oligarchs is he supposedly in favor of?

So it's not banks, it's not pharma, it's not oil.

Uh so which oligarchs?

Some maybe some uh crypto people or something?

I don't know.

It doesn't seem very oligarch friendly to me.

Did you know that India had cleverly figured out or at least people in India figured out they could buy Russian oil cheaply and then they could resell it for a big profit.

So that was good for Russia because they were selling more oil but bad for the United States um relationship with India because it meant India was you know supporting Russia basically.

And so Trump says he will substantially raise tariffs on India over their Russian oil purchases.

Right?

So he's punishing banks for discriminating against conservatives.

He's punishing cities for DEI.

He's punishing colleges for DEI.

And now he's going to punish um India for dealing with he's got a lot of punishing.

He's just doing a lot of punishing.

Well, here's a weird story.

So, you know that uh Murdoch owns not just the Wall Street Journal, but also owns the New York Post, one of the few conservative outlets.

And uh now the New York Post is going to expand to California.

So, there's going to be a California Post.

Now, what would be a less obvious thing to do than to start a new newspaper?

How do you make money starting a new newspaper in 2025?

Well, it could be that it's not so much a newspaper revenue play as it is controlling the uh I controlling the narrative.

Most of the news in both newspapers presumably will be the same, but maybe Californians will not read something that says New York Post on it.

So maybe it just needs to say California and then they could add some California elements to it.

But I suspect that Murdoch's real play is influence.

I don't really think he would see it as a huge money maker to support a newspaper.

Another one.

I know.

Well, in big big news, possibly big big really big, uh Pam Bondi has ordered a grand jury probe into the Obama officials over the Russia hoax.

So, we don't know who's been referred to the grand jury.

Um, but as MSNBC's Nicole Wallace says, it's all over debunked allegations.

So MSNBC is pretending like the Russia uh the Russia collusion hoax never really happened, I guess.

Um and CNN is calling the Russia collusion hoax the Russian investigation.

Well, that's kind of playing it safe, isn't it?

Yeah, I suppose it was an investigation except that we know now it was a fake investigation.

uh or at least much of it was fake and it was intended just to Trump.

So CNN calls it a Russia investigation, not a hoax.

It was just an investigation.

Didn't go well.

So uh given that we know that grand juries um once they are formed, they almost always indict because they don't have a it's not a real competitive system where all the evidence is shown and everybody argues everything.

Um, so you usually you usually don't even do the grand jury unless you know you're going to get an indictment and you usually do.

So we are at a point where some very high level people are very likely to be indicted in how long is it going to take?

Maybe a few months.

So things are going to get really interesting.

And as other people have pointed out, sometimes the the process is the penalty.

So you would take these people out of their normal lives and have them, you know, open up their piggy banks to pay for, you know, ungodly expensive lawyers and uh their reputations will be dragged down and their businesses will suffer if they have side businesses, etc.

So just being dragged into the legal process is quite a penalty before anybody even figures out if you're guilty of anything.

So there going to be some big names getting dragged hard.

It looks like in other news um Trump might soon announce a Fed chair who would replace uh Powell.

Now he wouldn't replace Powell until Powell's term is over in May.

So that would have a the effect would be as others have said like a shadow uh Fed leader, somebody who could go in public and say, "Well, if I were already if I were already in the job, I think I'd be leaning toward lowering those interest rates." And uh it's going to put pressure on Powell.

So I do expect that that'll happen.

All right.

Um, according to the Rasmusen account on X, uh, the 2020 nationwide election fraud syndicate will start to come into the sunlight in the next few weeks.

Well, I don't know what they know that I don't know.

So, there must be some activity happening that is not announced yet.

But if you didn't know, uh, the Rasmusen account, um, has been very closely following all claims of election irregularity from 2020 and, uh, are now teasing us um, that there's something that's coming on that.

Could it be that the Trump administration will launch a major investigation into the 2020 election?

And could it be that there's some real things that they will find there?

I don't know.

I don't know.

We'll find out.

Well, you probably know the story that the uh state of Texas um tried to get some gerrymandering approved that would allow them to have up to five extra representatives in Congress if approved.

But the Democrats who would have to be part of the vote even though they would be outvoted have left town.

So there's not a quorum for the vote.

So you have to have a certain number of people in present to make the vote valid.

So, they left and they went to uh uh Illinois, I think, and Governor Abbott is threatening that they'll be replaced with a special election and they might face bribery charges because I guess somebody offered to pay somebody for something.

Uh in addition to losing their jobs.

So, the pressure is on.

But, uh JB Pritsker says he's going to be protecting these people.

you'll be protecting them.

Um, so good luck there.

I I feel like the uh Texas Republicans have to win that in the end, right?

Isn't this one of those stories where it's sort of like Cy Booker doing the filibuster?

While it's happening, you might have to pay attention to it, but it can't last forever.

All right, these people are gonna have to come back.

They're gonna want their jobs.

So, um I suspect Republicans will win in the end.

Um there was a caller who called into C-SPAN recently and said that Democrats need to show more of a spine uh and more interest in working people instead of saying they're just saying they're for working people.

Now, that's more of that mistake, right?

Where they think that showing a spine is what they need to do.

No, they don't need to show a spine.

They need to show a policy that people liked.

They wouldn't need any spine at all if they had good policies, would they?

So every time the Democrats believe that that what they're lacking is fight and resolve and spine is, you know, another day that they're not getting any closer to winning.

Um, and then just to show you how clueless Democrats are, I think the whole Democrat part of the world is about um some part of the Democrats scamming the other parts of the Democrats.

Does it seem like that to you?

If you were to separate well, if you look at just the Democrats, you know, the ones in power, there would be two kinds of people.

There would be all these consultants and nos who are trying to rip off the other Democrats.

Uh and then there would be the Democrats who are getting ripped off and that's about it that it's just thieves and people who are victims.

Anyway, uh the newest Democrat scheme, which looks like nothing but a money-making scheme for some Democrats, is to spend tens of millions of dollars to fund hundreds of content creators so that uh their social media game will be better than it was.

So the Democrats believe that they can artificially create what de what what Republicans have done organically.

That's wrong, right?

Isn't that obviously not going to work?

because it's not like you could set out to create uh Victor Davis Hansen or Mike Benz or uh how do you set out to create Matt Walsh or uh uh you know obviously Joe Rogan.

How do you do that?

How do you set out to create Theo Vaughn like artificially?

These are not things anybody can do.

The the thing which I think Democrats are failing to recognize is that um for reasons that I don't even understand completely.

It may be the common sense theme of Republicans maybe.

But it seems to me that the smartest, most capable people all just sort of gravitated to one side.

And you know, Elon Musk would be the obvious one.

And then the the all-in pod guys, uh, David Saxs, um, even JD Vance, Peter Teal, we're talking about people who aren't just smart, they're next level smart, you know, I would say someone like James Carville, as much as I like making fun of his uh, inability to get his message across, um, he would be very smart for a Democrat that, but he's not Victor Davis Hansen or Mike Benz or any of the ones I mentioned.

He's not that smart.

They don't really have somebody who's uh anything but academic smart.

And it seems like the Republicans for whatever reason, I don't even know what the reason is, seem to have attracted all the people who are not just regular smart, but I don't even understand how you could be a human being.

Do you ever listen to Victor Davis Hansen and he's talking about any topic and putting context on it and the whole time you're sitting to listening to it, you're thinking, "How does he even know all that?

How do you know all that?

You listen to Mike Benz and he can talk for three hours and the whole time you're going, "How do you know that?

How do you know that?

Come on.

How do you know that?" And he does know that.

I mean, he really does know it.

So, who on their side is doing something like that?

The the closest they got is what was it?

Uh uh Ezra.

Ezra Klein writing a book about all the things that they're doing wrong.

I mean, that's a very capable piece of work, but he's not really in the same domain with what the Republicans, you know, put together organically.

Well, they didn't even put it together.

It just happened organically.

And if I may, who on the uh Democrat side has my understanding of persuasion right now?

I don't believe there's anyone I don't believe there's anyone on the Democrat side who can do what I can do, which is tell you what works and what doesn't work and so you can do more of what works.

So somehow the the most capable people just ended up in one place and uh the Democrats just can't see it because that would allow them to if they saw it, they'd have to admit that there's a gigantic brain power difference driving one side versus the other.

I see you making suggestions, but I'm not going to make I'm not going to agree with all those names.

Yeah.

Okay.

There's another one.

Megan Kelly.

Who Who is Who's the Democrat Megan Kelly?

Right.

Who's the uh who's the Democrat uh Molly Hemingway?

I just realized that I was being super sexist when I mentioned the people.

They were all male.

But you can throw in Molly Hemingway.

You can throw in Megan Kelly.

Unusually capable people.

They're not just normal.

These are very unusually.

Miranda Divine.

unusually capable.

Very capable.

All right.

Um, apparently the uh Kremlin Oh, one one other thing.

So, apparently uh the Israeli government Netanyahu has said that they're going to occupy the Gaza Strip.

I think that's official.

Um, the news is reporting it.

occupy it means they have no plans of ever returning it back to the uh gazins for you know to form some government.

They're just going to own it.

It it will just be part of Israel.

Now name all the people who predicted that before today.

Just one.

Just me, right?

Can you can you name one person who at the very beginning of the Gaza war said this isn't going to be anything but complete victory?

Because that's what they said.

Total victory was literally their slogan.

Total victory.

And and they said early on they said uh that we're going to change reality on the ground and uh we're never going to have this problem again.

Now, to me, they said as clearly as they possibly could, "We're going to devastate this place and just completely own it in the future, and Hamas will never have any role here again." Now, you remember I predicted this right from the beginning, right?

And now it's a fact.

And so I'll I'll go back to my prior conversation and say, who is it on the Democrat side who can make good predictions?

I don't even know.

But if you looked on the Republican side, I don't get them all right.

Of course, I'm not going to tell you I got everything right that I've ever predicted.

But we have a whole bunch of smart people who can predict things quite reliably by just being a little bit more aware of what's going on, I guess.

I don't know.

My cat's head just disappeared.

All right.

She He seems very happy.

Um All right.

So here's my comment on Israel because people uh imagine different things about my opinion.

So I have to make sure that you understand.

Um here is the wrong way to argue about Israel.

Um and I think this would apply to uh uh comic Dave Smith and some other people.

If you're arguing morality, why there there's nothing over there that has anything to do with morality or what's ethical?

Because everybody has their own opinion of what's moral and ethical.

So, it's not really a standard that can ever work to make anything better.

So, why would you even talk about it?

Well, we want to we want to pretend that we're the good ones and we have better morality than other people.

So, that's the only reason to talk about it.

If you're talking about um Israel's morality, you're really just talking about yourself.

All you're doing is positioning yourself as well.

If I were in charge, I would be a far more moral and ethical person.

And let me tell you, uh a lot fewer children would be getting killed.

But really, that's just about you.

If you need to talk about yourself, go wild.

But it has nothing to do with Israel.

Israel is like every other country.

They pursue what is in their best interest.

Is it in their best interest to completely, you know, devastate Gaza, relocate people to other countries and then own it in the long run?

Probably.

I mean, you know, I can't make a prediction about that because, you know, there's so many variables over there, but yeah, probably.

It probably is in their best interest.

If you checked back in 20 years, would they be glad they took over Gaza?

Probably.

Probably.

So, as long as Israel thinks it's in their best interest, that's the end of the story.

Now, we might say, "But but but but we don't like it's not in our best interest." And that would be a fair conversation and we would talk about whether we should participate in something or be part of funding it.

Those are good conversations.

But um if you talk about whether what they're doing is good or evil, if you're comparing the number of children they killed, and the one that bothered me the most is I saw somebody arguing for proportionality.

proportionality meaning that um that Israel should only kill some number of people that would be the equivalent of what October 7th was.

You know, however you wanted to calculate that.

To which I say, where did proportionality come into anything?

When you're talking about one country pursuing its best interest, and I guess Gaza is pursuing its highest interest, neither of them are interested in proportionality.

They're only interested in winning.

That's all that matters.

So when people say, "Scott, why do you keep supporting Israel?" I say, "When did I do that?" I mean certainly uh everybody understands that countries can defend themselves but that's what everybody thinks.

That's not me.

Uh what I think is that if you're if you're in the conversation about who's who's better or proportional or more moral, you're just in the wrong conversation.

And it's really about yourself.

It just isn't about Israel.

Israel is going to do its thing no matter what my opinion is.

Do everybody agree?

Now, I know you think that I'm highly influential, but none of you think that I'm influencing Israel policy, right?

Does anybody think that?

Have I even tried?

I've never even tried because it's just something I observe.

It's not something, you know, it's not my country.

Um, so if there's a question of whether we should be funding it or not, I'll get into that.

But no, every country gets to do whatever they think is in their best interest and it will always be thus.

There will be a cost to it.

Um, I don't know if I've said this directly, but the the price of permanently taking over Gaza and, you know, relocating everybody and uh doing what they're doing, the price of it, I think, is that they lose the Holocaust as a protective narrative.

Um, now we don't know that.

It's too soon to say, but that that looks like the price.

It looks like the price of owning Gaza and continuing not to have a twocountry solution, which I think Israel prefers, or at least Netany Yahoo prefers, the price is that he's going to use the uh the Holocaust narrative that that's like Israel's greatest asset is that there's that narrative that we all understand and we all we've all bought into never again because that would be a pretty good thing to never again happen.

But I think that they're losing that narrative because there'll be enough people who say um and it doesn't matter if it's true.

So don't argue with me.

I'm saying what other people will say.

So I'm not arguing it's true.

I'm just saying that other people will say, "Well, you know, forget about your Holocaust narrative because you did this." And I think that that argument will carry some weight.

So, it's expensive and uh but looks like it's happening.

Well, North Korean spies apparently have been uh posing as remote workers for a number of businesses.

I guess there are thousands of them according to Crowd Strike, the cyber security company.

uh Techrunch is writing about this and um they've seen hundreds of cases where North Koreans posing as remote IT workers have infiltrated companies to generate money and uh probably to steal secrets too, but at least generate money.

And my question is this.

How did so many uh how did so many North Korean workers get jobs in a DEI atmosphere?

I would think that all the spies would be thwarted.

Say, "All right, uh and what's your nationality?" And of course they'd lie and they say, "I'm South Korean." Um and they say, "Hm, South Korean." Well, we've got a lot of black candidates that we're looking at first.

So, I'm quite impressed at the North Koreans for getting through DEI.

I don't know how they do it, but uh it it makes me wonder how I can get a uh a North Korean spy to work for me because I don't have any, you know, national secrets.

But wouldn't it be great to have your own North Korean remote worker?

Especially if you knew they were a spy, but they didn't know that you knew.

And you know, as long as you had your cyber situation nailed down so they couldn't get into anything naughty and just have them go go to work every day and do your work and actually do the work because that's how they they keep their cover.

And you just make you just make the North Koreans do all your work.

and you underpay them.

To me, that would be hilarious.

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

Um, I'm going to talk to the locals people, my beloved locals people privately because they want to they want to talk to me and my cat and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

I appreciate it.

And I will see you uh tomorrow, same time, same place.

But locals, my beloveds, I

Oh, there you there you are. Come on in.

There's plenty of room.

Come on in for the Tuesday morning that

you deserve.

Well, it looks like the stock market's

up a little bit. Nothing to be too

excited about, but a little bit.

Let me get your comments working and

then we'll see what's what.

Uhoh.

What was that?

Uhoh. It's a cat. A cat has visited my

office and will be torturing me any

moment now.

No. Don't knock all my papers off my

desk.

Oh, well, it's going to be one of those

mornings, isn't it?

I got the cat attack.

It's always Gary.

Gary is the the troublemaker.

Gary,

I gave you food. I gave you I golfed

with you this morning before the show.

my indoor putting green, which you miss

if you're not a subscriber.

All right,

I'm gonna do my show, cat or not.

Did I scare you? All right, well, hang

in there.

Good morning and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

Skull Coffee with Scott Adams and Gary

the Cat. And uh you've never had a

better time. But if you'd like to take a

chance on elevating your experience to

levels that nobody can even understand

with their tiny shiny human brains. All

you need for that is a copper monger

glass of tankered shells or styen jugger

flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the

end of the day, the thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens right

now. Go. Gary, come over here.

So good. Actually, it wasn't very good,

but it's better if I tell you it was.

All right. Well, uh,

let me, uh, check the news to see if

there's any science that maybe they

could have just skipped by asking me.

Um, oh, here's some, um, courtesy of

Swansea

University. Kathy Thomas is writing that

it's not just how many sexual partners

you've had, because you know how people

always say, "What's your body count?"

And they mean, you know, how many people

have you had sex with? And uh allegedly

some people don't want to have a life

partner who have had lots of sexual

partners. Now, how many of you are in

that category? You would not marry

somebody who had lots of sexual

partners. But this new information tells

you it's not just how many partners your

potential romantic mate has. It's also

when it happened.

But that makes sense because if somebody

said to you, well, you know, honestly, I

had uh 30 30 partners, but they were all

in my 20s and since then really it's

been, you know, one,

I'd say, h 30s a lot. But really, it

only happened in your 20s and it's been

10 years.

Yeah. Okay, that's not so bad. See, it's

not so bad if it was a long time ago.

But alternately, you could say, "What's

your body count?" And somebody would

say, "Five."

And you'd be all, "Five? Okay, in modern

day, that's not too bad. I mean, you

know, fewer is better, but five is not

too bad." And then you say, "Five this

morning,"

and then it suddenly seems bad again.

See, it's all about the timing.

Just have to ask me.

Well, JP Morgan is predicting that Apple

is likely to launch a foldable iPhone in

September of 2026.

Do you believe that JP Morgan actually

knows what Apple plans to do in

September of a year from now?

I have my doubts that JP Morgan knows

that at all, but maybe. I would love a

foldable phone as long as it's not more

more unwieldy than my normal phone when

I put it in my pocket.

Well, there's a legal AI startup. Legal

meaning that they deal with the law, not

that they just haven't broken it. Um,

and it's called Harvey. And it's already

worth a Oh, it has a hund00 million in

annual recurring revenue already. It's

only a few years old. And I guess it

does for lawyers

um what a lawyer would have to do

normally. So it helps your lawyers be

more efficient. So you need less of them

I guess. So that's happening.

So the the it does make sense that the

legal profession,

which if we're being honest, the reason

that the law is as complicated as it is

is so that lawyers can take your money.

Because I'm pretty sure if if the law

said you must simplify everything you

say in a contract that you wouldn't need

nearly as many lawyers. But um AI can do

all the complicated stuff. So lawyers

won't be able to say, "Well, you'll

never be able to do this on your own, so

I have to do it." You're going to be,

"Well, I could just show this to Chat

GBT, and it probably tells me what to

negotiate, what to accept."

So I do think the legal domain

um maybe half of it

will be entirely just decimated by AI.

Maybe half. I think there's going to be

a half that AI can't do. A little bit

more humanoriented,

but maybe half of the legal profession

will go away.

Well, apparently American Eagle Stock uh

that's the company that uh Sydney

Sweeney did her commercial for. You all

know about that. And uh Trump said some

positive things about the company and

their stock was up 20%. Some said 23. I

don't know if it's still up today, but

the stock is up. You know what the

weirdest thing about the Sydney Sweeney

having good jeans commercial is? We all

just sort of accepted

that she's a skinny woman with large

breasts.

Do you know how many skinny women who

have large breasts got there because of

good jeans as opposed to

good doctor?

Now, there is no indication that Sydney

Sweeney has had a boob job. There's no

indication that she doesn't say she has.

There's no nobody else has either. And

indeed, she said that she had big boobs

when she was in high school and it was

kind of a problem. To which I say,

um, there was something I learned in my

20s

and

I'm going to stick with it. And it goes

like this. There's no such thing as a

skinny girl with big tits.

not not organically

there there are plenty of them uh who

got surgery which by the way I'm not

judging I have you know I have no bad

things to say about it if it works for

you and you want it and it looks good

and you know you don't have any side

effects great. Um, but am I supposed to

believe that she's the world's only

skinny chick with gigantic boobs and it

just happened cuz she has good jeans?

No.

I'm sorry.

I can't go that far. Well, that could be

the end of my show because I've got a

cat laying on my notes who seems very,

very happy being there. All right. But I

can pull my notes out

and she'll never even notice

anyway.

But like I say, she might she might be

the only one who

just has natural different genes. Maybe.

Well, Tesla has decided uh

that they've got some kind of a pay deal

with Elon. you know, that they were

going to give him many billions of

dollars and some Delaware judge decided

that uh he didn't earn it, so he didn't

get it. But now Tesla has decided to

give him 96 million shares of Tesla,

which would be about 29 billion worth of

value based on Korea's stock price.

But 29 billion might seem like a lot.

Is that a funny statement? 29 billion.

It might seem like a lot, but it's less

than the 50 billion that he was actually

contractually uh entitled to. So, we'll

see if anything happens there.

Meanwhile, in other news,

Gary,

in other news,

uh NASA chief Sean Duffy has announced

plans that um they're going to build a

nuclear reactor on the moon, the US's.

So, we're going to be racing China,

uh, mostly China, I guess, to be the

first country to have a nuclear reactor

on the moon because whoever gets that

going first is going to be able to do a

base and whoever does the base is going

to have some, you know, military control

and functional and economic control of

the moon. So, let's get those nukes up

there, huh? Shall we?

Um,

and then

I saw a uh compilation clip yesterday of

How many of you remember this? Do you

remember the 2016 election cycle and

then Trump gets elected

and then every time you turned on the

TV, the the bad Democrats were saying

and I

and I quote

and I quote, um, "The walls are closing

in on Trump." Do you remember that? And

so I was watching a compilation clip of

it from back in those days. It was just

one weasel after another. The walls are

closing in on Trump. What it usually

meant is the Russia collusion hoax.

And given that we we know that they

knew, at least the insiders knew it

wasn't real, how many of the other

people knew it wasn't real?

I feel as if everybody who used that

phrase on TV, the walls are closing in

on Trump because you and Brandon used

it. It it it feels to me that that

revealed their entire network.

It feels to me that if you just did a

replay of all the people who use that

phrase, the walls are closing in, you

would know all the people who had

illegally, you know, been part of the

plot, cuz it's just too big a

coincidence. And now we now we notice

that the uh all the bad people have mo

moved to uh Trump as an authoritarian.

And I'll bet I'll bet it's the same, you

know, the same phenomenon that there's a

bunch of insiders

who have colluded to say, "All right,

we're all going to say that it's this or

it's that. We're all going to say

authoritarian." Now, can you correct me

on this if I'm wrong? There's nothing

like this on the right. Right? Because

nobody has ever come to me and said,

"All right, now we're all going to say

this. I've never heard that.

And while it is true that people on the

right will end up saying things, you

know, that they heard on Fox News and

things, it's not nearly as bad as this,

you know, where they just sort of

mocking bird say that, you know, the

repeat the same thing.

He's an authoritarian.

And the fact that they're calling him an

authoritarian for firing the head of the

Bureau of Statistics

because she was completely wrong on her

statistics.

Isn't that usually why people get fired?

All right. Uh we're going to hire you to

be the head of the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, and your main job will be to

tell us how many, you know, new jobs

were created. All right. Got it.

Um, if you're off by 10,000%

and the entire news cycle has passed

before you correct it, we're going to

fire you because that's not really good

in the statistics.

Wouldn't that be fair? But we're

pretending that firing somebody for

being consistently completely wrong

about the only thing that they're there

to do, which is pres present statistics,

that's not a problem.

Now, the background might be, I presume,

that our statistics have always been

that bad.

Um, but for whatever reason, we just

started accepting it as normal. And

Trump Trump sees one example and he just

says, "You're fired."

That's the way you should run that. If

they do it one time, come with you with

numbers which are completely ridiculous.

And here's the important point. They

knew the numbers were ridiculous when

they presented them and they didn't warn

anybody.

You know, if if they had said, "All

right, we have preliminary numbers, but

honestly, you shouldn't use them because

in two months these will be revised and

they could be revised just really

radically. So, you shouldn't make any

decisions based on these numbers." If

they had said that,

I would have said, "All right, you know,

don't fire that person. They told you

everything they knew. Did the best they

could." But if you're not if you're not

presenting the numbers as likely to be

revised by 10,000%

or whatever it was, yeah, you got to get

fired.

I said the very next story here is

according to the post millennial Thomas

Stevenson is writing that jobs for

nativeborn Americans have increased by

nearly 2 million.

So that was pretty good right that jobs

for nativeborn Americans are up by two

million.

Um do you know where they got that

statistic?

Um would you be surprised to learn it

comes from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics?

It comes from the same source as the

woman who just got fired for presenting

employment numbers that are complete

And then the very next story is, well,

according to the Bureau of Label Labor

Statistics, we got a lot of American

jobs.

I'm going to say there's nothing we can

believe from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

So, that'll be my take.

Now, I don't know who has the cutest

podcast going, but it might be me. I

mean, it might be me. I do have a cat

asleep in my arms here. All right, what

else we got going on? Um,

so the uh effort by RFK Jr. to ban food

stamp use for soda and for candy. I

think they're just banning it for soda.

Um, did you know that we spend $45

million a day on SNAP?

I guess that's food stamps. Is SNAP the

same thing as food stamps? It's in the

same story.

$45 million a day. That's how far we are

from people being able to feed

themselves.

Not very close. $400 million a day.

Holy cow. Anyway, but anyway, that looks

like that uh change will happen.

Um

so there's a podcast between Charlemagne

the God and Stephen A. Smith.

Um and Stephen A. Smith is calling out

Kla Harris for saying she didn't want to

be part of the broken system when in

fact um she was a career politician so

she was you know she had plenty of

chances to fix that broken system if

that was going to happen.

So I guess Smith said you're a career

politician. You've been there

practically all your life. He wasn't

talking to her. He was talking about

her.

My god, you've been part of it and now

you're saying it's broken. That means

you couldn't do much so much to fix it

when you you was in it.

Um, the system was broken long before

Donald Trump got into office.

Charlemagne said, "Well,

how many think that's a good point that

she was in the system and failed to fix

it?"

Um, the system that's broken is just

that anytime you have a complicated

system and lots of people involved and

lots of money, it's always corrupt.

That's it. What exactly was she supposed

to fix? Was Kla Harris supposed to

single-handedly fix the part that the

world is full of corrupt people who will

take any opportunity to steal

What What was she supposed to do?

That that's not really an insightful

comment. No, there's not really any

chance that Kla Harris could have fixed

what was broken about the system. It's

it's way more broken than one person

could have, you know, tweaked a few

things and getting it going again.

Um

and then uh separately Charlamagne was

taking a phone call from a caller who

was saying some good things about uh

Trump and the caller said uh I feel like

this is one of the first presidents

that's actually doing what they said

they was going to do.

There's a And by the way, I feel like we

should just accept

that the words was and were should just

be used interchangeably

instead of being all pedantic about it.

Like like this sentence, I feel like

this is one of the first presidents is

actually doing what they said they was

was going to do. Now you know exactly

what they mean, right? So why is it, you

know, wrong to say was and right to say

were when you know exactly what he

means? I feel like we need to loosen up

on that. Anyway,

so the caller says that Trump was doing

everything he said he was going to do

and Charlemagne corrected him and said,

"Uh, well, no, not necessarily because

uh Trump said on day one he was going to

bring the price of groceries down." And

uh he he didn't do that.

And the caller the caller says,

"Everybody everybody know in your right

mind there's no way somebody could do

something instantly."

And I think to myself, did somebody

really have to explain that to

Charlemagne that when Trump said, "I'll

end the war in one day and I'll bring

down egg prices in one day." Do do we

really have to explain it

that that didn't literally mean one day?

And here this caller, I love the way the

caller says it. Everybody know in their

right mind there's no way somebody's

going to do something instantly.

Right. Exactly. Everybody in their right

mind knew that he just meant it was a

priority.

Did he treat it like a priority? Well,

what are you going to do about it? I

mean, he did all the things you can do

something about it. He went after the

eggs. He did lower the price of gas, but

inflation isn't exactly the kind of

thing that you can deal with instantly.

So,

you know, I'm not even sure exactly

what the government can do in general,

except not make terrible mistakes.

All right. Um, I've been watching some

videos of uh Democrat Senator Elizabeth

Warren

uh backing Mandani Mami Mami Zoran Mani

of who's running for mayor of New York

City. Um, and I'm liking I heard Jesse

Waters use it. I don't know if he came

up with it, but Kami Mandami.

Kami Mandami is a pretty good nickname

because it just I just want to say it.

Kami Mandami.

So, that's very effective. Good job,

Jesse.

But Elizabeth Warren is all in on his

socialist uh agenda. and uh she is wise

enough to know as are most of the

Democrats that he finally he kind of

solved the puzzle and the puzzle was is

there anything that Democrats can say

that will be you know persuasive to

voters and the answer is yes the

affordability

approach that Mandami is using

absolutely is the right approach because

it's easy to understand

etc. The problem is that how do you

actually do the affordability? Well,

he's got a bunch of ideas that um we

know always fail

or we think we know that. We think we're

that smart. So, he had an idea for a

government

um government grocery stores.

Well, that's been tried and didn't work

anywhere. Um, and then I guess something

about free transportation and some other

free stuff. And uh, you can't get that

stuff unless you're you're raising taxes

on people, etc. So, it's hard to get

there.

But here's what Elizabeth Warren has

added to his framing that those

potential solutions that Zoran is

mentioning are experiments.

In other words, they're not committing

to, oh yeah, no matter what, we're going

to have government grocery stores, but

rather committing to an experiment in

which they see if there's any way you

can make a government grocery store be

additive without being a huge disaster.

to which I say that really

unfortunately

that's a pretty effective approach

because you know most people would say

ha it's been tried and it didn't work.

Well if she calls it experimental she

just has to say yeah we're going to try

doing it a different way and if it

doesn't work we'll try something else or

we'll abandon it. And then I go, "Ah,

oh, that makes sense."

Because I don't know for sure that

there's no way you could ever do

anything that was additive for some

number of poor people who were using

their SNAP benefits to buy soda. I maybe

maybe I I'm open to the experiment. So,

she has very cleverly

shifted it from I have these specific

ideas of how to get you some

affordability.

She's shifted it to we can play with

this. We can experiment with this and

it's pretty clever if he buys it. If he

doesn't buy into the experiment part of

the frame where nobody else does, then

it won't go anywhere. But I think she's

smart to put it put it in that frame.

Um, according to ADP, the payroll

service company,

um,

private company hiring has bounced back

and they've hired 104,000 people since

July. Uh, I saw unusual whales and I

count on X reporting that. To which I

say,

does ADP really know that?

Why does the government not know about

jobs when jobs are mostly

uh payroll is mostly automated?

If if payroll is automated pretty much

everywhere, are you telling me that the

government can't figure out how many

paychecks are out there and know that

there are more of them or less of them?

Does the government really not know how

many people paid um let's say disability

tax?

this past month. We really don't know

that the money is taken out of people's

accounts and goes into another account

and we don't know. We can't measure the

volume of that every month to know if

it's a more or more or fewer people are

on payroll.

So, I don't know. It seems to me this is

a very fixable problem.

Um, how many of you have had the

experience

that when one hoax is revealed, it

changes how you feel about the other

alleged hoaxes? Has anybody had that

yet? Um, here's one that uh

here's one that's affecting me. I think

maybe Mike Benz is is affecting my brain

on this as well. If we did not know, and

we do know that the Russia collusion

hoax was orchestrated by the CIA,

the CIA and the FBI and the highest

levels of our elected officials,

if we didn't know that that all really

happened in the real world,

would you be willing to believe that the

two assassination attempts against the

president may have had a US government

connection?

I probably would have rejected that

automatically if if if there had never

been a President Kennedy assassination

in which in hindsight, it seems, I

think, obvious that our CIA was

intimately involved in that. If you had

never heard of that,

it would be pretty hard to imagine that

it could ever happen again, you know, or

the for the first time in your opinion

if you didn't know that it happened

once.

And then we find out that in our

lifetime, the worst

political act we've ever seen, which was

the Russia collusion hoax, you know, the

the degree of coordination behind that

and the RIO like number of crimes that

are probably kicked up is unlike

anything I've ever seen.

And then I hear Mike Benton say that uh

that Ruth Rou u t the guy who hid by the

uh Trump golf course and got caught

before he fired that uh he apparently

had some state department connections.

All right. Well, you know, maybe that's

a coincidence, right? He just had some

state department connections. I mean,

you have some State Department

connections, right? Don't you don't all

of you have I don't.

No, you don't. You don't have any State

Department connections. But apparently

he did.

And then uh the the shooter at the

Butler event, Crooks was his name, he

had these encrypted apps, which seems a

little weird for a loner. Um he was

weirdly successful in his operational

endeavors. Weirdly um because it turned

out that the Department of Homeland

Security

which was a sitting in for the so uh

Secret Service. So Secret Service was

spread thin that week because they had

you know different jobs they had to

handle at the same time. So the

Department of Homeland Security, at

least one subset of them, stood in to do

extra security and then everything went

wrong.

Did you know, Mike Benz reminds us that

uh apparently crooks would often go to a

gun range that was the same one that the

Department of Homeland Security

typically used, or at least one

department within it.

Now,

these are just connections, right? There

there's no no direct smoking gun that

says, "Oh, the State Department sent

this guy or that the Department of

Homeland Security was well aware of this

guy." I don't have that. We're not at

that level of any kind of proof of

anything. But my question was,

if we had never seen that Kennedy had in

fact been murdered by our own government

and CIA, it looks like, and if we didn't

know for sure that the Russia collusion

hoax was organized by the highest levels

of our own government, and they're still

hiding it. If we didn't know that, I

wouldn't I wouldn't even blink if

somebody said, "Oh, these people have

connections. They've got connections to

the State Department. I would have said,

"Oh, it's a big world. People know

people. Doesn't mean anything." But now

I just assume there's something to it.

I I'm so far into the conspiracy theory

world

just of the conspiracies that we know a

lot about. We know which parts are true.

that uh I find it hard to believe that

both of those shooters were operating

independently.

How many of you think that both of them,

you know, there might be a difference

between them, but how many of you think

that both of them were doing it

absolutely independently? It had nothing

to do with any US government influence.

Nobody tried to hypnotize them or pay

them off or anything else.

I don't know. It's a little bit harder

to believe that they were operating

independently given what we know about

everything else lately.

Well, um this story might be a little

bit of fake news, but I'm not sure yet.

So, keep an eye on this one. But, uh,

apparently the Trump administration,

um, was going to say it was going to cut

federal emergency funding

to cities and states that, um, allowed

boycots of Israel or pursued boycots of

Israel. Now, apparently that uh created

a uproar

um on the base. So, it wasn't

it wasn't just uh

um it wasn't just Democrats complaining

about Trump. It was his own base saying,

"Wait, wait, wait. What are you telling

me that a city is going to lose

emergency funds because they backed a

boycott of another country? That's not

exactly America first." And uh so looks

like the Trump administration backed off

of that. So that will not be a

requirement.

But in order to get that funding, you

have to not be involved in DEI or

immigration violations according to the

AF post. All right.

Um,

in other news where Trump is punishing

people, a lot of the news is Trump

punishing people. Have you noticed that?

It started slow, but now there's like

four stories of Trump just punishing

somebody with a government purse. So,

apparently the White House is putting

together an executive order to punish

banks for discriminating against

conservatives.

Now, I don't know if that means only in

the past or if currently that's

happening. And also the White House is

preparing to crack down the banks that

have debanked u Bitcoin and crypto

companies. Wall Street Journal is

reporting.

So if you're keeping track, have you he

figured out which oligarchs uh Trump is

in favor of? He is apparently not too

keen on the oligarchs who are bankers.

He's going after the bankers.

Uh he's not too keen on the oligarchs

that are big pharma because he's going

after the big pharma, right? He's not

too keen on the oligarchs who are oil

companies because even though he's drill

baby drill and trying to make it easy to

drill, the net effect is drives down oil

prices.

So

I ask you again,

which which oligarchs is he supposedly

in favor of?

So it's not banks, it's not pharma, it's

not oil.

Uh

so which oligarchs?

Some maybe some uh crypto people or

something? I don't know. It doesn't seem

very oligarch friendly to me.

Did you know that India had cleverly

figured out or at least people in India

figured out they could buy Russian oil

cheaply and then they could resell it

for a big profit. So that was good for

Russia because they were selling more

oil but bad for the United States um

relationship with India because it meant

India was you know supporting Russia

basically. And so Trump says he will

substantially raise tariffs on India

over their Russian oil purchases.

Right? So he's punishing banks for

discriminating against conservatives.

He's punishing cities for DEI. He's

punishing colleges for DEI. And now he's

going to punish

um

India for dealing with he's got a lot of

punishing. He's just doing a lot of

punishing.

Well, here's a weird story. So, you know

that uh Murdoch owns not just the Wall

Street Journal, but also owns the New

York Post, one of the few conservative

outlets.

And uh now the New York Post is going to

expand to California. So, there's going

to be a California Post.

Now, what would be a less obvious thing

to do than to start a new newspaper?

How do you make money starting a new

newspaper in 2025?

Well, it could be that it's not so much

a newspaper revenue play as it is

controlling the uh I controlling the

narrative. Most of the news in both

newspapers presumably will be the same,

but maybe Californians will not read

something that says New York Post on it.

So maybe it just needs to say California

and then they could add some California

elements to it.

But I suspect that Murdoch's real play

is influence. I don't really think he

would see it as a huge money maker to

support a newspaper. Another one. I

know.

Well, in big big news, possibly big big

really big, uh Pam Bondi has ordered a

grand jury probe into the Obama

officials over the Russia hoax.

So, we don't know who's been referred to

the grand jury. Um, but as MSNBC's

Nicole Wallace says, it's all over

debunked allegations.

So MSNBC is pretending like the Russia

uh the Russia collusion hoax never

really happened, I guess.

Um and CNN is calling the Russia

collusion hoax the Russian

investigation.

Well, that's kind of playing it safe,

isn't it? Yeah, I suppose it was an

investigation

except that we know now it was a fake

investigation.

uh or at least much of it was fake and

it was intended just to Trump.

So CNN calls it a Russia investigation,

not a hoax. It was just an

investigation. Didn't go well.

So

uh given that we know that grand juries

um once they are formed, they almost

always indict

because they don't have a it's not a

real competitive system where all the

evidence is shown and everybody argues

everything.

Um, so you usually you usually don't

even do the grand jury unless you know

you're going to get an indictment and

you usually do. So we are at a point

where some very high level people are

very likely to be indicted in

how long is it going to take? Maybe a

few months.

So things are going to get really

interesting. And as other people have

pointed out, sometimes the the process

is the penalty.

So you would take these people out of

their normal lives and have them, you

know, open up their piggy banks to pay

for, you know, ungodly expensive lawyers

and uh their reputations will be dragged

down and their businesses will suffer if

they have side businesses, etc. So just

being dragged into the legal process is

quite a penalty before anybody even

figures out if you're guilty of

anything. So there going to be some big

names getting dragged hard. It looks

like

in other news um Trump might soon

announce a Fed chair who would replace

uh Powell. Now he wouldn't replace

Powell until Powell's term is over in

May. So that would have a the effect

would be as others have said like a

shadow

uh Fed leader, somebody who could go in

public and say, "Well, if I were already

if I were already in the job, I think

I'd be leaning toward lowering those

interest rates." And uh it's going to

put pressure on Powell.

So

I do expect that that'll happen.

All right.

Um,

according to the Rasmusen account on X,

uh, the 2020 nationwide election fraud

syndicate will start to come into the

sunlight in the next few weeks. Well, I

don't know what they know that I don't

know. So, there must be some activity

happening that is not announced yet.

But if you didn't know, uh, the Rasmusen

account, um, has been very closely

following all claims of election

irregularity from 2020

and, uh, are now teasing us

um, that there's something that's coming

on that. Could it be that the Trump

administration will launch a major

investigation into the 2020 election?

And could it be that there's some real

things that they will find there? I

don't know. I don't know. We'll find

out.

Well, you probably know the story that

the uh state of Texas um tried to get

some gerrymandering approved that would

allow them to have up to five extra

representatives in Congress if approved.

But the Democrats who would have to be

part of the vote even though they would

be outvoted have left town. So there's

not a quorum for the vote. So you have

to have a certain number of people in

present to make the vote valid. So, they

left and they went to uh uh Illinois, I

think,

and Governor Abbott is threatening that

they'll be replaced with a special

election and they might face bribery

charges because I guess somebody offered

to pay somebody for something. Uh in

addition to losing their jobs. So, the

pressure is on. But, uh JB Pritsker

says he's going to be protecting these

people. you'll be protecting them. Um,

so good luck there.

I I feel like the uh Texas

Republicans have to win that in the end,

right? Isn't this one of those stories

where it's sort of like Cy Booker doing

the filibuster?

While it's happening, you might have to

pay attention to it, but it can't last

forever. All right, these people are

gonna have to come back. They're gonna

want their jobs.

So, um I suspect Republicans will win in

the end.

Um there was a caller who called into

C-SPAN recently and said that Democrats

need to show more of a spine

uh and more interest in working people

instead of saying they're just saying

they're for working people.

Now,

that's more of that mistake, right?

Where they think that showing a spine

is what they need to do. No, they don't

need to show a spine. They need to show

a policy that people liked. They

wouldn't need any spine at all if they

had good policies, would they?

So every time the Democrats believe that

that what they're lacking is fight and

resolve and spine

is, you know, another day that they're

not getting any closer to winning.

Um, and then just to show you how

clueless Democrats are, I think the

whole Democrat part of the world is

about um some part of the Democrats

scamming the other parts of the

Democrats.

Does it seem like that to you? If you

were to separate well, if you look at

just the Democrats, you know, the ones

in power, there would be two kinds of

people. There would be all these

consultants and nos who are trying to

rip off the other Democrats.

Uh and then there would be the Democrats

who are getting ripped off

and that's about it that it's just

thieves and people who are victims.

Anyway,

uh the newest Democrat scheme, which

looks like nothing but a money-making

scheme for some Democrats, is to spend

tens of millions of dollars to fund

hundreds of content creators so that uh

their social media game will be better

than it was.

So the Democrats believe

that they can artificially

create what de what what Republicans

have done organically.

That's wrong, right? Isn't that

obviously not going to work? because

it's not like you could set out to

create

uh Victor Davis Hansen or Mike Benz or

uh how do you set out to create Matt

Walsh

or uh uh

you know obviously Joe Rogan.

How do you do that? How do you set out

to create Theo Vaughn like artificially?

These are not things anybody can do. The

the thing which I think Democrats are

failing to recognize is that um for

reasons that I don't even understand

completely. It may be the common sense

theme of Republicans maybe. But it seems

to me that the smartest, most capable

people all just sort of gravitated to

one side.

And you know, Elon Musk would be the

obvious one. And then the the all-in pod

guys, uh, David Saxs, um, even JD Vance,

Peter Teal, we're talking about people

who aren't just smart,

they're next level smart,

you know, I would say someone like James

Carville, as much as I like making fun

of his uh, inability to get his message

across, um,

he would be very smart for a Democrat

that, but he's not Victor Davis Hansen

or Mike Benz or any of the ones I

mentioned. He's not that smart. They

don't really have somebody

who's uh anything but academic smart.

And it seems like the Republicans for

whatever reason, I don't even know what

the reason is, seem to have attracted

all the people who are not just regular

smart, but I don't even understand how

you could be a human being.

Do you ever listen to Victor Davis

Hansen and he's talking about any topic

and putting context on it and the whole

time you're sitting to listening to it,

you're thinking, "How does he even know

all that? How do you know all that?

You listen to Mike Benz and he can talk

for three hours and the whole time

you're going, "How do you know that? How

do you know that? Come on. How do you

know that?" And he does know that. I

mean, he really does know it. So, who on

their side is doing something like that?

The the closest they got is what was it?

Uh

uh Ezra.

Ezra Klein writing a book about all the

things that they're doing wrong.

I mean, that's a very capable piece of

work, but he's not really in the same

domain with what the Republicans, you

know, put together organically. Well,

they didn't even put it together. It

just happened organically.

And if I may,

who on the uh Democrat side has my

understanding of persuasion

right

now? I don't believe there's anyone I

don't believe there's anyone on the

Democrat side who can do what I can do,

which is tell you what works and what

doesn't work and so you can do more of

what works. So somehow the the most

capable people just ended up in one

place and uh the Democrats just can't

see it because that would allow them to

if they saw it, they'd have to admit

that there's a gigantic brain power

difference driving one side versus the

other.

I see you making suggestions, but I'm

not going to make I'm not going to agree

with all those names.

Yeah. Okay. There's another one. Megan

Kelly. Who Who is Who's the Democrat

Megan Kelly? Right. Who's the uh who's

the Democrat uh Molly Hemingway? I just

realized that I was being super sexist

when I mentioned the people. They were

all male. But you can throw in Molly

Hemingway. You can throw in Megan Kelly.

Unusually capable people. They're not

just normal. These are very unusually.

Miranda Divine.

unusually capable.

Very capable.

All right.

Um,

apparently the uh Kremlin Oh, one one

other thing.

So, apparently uh

the Israeli government Netanyahu has

said that they're going to occupy the

Gaza Strip. I think that's official. Um,

the news is reporting it. occupy it

means they have no plans of ever

returning it back to the uh gazins for

you know to form some government.

They're just going to own it. It it will

just be part of Israel.

Now name all the people who predicted

that before today.

Just one. Just me,

right? Can you can you name one person

who at the very beginning of the Gaza

war said this isn't going to be anything

but complete victory? Because that's

what they said. Total victory was

literally their slogan. Total victory.

And and they said early on they said uh

that we're going to change reality on

the ground and uh we're never going to

have this problem again.

Now, to me, they said as clearly as they

possibly could, "We're going to

devastate this place and just completely

own it in the future, and Hamas will

never have any role here again."

Now, you remember I predicted this right

from the beginning, right? And now it's

a fact.

And so I'll I'll go back to my prior

conversation and say, who is it on the

Democrat side who can make good

predictions?

I don't even know. But if you looked on

the Republican side, I don't get them

all right. Of course, I'm not going to

tell you I got everything right that

I've ever predicted. But we have a whole

bunch of smart people who can predict

things quite reliably

by just being a little bit more aware of

what's going on, I guess. I don't know.

My cat's head just disappeared.

All right. She He seems very happy.

Um All right.

So

here's my comment on Israel because

people uh imagine different things about

my opinion. So I have to make sure that

you understand. Um here is the wrong way

to argue about Israel.

Um and I think this would apply to uh uh

comic Dave Smith and some other people.

If you're arguing morality,

why there there's nothing over there

that has anything to do with morality or

what's ethical? Because everybody has

their own opinion of what's moral and

ethical. So, it's not really a standard

that can ever work to make anything

better. So, why would you even talk

about it?

Well, we want to we want to pretend that

we're the good ones and we have better

morality than other people. So, that's

the only reason to talk about it. If

you're talking about um Israel's

morality,

you're really just talking about

yourself.

All you're doing is positioning yourself

as well. If I were in charge, I would be

a far more moral and ethical person. And

let me tell you, uh a lot fewer children

would be getting killed. But really,

that's just about you.

If you need to talk about yourself, go

wild. But it has nothing to do with

Israel. Israel is like every other

country. They pursue what is in their

best interest.

Is it in their best interest to

completely, you know, devastate Gaza,

relocate people to other countries and

then own it in the long run? Probably. I

mean, you know, I can't make a

prediction about that because, you know,

there's so many variables over there,

but yeah, probably. It probably is in

their best interest. If you checked back

in 20 years, would they be glad they

took over Gaza? Probably. Probably. So,

as long as Israel thinks it's in their

best interest,

that's the end of the story. Now, we

might say, "But but but but we don't

like it's not in our best interest." And

that would be a fair conversation and we

would talk about whether we should

participate in something or be part of

funding it. Those are good

conversations. But um if you talk about

whether what they're doing is good or

evil, if you're comparing the number of

children they killed, and the one that

bothered me the most is I saw somebody

arguing for proportionality.

proportionality

meaning that um that Israel should only

kill some number of people that would be

the equivalent of what October 7th was.

You know, however you wanted to

calculate that. To which I say, where

did proportionality come into anything?

When you're talking about one country

pursuing its best interest, and I guess

Gaza is pursuing its highest interest,

neither of them are interested in

proportionality.

They're only interested in winning.

That's all that matters. So when people

say, "Scott, why do you keep supporting

Israel?" I say, "When did I do that?" I

mean certainly

uh everybody understands that countries

can defend themselves but that's what

everybody thinks. That's not me.

Uh what I think is that if you're if

you're in the conversation about who's

who's better or proportional or more

moral,

you're just in the wrong conversation.

And it's really about yourself. It just

isn't about Israel.

Israel is going to do its thing no

matter what my opinion is.

Do everybody agree? Now, I know you

think that I'm highly influential, but

none of you think that I'm influencing

Israel policy, right? Does anybody think

that? Have I even tried? I've never even

tried

because it's just something I observe.

It's not something, you know, it's not

my country. Um, so if there's a question

of whether we should be funding it or

not, I'll get into that. But no, every

country gets to do whatever they think

is in their best interest and it will

always be thus.

There will be a cost to it. Um, I don't

know if I've said this directly,

but the the price of permanently taking

over Gaza and, you know, relocating

everybody and uh doing what they're

doing, the price of it, I think, is that

they lose the Holocaust as a protective

narrative.

Um, now we don't know that. It's too

soon to say, but that that looks like

the price. It looks like the price of

owning Gaza and continuing not to have a

twocountry solution, which I think

Israel prefers, or at least Netany Yahoo

prefers, the price is that he's going to

use the uh the Holocaust narrative that

that's like Israel's greatest asset is

that there's that narrative that we all

understand and we all we've all bought

into never again

because that would be a pretty good

thing to never again happen.

But I think that they're losing that

narrative because there'll be enough

people who say um and it doesn't matter

if it's true.

So don't argue with me. I'm saying what

other people will say. So I'm not

arguing it's true. I'm just saying that

other people will say, "Well, you know,

forget about your Holocaust narrative

because you did this." And I think that

that argument will carry some weight.

So, it's expensive and uh

but looks like it's happening.

Well, North Korean spies apparently have

been uh posing as remote workers for a

number of businesses. I guess there are

thousands of them according to Crowd

Strike, the cyber security company. uh

Techrunch is writing about this and

um they've seen hundreds of cases where

North Koreans posing as remote IT

workers have infiltrated companies to

generate money and uh probably to steal

secrets too, but at least generate

money.

And my question is this. How did so many

uh how did so many North Korean workers

get jobs in a DEI atmosphere?

I would think that all the spies would

be thwarted. Say, "All right, uh and

what's your nationality?" And of course

they'd lie and they say, "I'm South

Korean."

Um and they say, "Hm, South Korean."

Well, we've got a lot of black

candidates that we're looking at first.

So, I'm quite impressed at the North

Koreans for getting through DEI.

I don't know how they do it, but uh

it it makes me wonder how I can get a uh

a North Korean spy to work for me

because I don't have any, you know,

national secrets.

But wouldn't it be great to have your

own North Korean remote worker?

Especially if you knew they were a spy,

but they didn't know that you knew. And

you know, as long as you had your cyber

situation nailed down so they couldn't

get into anything naughty and just have

them go go to work every day and do your

work and actually do the work because

that's how they they keep their cover.

And you just make you just make the

North Koreans do all your work.

and you underpay them. To me, that would

be hilarious. All right,

ladies and gentlemen, that is all I had

to talk about today. Um, I'm going to

talk to the locals people, my beloved

locals people privately because they

want to they want to talk to me and my

cat and the rest of you. Thanks for

joining. I appreciate it. And I will see

you uh tomorrow, same time, same place.

But locals, my beloveds,

I