Episode 2929 CWSA 08/16/25

you are just uh listening to my drumming.

Well, aren't you glad you didn't have to listen any more of that?

Come on in.

There's lots of space.

We have a Saturday show for you that will make you so happy because it's the oxytocin and the simultaneity that you desire.

It's coming at you.

I'm trying to sound like a late note late night uh FM DJ.

Well, we'll be coming at you with some uh heavy tunes.

We've got some concepts and some jokes.

We might even have some dad jokes and puns.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

And you've probably never had a better time.

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

Well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, cher, a canteen jug or a flask, a pestle of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Go.

So, so good.

Well, it's Saturday and as tradition requires, um, there will be a spaces event after this podcast.

So, a few minutes after I'm done here, Ow and Gregorian will fire up a spaces and you can have an afterparty if you've enjoyed talking to each other in the comments especially.

Um, and all you have to do is go to X and search for Owen Gregorian and you'll you'll find the feed right there.

Well, I wonder if there's a science that didn't need to be done because they could have just asked me.

Oh, here's some.

Uh, according to Sai Post, Vladimir Hedra is writing that uh if a couple is nice to each other with lots of positive um things and it's mutually positive that their relationship will last longer and be stronger.

Is that a big surprise to anybody that if you bring positivity to a relationship is more likely to be healthy?

Huh?

Well, it's it's nice to know that that would work, but I have a feeling that it doesn't work if one of the people is male and one of them is female.

Because it seems to me that the model that's been developed over time, you know, evolutionary time, uh, is that women can maximize their gain by complaining because because men will do anything they want to make it stop.

So complaining and being negative has tremendous utility to to women, but really not a lot of utility to men because then it just makes the woman hate you and uh that's about it.

But if you act positive, if it were possible for both of you to act positive at the same time, it would be really good for you.

Well, Christy Gnome, the head of uh Department of Homeland um security says that uh she had to move into military housing because she got so many death threats.

I guess her address was got doxed for the second time.

And uh you know what I'm wondering?

Every time I read a story about somebody being threatened or somebody being hurt or some kind of fight, um, it's almost never white supremacists.

Have you noticed that?

How long ago was it?

Maybe three or four years ago, when the news was literally trying to tell us that the biggest risk in the entire country was white supremacists.

Well, they're awfully boring and lazy and quiet.

If they're dangerous, they're really not doing a good job of it because I'll bet it wasn't the white supremacists who were uh threatening Christine Gnome.

Just guessing.

I don't feel like there were a lot of white supremacists um jacking cars in Washington DC.

It feels like whenever we hear stories of violence and crime, there's almost never a white supremacist in the story.

And uh I'm disappointed because we were all told that that was the biggest threat to the nation.

I don't know where they went.

Maybe they all got locked up.

Okay.

Well, China is developing the creepiest product that you could ever imagine.

It's a robot surrogate to carry a human child.

Um it would be like a I guess based on the brief news report.

It would be built like a regular robot with arms and legs and it would have sort of a womb.

It would have an artificial womb and so the robot would walk around with your your baby in it.

So that's coming.

If you can if you could think of anything that would be creepier than raising a baby in a robot's womb, let me know because that's pretty darn creepy.

Tough to top that.

Well, uh, per the Financial Times, Melissa, I believe I pronounced that right.

He How do you say the A with the two dots over it?

Themlant.

Is that an umlant?

Well, okay.

So Melissa writes that the art of persuasion um apparently the AI chat bots can change your mind and they can do it pretty quickly in 10 minutes.

So if you have a discussion with an AI um it can the study found that it can change your mind very quickly and very effectively.

Now, not every person every time and all within 10 minutes, but if they measure um a larger group of people in a study, a lot of them will change their mind based on the AI trying to convince them what's true and what isn't.

Now, why is that?

Have I Hey, look who visited.

This is Gary the cat.

He will be joining us on the show today.

If you'd like to look at Gary, I'll tip the uh camera down so you can look at the cat instead of me.

Sort of an upgrade.

Come on, get me.

Get over here.

All right, that's better.

So, um, why do you think it would be true that AI would be persuasive?

Let's see if I have taught you enough that you would have known that without this study.

Um, number one, it's the documentary effect.

If it's just you and the AI and the AI is one point of view, which typically it would, and it's trying to convince you that one point of view is right, and you spend 10 minutes with it, it's there's a good chance it'll change your mind.

Number two, there are no egos involved, or less of one.

If you're dealing with another human, you're feeling like you don't want to be seem less than them or or dumb compared to them.

So, you don't want to change your mind because a human talked to you for 10 minutes, that just wouldn't feel comfortable.

But if you felt like the AI wasn't a person with an ego and it wasn't going to hold it over you if if it was right and you were wrong, you'd never hear about it again.

Well, then you would feel like you're just doing your own research and changing your mind on your own.

So, if you can get people to think that they're changing their mind on their own, it'll happen a lot easier than if it's like one human versus another human because you put your shields up in those cases.

So, yes, it does make sense that AI would be super persuasive.

Now, here's the troubling part.

That super persuasion I believe happens without it knowing how to do persuasion.

It happens just because it has a good argument and has good facts and people tend to believe the computer.

So that's all it has.

And it can already with no real persuasion technique, you know, just presenting arguments basically, it can already totally change people's opinions.

What is going to happen when it starts using the techniques of persuasion?

Because, you know, it knows them because it it got trained on all the the bodies of work in the world.

So, yeah, it knows what to do.

Um, but presumably it is not programmed to maximize persuasion, but wouldn't take much to do it.

So that's one of the biggest problems in the world coming at you, which is AI persuasion.

All right, let's talk about the biggest story.

I think everybody is streamed in here now.

We got a full house.

Uh Putin and Trump met in Alaska because it's sort of right in the middle there.

And Alaska of course has some historical value because it is a time when the US and Russia played well together.

So, in terms of setting the table, as Trump likes to say, is a good persuasion to bring uh Putin and Trump into the one place that's maybe the most famous place in the world where Russia and the US have gotten along well and they made a deal and it was just business and, you know, they were on our our side for some stuff and we were on their side for some stuff.

Yeah, it's perfect.

Whoever came up with the idea of of Alaska, that was a home run.

That was just a home run.

So, good good job on that.

Um, I will uh we'll just run down the list of things that people talked about with this meeting.

First of all, the body language looked very positive, as in both leaders did not seem to be acting when they were acting positively toward each other.

Their smiles looked real.

Their body language seemed to be uh I'm totally into this meeting and it wasn't creepy.

I mean, it wasn't that good, but it was really good.

And I don't think any of that was acting.

Could have been, but it really looked genuine to me.

Uh Trump of course tried to give Putin the uh the Trump handshake and it was a great buildup to it because Trump stood in one place and made uh made Putin do this long walk down the red carpet to him.

So it also made it look like Putin is the one who came to him.

That's good.

Very good persuasion.

But, uh, Trump puts out his hand for the handshake and he does the classic Trump thing, which is easy for him to do because he's so much bigger than, uh, Putin, where he he grabs his hand and then he pulls him in.

So that Trump's entire body that Putin's entire body is immediately controlled by Trump because he doesn't want to have his hand like sticking out too far.

That would be awkward.

So he kind of follows his hand as Trump pulls in close to his body and it puts it puts Trump immediately in command of Putin's body.

He makes Putin come to where he wants him to come.

He makes him walk the way he wants him to walk on the red carpet.

And then when he gets within a hand distance, he he moves him specifically where he wants.

And then he says, you know, follow me basically.

and he makes uh Putin do what he wants him to do, which is, you know, go wherever they're going.

Now, obviously, as the host, it's not surprising that that Trump was, you know, leading the way, but everything about that put Trump in control.

He's taller, you know, he's sort of more popular.

He's more of a star.

Just everything.

So in terms of the setup, the choice of locations and all that just perfect.

Now I suspect that the traditional media since they don't deal on the persuasion level and they have a a meager understanding of how negotiation works at this high level, they're going to say stuff like, well, he just made a star and Putin.

We'll talk about that.

But if you were to look at it purely from a setting the table, which is the the phrase that Trump actually used, he wasn't trying to get an agreement today.

He said he was setting the table.

Everything I just mentioned is setting the table.

Um, so what else happened?

Uh, weirdly, and I'd love to know more about this, when uh, Putin and Trump first met and then they were doing a long walk together down the red carpet, it appears that they were chatting and joking and that they knew what the other was saying and there was no interpreter there.

So, I I saw Jack Pabek say that uh it must have been Putin was trying to speak a little bit of English, but he doesn't do that uh in public on camera.

So, it makes me wonder how much English Putin actually knows.

And then I've got a second a second observation.

Just just hold this in your mind for a moment.

What do you think would be the state of relations between the US and uh and Russia if we were dealing with a leader that spoke perfect English?

Think about it.

I feel as if that language barrier um just sort of prevents you from ever having, you know, like a really good um deal.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong.

Modi in India speaks perfect English.

Right.

Can you give me a confirmation on that?

I I think so.

Right.

Which uh and then it's no surprise that India and the US get along great.

And then you've got President Xi and we you know we've got kind of a tense adversarial relationship and he doesn't speak English.

Now I'm not saying everybody should speak English because English is awesome.

But imagine how different things would be if they all spoke perfect English.

Is there any is there anybody who speaks perfect English who is an enemy of the US?

All right, there's a there's a good test for you.

Who is an enemy of the US who also speaks perfect English?

There might be some Hamas leader in that category.

Uh that's special case because that's a religious kind of a problem.

But you know, North Korea doesn't speak English.

Um it feels to me that if something happened to Putin and he were replaced by somebody who spoke really good English, uh like Lavrov or one of those guys, I feel like everything would change.

It just feels like everything would be different almost immediately.

Um, and it and we wouldn't know why.

We we would assume it's because, oh, this new leader in Russia, hypothetically, is just saying the right things.

Well, maybe.

Or maybe it's just that if everybody's speaking the same language, they come to a understanding, you know, just more naturally.

I believe that's true.

Well, uh, let's see what else is happening.

So Putin said, "Uh, next time maybe mean Moscow." He said it in front of the cameras.

So Trump was on the spot and Trump goes, "Oo, that's an interesting one.

I don't know.

I'll get a little heat on that one.

I can see it possibly happening.

Thank you very much, Vladimir." Um, so that was clever of Putin because he had, as I just described, he was the one who came to Trump and Trump had all the the setup just right.

So Putin was probably thinking, because he's smart, that if he could get Trump to agree to go to Moscow, it would somehow erase this little level difference that Trump had just introduced, you know, with his setup of the Alaska visit.

And then he then Putin says it in front of witnesses so that Trump has to react to it immediately.

And he wasn't really going to say, "No, I'll never come to Moscow." So, he sort of had to give it a maybe, didn't he?

And Trump gave it a maybe.

And that elevated uh Putin back up to, "Oh, we must be roughly peers because I go to you, you go to me.

You just haven't come yet.

Um a lot of lot of uh chat has been happening over the fact that um uh Trump also organized a flyover of the B2 bomber and its escort jets which is pretty impressive.

They timed it perfectly so it came over just as Putin and Trump were getting together and uh it was a impressive show of force.

Um, I wouldn't make as much a deal about it as some of the observers are who are happy that they found the persuasion lesson.

That one is so obvious that I don't know if it's really persuasive.

I mean, not a lot.

Um, because Russia has big weapons, too.

So, and it's so heavy-handed.

You know, it's so obvious that that was to influence him that probably didn't have quite the impact you imagine.

Anyway, I guess the uh press was kind of adversarial as it often is and was rudely yelling at the two leaders when they got together.

And uh there's there was some opinion that Putin was kind of put off with it.

And at one point they said he said enough.

Uh and then he and Trump had a laugh about how bad the you know how bad the press is, blah blah blah.

So that was just a interesting moment.

Um let me give you some other uh some other impressions from other people.

Speaking of Jack Basic, he said that uh Trump after the meeting Trump was up for uh what did he say?

He'd been traveling for 19 hours.

Uh does that include both directions?

I don't know.

and uh that he was making phone calls until 2:00 a.m.

with the other leaders to catch him up.

I'll tell you, having a president who doesn't need much sleep is really underrated.

It really is like having two presidents.

He just doesn't sleep that much.

It's kind of amazing.

Well, I guess Zilinski is going to come to the White House on Monday, so he'll be uh he'll be brought into it.

Um, and then uh there's some about Trump is saying that everybody determined that the best way to end the war is go to is to go directly to a peace agreement and skip the ceasefire.

Does that sound like something they really all agreed on?

because it seems to me that Trump would have gotten a lot of credit if he'd gotten a ceasefire.

Now, a ceasefire probably wouldn't hold, so you maybe there was no point in trying because it wouldn't have held anyway.

Um, but uh it feels a little bit like maybe Trump didn't get the ceasefire that he wanted and that he's, you know, reframing it as, well, the ceasefire is not important.

What's important is a larger agreement maybe.

So, um, apparently we've decided that an imaginary peace deal is better than an imaginary ceasefire because neither of them were going to happen.

They were both imaginary.

Now, does it seem to you like we're having some kind of weird theater?

And the theater is this.

Unless Ukraine decides to give up, you know, it valuable land that Russia's already conquered, which I don't see there's any chance of that.

There's not going to be any kind of peace deal and there's not going to be any kind of ceasefire.

And doesn't it feel to you like the odds of a peace deal are close to zero?

Does anybody have that feeling?

Now, Trump is the, you know, the magic peacemaker.

So if anybody could do it, you know, he would he would be the one I would bet on.

So it's not zero.

Not really, but it feels like it.

Can you imagine any scenario in which Ukraine changes its mind on that land exchange?

What what scenario would allow them to do that?

Um here's my best here's my best uh estimate.

Suppose um suppose the US offered the following idea.

Hey, instead of the Russian government and the uh Ukrainian government deciding who gets what land of the part that's already conquered by Russia, why don't we leave it to a referendum?

Now, you might say there's no way you can get a legitimate referendum.

You can't really assume that you would get a, you know, a legitimate vote from the population.

But you could poll them, couldn't you?

Or couldn't you?

Maybe you can't.

Maybe that'd be too hard.

So suppose you said, since there is no legitimate way that the governments will agree which land should change hands, why don't we turn it over to the populations?

Now, I would think that Russia, now you and you might take Crimea out of the mix.

because Russia might say, "All right, there's no situation in which we're giving up Crimea." So, you might want to take that out of the mix.

But if you said for the other stuff, if we could figure out what the population wants, then we should craft our end agreement around that.

Now, there are a lot of Russianspeaking people in those conquered lands, right?

So, it might be that Russia would get what it wanted.

And how much would Ukraine want to keep territory that was full of people who would rather be Russian?

Would they be losing a lot in that case?

I don't know.

Maybe be fewer problems.

So, the only way I could see that a big deal could happen is if they take away from the governments or at least they pretend they're taking it away, the question of who gets what land.

It's just got to go to somebody independent uh andor the population of the people there.

And then what I think Ukraine mostly wants a American guarantee of security, but they would stop short of demanding that they be in NATO.

So my guess is that we'll promise that NATO is off the table, but the US will say something like, "But you're going to have to get through us, Russia, if you want to take over Uk what's left of Ukraine." Probably something like that.

Well, what was the reaction over at MSNBC?

Did they say it's a great step forward?

Uh Trump really set the table?

No.

They had Susan Rice on and says that Putin walked away with a quote big victory because the events made him seem like an equal as opposed to the isolated, you know, dictator that he is or should be.

Um, and Nicole Wallace says that she was more prepared to meet with Vladimir Putin than Trump was.

Now, do you notice the mind readading when when the people the anti-Trumpers run out of good points, which happens kind of kind of quickly, they go to mind readading.

Now, how in the world would anyone, especially Nicole Wallace, know how prepared Trump was or wasn't for this meeting?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the topic of Ukraine has been one of his top topics for the entire time he's been in office.

when he was running for office.

And if there's something he doesn't know about that situation in order to be prepared, I would be really surprised.

He might be the most prepared person you've ever seen.

Now, I'm not reading his mind.

I'm just looking at this situation objectively.

Is it really possible that the thing that he probably thinks about the most, the thing that would get him a Nobel Peace Prize, you think he hasn't put enough thought into it?

That that's such a dumb NPC comment that he wasn't prepared.

There's no indication that he wasn't prepared.

In fact, he probably was super prepared because he seems to be able to handle a great many topics without too much uh pressure.

That's just one more.

Um, the Wall Street Journal said, "For all the pageantry, President Trump leaves Alaska with little to show while uh Putin got the recognition he has long sought." Now, is that the case?

Well, I would argue that we cannot judge in the present whether this was a plus or a minus because the setting the table thing is all about preparing for the move after.

So if you don't see the move that follows, which would be the larger, you know, peace negotiations, if you don't see how that turns out, I believe it's ridiculous and stupid.

It's just stupid to give it a grade midway.

Well, that that would be like if you were going to grade a uh a heart surgeon by only watching while he opens up the front of the chest to get get access to the heart.

You you stop there.

You go, "Oh, oh, look at that patient.

That patient used to be alto together and now he's got a big hole in his chest.

I guess that's a big old failure." Wouldn't it be smarter to wait till the operation is over and then judge whether your operation was a success?

You can't judge it based on they met and they had a good time and they smiled at each other and they said some things you would expect them to say.

Anyway, um I would argue this way that how many times have you seen and I've mentioned this a number of times and then I see other people in the press mention it that Trump likes to create assets out of nothing and then trade away that asset as part of his negotiation.

He just did that with Putin.

And most people won't be able to see this, but I think I've trained most of you that you can.

It goes like this.

Before Putin came to this meeting, according to the Walls Street Journal, according to MSNBC, he he did not have the respect of the international community the way he wanted.

So, we all agree with that part that he he had a isn't he like indicted or something by the National War Crimes Communal or something?

Um, we're not a signatory to that.

So, he was safe in US territory, but he was sort of this outcast demonized leader and you know, should have been for good reason.

and that this uh put him up on a level where he's more like an equal to the United States leader.

So that on the surface that would look like a mistake, right?

It would look like Trump gave him something for nothing.

But if you know a little bit more about persuasion and you know that Trump routinely creates assets out of nothing for the purpose of trading them away later or threatening to take them away later, even better.

Here's how you see it.

Putin just gained, as the critics rightly point out, he just gained his status.

Trump can take that away anytime he wants.

The status that Putin gained is completely provisional.

He doesn't get to keep it because if a week from now Trump says, "All right, well, we gave you a chance, you little piss ant.

You came over here and you smiled at me and you laughed and you tapped me on again and you had no intention of settling this thing.

So now I'm going to destroy your economy and you're a lying piece of and I want the rest of the world to know that.

Do you see how quickly Trump can take that away from him?

So Putin started with none of that respect that would put him on the same plane as Trump.

Trump quite deafly elevated him up to just below him.

Just below him, but in the same universe, just a little bit below Trump.

That was creating an asset and nothing.

Now Trump can take that away.

So, so Putin goes home and he's like, "Yeah, I think I really gained something in world opinion here." No, he didn't.

Trump owns that world opinion.

He can yank that back in 30 seconds.

He can write one post on Truth Social and absolutely pull the rug out.

So that's Trump.

Now Putin also being really good at persuasion, but you know, they they each have different cards to play.

So it doesn't mean they'll have an equal outcome.

It just means they're they're both really good at this.

So, as much as I say Trump is amazing at persuasion, and he is, he's the best, Putin's right up there.

He he's he's not a peer, but he is right just behind him.

So, Putin knew that uh he could make Trump want to keep playing with him if he said the things that Trump would want to hear.

One of the things they said was that the war never would have happened if Trump had been president.

Now, I don't know if that's true, but boy does that fit what Trump wants you to believe, cuz it's exactly what he says twice a day, every day, for months.

So Putin just goes out and backs him.

Oh, yeah.

There wouldn't have been a war if if Trump had been in charge.

Now, it doesn't matter if that's true because we can't go back in time and test it out.

it only matters that he said it and it was so perfectly, you know, strategically formed so that Trump would have to say, "Yeah, I do agree with that." So that that was masterful of Putin.

And uh Putin also said um didn't he also say he thought the 2020 election might have been rigged, which of course Trump would want to hear.

There was something else he said.

Oh yeah, he said the election.

Oh, listen to this.

Um um I think this was Trump quoting Putin.

So it's not something we heard from Putin directly, but Trump said that Putin said your election was rigged because you have mailin voting.

He talked about 2020 and he said you won that election by so much.

It was a rigged election.

said it was impossible to have fair elections with mail and with mail and voting.

Now, seriously, if if Putin sat down and he said, I'm going to make a list of the things that uh Trump would most want to hear of all the things in the world, what would he most want to hear, especially from Putin?

It would be the things he said.

All right?

So, if if you're grading them on how they did, A+ A+ from Trump, A+ from Putin, but I'll give the win to Trump.

Trump gets the win because he had the um the location advantage.

Not because he had more skill, but he just had he had a advantage before the game started and he played his advantage correctly.

So the other thing that's happening here is they have to know that the other one is their sort of uh Sherlock Holmes and Professor Morardi, you know, they they are each other's biggest challenge and each other's most capable other.

She is pretty capable, but Putin's more fun.

Uh I I think I think he's just more fun.

President Xi looks like he's not much fun, but Putin, even if he's evil all the time, he's still kind of fun.

He's got sort of that impish smile and stuff.

And you could imagine that if in a different situation, you could easily imagine Trump and Putin being, you know, buddies.

I don't believe Putin golfs.

Am I right?

They've never golfed.

So, it's too bad.

If uh Putin spoke perfect English and gulfed, we'd be in good shape.

Um all right.

So then the uh European leaders um have backed Trump.

So they seem happy about what's happened so far as long as the Europeans and uh Zalinski get involved and they are now.

Um, and apparently the US is prepared to give security guarantees to Ukraine, which is what Ukraine wants.

I don't know what that would look like, but um, let's see.

Bill Maher had his show last night and uh I continue to uh marvel at the fact that he's becoming more and more of a Republican right before our eyes.

But probably never probably never will get there.

But it's just fun to watch the gravity.

is just pulling him so hard that just a little by little he's like, "Well, okay, maybe he has a point on that thing, but let me tell you all these other things I still disagree with." And then he'll mention some hoaxes and some things he doesn't understand.

Um, so I guess it was uh Friday night last night.

Bill Maher said that Trump wasn't wrong on tariffs and he wasn't wrong on forcing NATO to pay more.

And uh and then he gave Trump some more credit kind of weirdly.

He said, "I'll tell you one thing about him, about Trump that I know.

I'm not going to tell you how I know." That part's weird.

He goes, "But a lot of people have seen the same thing." And Mar says he really does hate war.

He really does not like it when people die in war.

Now, how would Bill Maher know that?

Would it be the same way that every one of us knows it?

Because it's the most consistent thing he said since he's been in public life that he wants the the war to stop.

He wants the killing to stop.

Yeah.

And and the other the the other thing that um people say about Trump, even his critics, is that he's exactly the same opinion in private as he is publicly.

So if publicly he's been saying consistently and loudly and often as possible, he doesn't like people to die, doesn't like war, um avoiding war is sort of his greatest accomplishment and he should be proud of it.

Um, yeah.

So, why would you imagine that he says something different in private?

Do you imagine that in private he says something like, you know, I really don't care if those people from other countries die, you know, as long as it doesn't come over here.

I doubt it.

If every other topic in private is the same as it is in public, yeah, he doesn't like war.

that that's the most obvious thing you could possibly say.

But Bill Maher is acting like the rest of us didn't notice and they have some insider knowledge that Trump doesn't like war.

Okay.

Um, and then, uh, Bill Maher also notices, because how could he not, that the Democrat leaders like Hillary and Kamla were too afraid to come on his show, but the Republicans generally say yes.

And as as uh, Bill Morris says, they take their beating like men.

I don't know if they take a beating, but they do go into a um an environment that's not in their favor and they do it easily, regularly, without hesitation.

Now, that is a really fair observation.

Um that is a real good observation.

There is something fundamentally different about the Republican and Democrat approach to something like going on his show.

Now obviously he gets a lot of left-leaning people on the show more than right leaning but not the top leaders you know not the ones that are afraid of saying something wrong like Hillary or Kamla anyway and of course they do get invited all the time as he points out but he says Democrats um appear to be afraid of everything.

Um, Mara says they're afraid of COVID.

They're afraid of their own kids, which he which he uh overlaps with the trans topic.

Um, and then he but then he has to say some negative stuff about Trump because he just has to.

So, so Maher says that Trump was overly friendly to Putin for a very long time considering that Putin is a thug.

Now, does Bill Maher really not know that international relations work better if you don't demonize the person that you're forced to negotiate with?

Does is he the only person in the world who doesn't know that?

I mean, that that's what's left of his criticisms of Trump are stuff like he was overly friendly to Putin.

That's it.

That's not even a flaw.

That's just somebody who knows how to do his job really well.

Anyway, um Walter Kern, I guess, was on the show and pointed out that in 2015, Obama met with Putin and nobody said anything about it.

And then Bill Maher says he met him, but he didn't praise him.

He didn't say he's the greatest guy in the world.

Uh I could read 20 compliments that Trump has given to him.

He said he's a fun guy to be with.

and he go, "Oh, he's making an Epstein joke there." But again, how does Bill Maher, how can he be the only person on earth who doesn't know that complimenting the person you're trying to influence is good form and that insulting him makes it much more much less likely you'll get anything?

How does he not know that?

Um, he's pret I think he's I think he's pretending not to know because there's no real possibility he doesn't know that.

Is it?

I I would say every adult with an IQ over 110 would know that.

I don't have to explain it to you.

Anyway, um, and of course, uh, Putin is running the same play on Trump, you know, flattering.

Good morning, Ken.

Then the funniest thing I'm watching is that MSNBC always has all these anti-Trump um critics who have to be on every day.

And one of them is Molly Jong Fast.

And I like watching her because she's so bad.

She's just so bad at it.

But the the lowest level I'm going to say the lowest level of pundit analysis is that the new thing is primarily a distraction to the old thing.

Now, I know both sides say that and I've even talked about it myself, but it's the lowest level of clever analysis because the world is full of things that are, you know, new news every day.

Isn't it more likely that there's new news every day?

Isn't that far more likely than, oh, this new thing is a distraction from the old thing, and the old thing was a distraction from the thing before it?

I think the better way to say it is that Trump floods the zone.

Uh doesn't allow you to focus on one thing too long.

You know, fills up all the shelf space with like things he wants you to think about.

So that part is true, but this whole one thing is a distraction to the other thing.

There's such a low level of analysis.

Um, David Axelrod, you might know as one of the uh more famous Democrat adviserss.

He says that uh Trump's red carpet embrace of Putin may enrage a lot of Americans.

Um, I would say that literally everything Trump does enrages the theater kids.

Is there anything Trump could do, including golf?

They get enraged if he golfs.

Oh, we don't pay him to golf.

Well, you don't pay him at all, He doesn't even take pay.

Let him golf anyway.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We have to worry about uh Democrats being enraged by things Trump does.

That's just everything.

Hillary Clinton um said some good things about Trump and then there's one part of it that's fake news.

Um, she Hillary Clinton said gave Trump credit for the NATO spending going up to 5%.

She gave him credit for Ukraine buying weapons from the US instead of us, you know, giving them to him.

Um, and she thinks we have a better working relationship with Europe lately, and she's actually encouraged by that.

So, you might say, wait a minute, what are all these good things that Hillary is saying about him?

Then she goes on and uh she said she'd support a Nobel Peace Prize if Trump uh if Trump got a peace deal without giving up any Ukrainian territory.

Now what did the news do with her quote?

They find people hoaxed it up.

They cut out the last part.

So it's a completely different message.

If you leave in the whole quote about um if he can do it while uh not not giving any previous Ukrainian land to Russia, that's the part that can never happen in the real world.

Literally, not one person in the world, not one, not one person believes that this will end with Ukraine getting back all the land they had before it started.

So when she says conditionally that she would uh nominate Trump for a Nobel Prize if he could get a peace deal while Ukraine got back all of its land that she'd do it.

And then the news, the fake news reported that she would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize if he gets a deal.

That's not the deal.

Brennan made the same mistake because he will get fake news, too.

So Brandon was on MSNBC and he uh boosted what Clinton said.

He said, "Yeah, I would agree essentially that if he could do it without and also get back all of Ukraine's property that even he would nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize cuz that's impossible.

It's just not going to happen." And uh anyway, so I wonder if uh Hillary Clinton will try to soften her approach to Trump because Trump now has his Department of Justice looking into all of her crimes.

Is it possible that Hillary has decided to vastly soften her approach to criticizing Trump because he she doesn't want him angry at her at the same time he has the goods on her in the legal system because once Trump decided not to go after her.

It was his first term.

So she would know that is within the realm of possibility that he could have the goods on her and decide not to pursue it or tell his people to stand down.

Um so you might be seeing her softening her anti-Trump approach to keep herself out of jail.

That might be happening.

Well, I guess there were some protesters up in Alaska.

Um, I guess it was Ukrainian protesters funded, their signs were funded by somebody who used to work for Kiev's Soros Foundation.

U, I guess Data Republican found out, you know, who the funding came from and Data Republican on the X platform.

You should follow that account.

She's she's amazing.

Um, and I will uh I will propose to you again the following fact.

There's no such thing as organic protests in America.

Maybe nowhere, but there is no such thing as an organic protest.

the if you saw the signs of the protesters, it's just all these old white retired people who must be doing it for $100 because you know that they got nothing to do and they could use $100.

None of it looks real.

Um, and I don't know if we've now completely defanged the whole idea of uh the fake protests because once you know that they're all fake, do they still have power?

You know, Black Lives Matter had a lot of power.

But if you knew it was fake from day one, would it ever have had that much power?

I don't know.

We We may be past the point where these big protests have the same impact.

will all just go fake Soros.

Um, so, uh, do you remember the 2018 Russia summit?

So, that was the first time that Trump met with Putin.

And uh according to uh the Federalist Hans Mankey is writing that uh Tulsi Gabbard has released uh two emails.

Uh they show that just two days before the Trump Putin summit uh well hold on uh in late 2016 uh DNI James Clapper pushed for a fraudulent narrative that Russia had hacked the DNC.

Um, and the timing, apparently some of this Russia hoax was timed to make it impossible for Trump to get a, you know, good outcome in 2018 with Putin.

So, um, and as uh, Hans Monkey Mankey points out, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian nationals on charges of hacking the DNC.

Um, and this is something I noted at the time, too.

The indictment was designed to create political chaos, but Mueller knew that the 12 Russians were located in Russia and would never stand trial.

Meaning, we'd never know for sure, would we?

We'd never know for sure if Russia was behind it.

Probably was, but we'd never know for sure.

So, the Democrats have been using Russia as their club for a long time.

Um, according to CNN's Harry Enon, Americans trust Trump and the GOP on crime way more than they trust the Democrats.

Um, he said that uh, well, that's a pretty big deal.

I mean, if if Trump and the GOP are favored by quite a bit on uh the topic of crime, it'd be kind of hard to beat them in the in the midterms.

But midterms I think could go any way at this point.

Um, Peter Schweiser points out he's an author.

He wrote the book Clinton Cash about the Clinton Foundation and uh the alleged bribery and money laundering.

I guess paytoplay paytoplay and bribery.

It was not money laundering and although it's a form of money laundering to to do the paytoplay and the bribery but uh he points out that we now know from the new classified document releases that the several FBI field officers were planning to investigate the Clintons for the pay to pray and paytoplay and bribery potential.

of the Clinton Foundation and the Obama Obama Department of Justice told them to shut it down.

Um, and uh, I think that Peter Schweitiser assumes that uh, and I assume I can't read his mind, but I would assume he assumes it that uh, if there's something going on right now, some other kind of FBI investigation into the um, Clinton Foundation from back then that uh, they're going to find stuff and it might be a real big deal.

And I think that too.

So there's nobody to tell them to shut it down.

And I don't think you get multiple FBI field offices involved back in 2018 unless they had some kind of actionable intelligence.

Well, Trump is deploying 4,000 Marines around Latin America waters uh to stop the drug dealers, the cartels.

And apparently that's a pretty big uh military.

So that would include warships, a nuclearpowered subs, spy planes, and a marine expeditionary force.

Wow.

Um and uh some say it's just a show of force.

It might be more than that.

Um, and then the Mexican government has confirmed that they have approved and they knew about US government drones flying over Mexico as part of the anti-cartel stuff.

So, I don't know if Mexico is just trying to cover their butts by saying, "Oh, yeah, we knew about it and we approved it." Or if we were just doing it anyway and you know, may maybe they approved it.

I don't know.

And then there's uh Nuome, Governor Nuome uh is still becoming crazier and crazier in his anti-Trump stuff.

And Nuome actually said in public that he believes that Trump is serious about running again in 2028.

And partly he believes that because he received a Trump 2028 hat in the mail and he just reminds all the Democrats that they must fight like hell.

Um and that UCLA, who is one of the entities that the Trump administration is going after for being racist, he says that UCL will not sell it soul.

So, so believe it or not, Nuome is siding with racists um and siding with racism because the alternative is to sell their soul.

So, I assume their souls are disgusting racist souls and they don't want to sell them to be less racist like the Trump administration would like them to do.

So, they are stuck in that fight like hell frame with nothing else.

Well, Trump told us, and I don't believe this for a second, but he says that President Xi of China told him that China will not invade Taiwan as long as Trump is in office.

Quote, he told me, this is Trump saying that, "I will never do it as long as your president, but I am very patient and China is very patient." Do you believe that she told Trump that he would never do it while Trump was in office, but he plans to do it?

Well, that's what you say when you're trying to get elected in 2028.

No, I don't think he I my guess since I can't read minds is that Trump is not taking seriously running in 2028 because the Constitution would not allow it and I can't imagine it would ever work.

But on the other hand, he probably is attracted to the idea that it's even an idea.

Yeah.

How would you not love that?

that there are people seriously who who would want to change the constitution to keep you in power.

That'd be nice.

I don't think he's taking it seriously though.

Well, the mayor of New Orleans, Latoya Canrell, according to the Gateway Pundit, a grand jury is charged with dozens of felony counts, uh, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to obstru obstruction of justice, making false statements, etc.

Um, it makes me wonder given that the the problem with local government is that the way it's designed, it guarantees that the leaders will be corrupt.

It guarantees it.

It doesn't guarantee any specific leader and it doesn't guarantee that it will happen on day one, but it guarantees that people who know that they can exploit that office for financial gain are going to find ways to win that office and then exploit it for financial gain.

So, makes me wonder if there's any way that the feds could have a regular audit um function to audit local governments just for their spending, just to make sure that they're not uh paying their boyfriend bodyguards to go on vacations with them, that sort of thing.

Is there any reason we couldn't do that?

Now, I know that the states have all the power that the federal government doesn't have, but maybe you need a would you need a constitutional change?

Or how about this?

How about uh the federal government funds people in cities that are a problem, the ones that have a lot of crime and probably a lot of corruption.

uh if funds a um what would it be a uh not a petition uh what do you call it when you have the public vote on doing a thing as opposed to just electing a person what's that called anyway whatever that's called the federal government could fund somebody to just see if they can gather enough signatures to put something on the ballot and that thing that could be put on the ballot is would you say yes to a nocost referendum.

Thank you.

A referendum.

Um would you say yes to a no cost because the the federal government will pay for it.

Um occasional auditing of your elected officials.

Now, how many people would say no to that?

It will cost you nothing at the local level.

Federally, your taxes will pay for it, but we'll be checking your politicians to make sure they're not wasting your money.

Would you vote for that?

I would I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.

So, there might be some way that the Trump administration could get involved in getting rid of the criminals in the cities because to me that's the biggest problem.

Too many criminals.

And I'm not talking about the ones in the streets.

I'm talking about the elected criminals.

All right.

Um I've got the observation that you're not going to like it all.

And I I believe I've been a hypocrite on this topic and you're welcome to call me out on it um when you see it happen because I'm sure it'll happen again.

And the topic is this.

How do you know that the new experts got it right and the old experts got it wrong?

Take for example uh anything in the health domain.

A lot of people send me um hey this cancer doctor has this solution that the rest of the world doesn't know about and this will fix you up and it will cure your cancer.

And then I look at it and it's somebody very qualified, you know, definitely qualified.

And their argument sounds good to me, but I'm not any kind of a medical doctor or anything.

But my question is this, why would you believe the new guy?

If you don't believe the old guys and gals, if you don't believe the old experts, the 98% of them, why would you believe the one who says no, they're wrong?

So, there are several people in this category and they're all persuasive.

It's because of the documentary effect.

If you take any one of these doctors, these rogue doctors who make claims that are different from what the mainstream doctors are claiming, if you put them on a podcast, let's say Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan, you know, he knows what questions to ask a interested, you know, viewer would ask, but it's going to give that rogue doctor um sort of a documentary level of time to make a one-sided presentation that there would be nobody in the room who would have any way to doubt it.

So, unfortunately, the rogue doctors are super persuasive because they often get invited on podcasts.

But how would you know they're right?

I mean, I could watch three hours of some expert on Joe Rogan, but I wouldn't know if they're right.

I would only know know they're saying something different than other people are saying.

So, here's my caution.

If you believe that the new rogue expert has figured out how to cure cancer and the rest of the world hasn't, I would say you have no reason to believe that just because you watch somebody say stuff you don't understand on a show that didn't have a way to check them in real time.

So, be careful of the rogue experts.

Uh likewise I would say the same thing about uh climate change.

So Steve Mallaloy of Junk Science is pointing to a new study where is it coming out of out of Athens Greece department of water resources and environmental engineering blah blah blah.

So they did a study um in which they're claiming that the CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not not really having much of any effect on weather.

Now if you believe that 98% of the climate scientists are lying or it's really not 98% but why would you believe this?

What do you know about the uh National Technical University of Athens?

Just because there's a a study that came out of there that says, "Oh, climate change is, you know, not real, at least man-made part is not real." Why would you believe it?

Now I believe it kind of I don't believe this specific study but with my my own powers of um let's say experience and logic um I'm pretty sure that the the models are and that's because nobody can do that kind of thing.

It's just not a thing anybody can do.

So it doesn't take much of an expert to say I don't think somebody's doing the thing that's impossible to do.

It's just not possible.

That that's a lower level of, you know, expertise.

But, uh, I wouldn't believe any one study that debunked climate change.

If there's lots of them, then it starts to get more a little bit more believable.

But, uh, remember there are lots of them on both sides.

Um, I guess there's a rumor that RFK Jr.

is trying to squaltch that he's really preparing himself to run for president in 2028 and he says absolutely no way that um people are just trying to drive a wedge between him and Trump and there's nothing to it.

I believe him.

I believe him.

I I feel like RFK Jr.

um has earned trust on stuff like that that if it were someone else, if it were Adam Schiff, I'd say, "Ah, it's probably a lie because he lies all the time." But I don't think RFK Jr.

lies.

He might be wrong sometimes, but I don't think he lies about stuff.

So, I believe him.

Um a no federal judge Obama appointee is again blocking Trump's plan to end DEI in colleges.

Big surprise.

And uh part of the reason was um people didn't want to uh sacrifice their personal values uh to get rid of racists and sexists in their college.

What exactly would their personal values be that they wanted to maintain racism in their college?

Why would you want to maintain it?

That's a weird argument.

Well, Charles, not Charles, um, Davos founder Schwab.

You remember Schwab?

Claus Schwab.

He was accused of some financial misconduct after he left the World Economic Forum.

Well, he's been cleared.

So, he's been cleared of all wrongdoing.

And since I was one of the people who talked about that story, I feel uh an obligation to say he's cleared.

All right.

Um the runaway Texas Democrats who are trying to avoid a vote that would redistrict um are hinting that they're coming back.

They pretended that they're waiting to see what California would do with redistricting, but that sounds like a fake reason.

I think they just knew that eventually they had to return to their jobs.

So, to me, what's happening is uh the inevitable.

So, it's not like it was going to go some other way.

Of course, they were going to come back to their jobs eventually.

Um, apparently according to Newsmax, the White House is trying to get the Indiana Republicans to do some redistricting so they would get get a little bit more advantage in case California does it too.

And then in other news, uh, Reuters reports that the US government could shed as many as 300,000 workers under the Trump administration just this year in one year.

And that would be a 12 and a half% decrease in the federal workforce since January.

You know what?

That impresses me.

Now, I suppose we'll hear about all kinds of stories of, oh, if we hadn't decreased this workforce, this would not have gone wrong.

But a 12 and a half% decrease in in government workforce in six months.

If we actually get that we it's not what we have yet, but it looks like what could happen.

That'd be pretty pretty impressive, I'd have to say.

Um Sam Alman of Open AI agrees that AI might be in a bubble.

not necessarily his company, but there are a lot of startups that are getting ridiculous valuations.

So, he thinks AI is in a bubble.

I agree.

It's definitely in a bubble.

Um, I think two things can be true.

That it will be the biggest thing ever and there's a lot of startups that are still going to fail.

So, there's a bubbish uh quality to it, but it's based on some real Um, according to No Ridge, red meat in a healthy diet could benefit your brain.

I think this is all part of the the understanding that your gut health is directly related to your brain health, your mental health, and your brain function.

So again, I would throw this in the category of why would you believe anything that science says about nutrition?

science has been wrong about nutrition every day I've been alive.

It's the wrongest science ever is about anything.

So, yeah, I mean, there's a study.

And, uh, I'm I'm tempted to eat a steak today to see if I feel any different.

But, uh, just so you know, there's some people who think steak's good for you.

I'm sure there are people who would say it's not, and that will probably change back and forth forever.

Well, there's a social media company called Gab, which I believe is sort of like a uh X clone, right?

It's a messaging kind of thing.

And uh they're a little more controversial.

So, they have a they have more users who are provocative, let's say.

Um and their payment processor just cut them off.

Now, I'll tell you, I feel like I would like a list of all the banks and payment processors who have cut off people because they didn't like what they were saying because the rest of us need to cut off those banks and proc and payment processors.

If you know, assuming that there's competition in those areas, I'd love to know who did it so that we could do it back to them.

Well, in uh Oakbrook, Illinois, uh police now have a fully autonomous drone.

So, apparently they have a drone that sits on the police department building and uh they can activate it to go check on a crime scene before the humans on the ground can get there.

And most of the time it would be able to get there before the humans could.

So, at least you'd have some witness, maybe you could break up a fight or something if they if they thought they were being filmed.

I don't know.

But to me, this is a great idea.

It seems to me that there should be police drones in the sky um or nearby, you know, everything.

Um I kind of like that idea.

I know it's going to feel like a violation of privacy and blah blah blah, but that's already gone.

You lost your privacy a long time ago.

Well, I saw a post on X that's been fascinating me all morning.

You you've heard about people who don't have an internal monologue, right?

So, they don't hear voice in full sentences in their head.

Now, I do and always have.

Uh I don't know what the percentage breakdown is, but to me, there's just like a demon in my head who's talking to me all the time.

I don't think of it as a demon.

I think of it as myself.

But, um apparently pe some people don't have that.

But on top of that, there are people who don't imagine things visually.

And I don't even know how you could live like that.

How many of you do not have a visual imagination?

So in my case, I can produce an entire movie just like a Netflix film and run it in my imagination.

I don't even have to close my eyes.

I can see every part of it.

I can see all the detail.

I can move the camera angle around so I can see the the movie from any angle and I can replay it and change the dialogue and just change the movie.

Now, can any of you not do that?

Is there anybody here who can't produce a full motion picture in their head and then just watch it?

It makes me wonder how much of it is practice related and how much is natural.

I feel like it's always been the same for me, but I also practice it every day because a comic strip is basically a little scene from a movie.

And the way you do it is first you imagine it and then when I draw the comic um I'm projecting the image onto the page and I'm tracing it.

So drawing for me is sort of like tracing.

I'm not finding out what it looks like when it's done.

I I'm seeing it done and then I'm tracing it.

I don't know what you do.

I I would assume that if you if you don't have that visual thing that you would not be able to draw and do art, but if you could, and maybe you can, that would be fascinating, too.

But it really tells you that um as as similar as it seems that we are, we are so different on the inside.

the the internal life, you know, the real one, the one that matters the most.

We are so different.

I mean, that is such a fundamental difference and how you see the world.

Anyway, um that's all we got.

So, uh in a few minutes, Owen Gregorian will be hosting a spaces event on the X platform.

to find it.

Um, you can either find my ex account, I uh reposted it, the link, or you could go to Owen Gregorian and see the link there.

And you should be following him, by the way.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say a few words privately to the beloved members of uh of my locals group, but uh I'll be short so that you can make it over to the spaces event if you want to.

All right, everybody else.

I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.

Hope you had a good time.

Hope you got your exercise done or cleaned your house or whatever it was you were doing while I was yapping away.

and the rest of you.

you are

just uh listening to my drumming.

Well, aren't you glad you didn't have to

listen any more of that?

Come on in. There's lots of space. We

have a Saturday show for you that will

make you so happy

because it's the oxytocin and the

simultaneity

that you desire. It's coming at you. I'm

trying to sound like a late note late

night uh FM DJ. Well, we'll be coming at

you with some uh heavy tunes.

We've got some concepts and some jokes.

We might even have some dad jokes and

puns.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And

you've probably never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on

elevating your experience up to levels

that no one can understand with their

tiny human shiny brains, however that

goes. Well, all you need for that is a

copper mug or a glass, a tanker, cher, a

canteen jug or a flask, a pestle of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip. It

happens now. Go.

So, so good. Well, it's Saturday and as

tradition requires, um, there will be a

spaces event after this podcast. So, a

few minutes after I'm done here, Ow and

Gregorian will fire up a spaces

and you can have an afterparty if you've

enjoyed talking to each other in the

comments especially.

Um, and all you have to do is go to X

and search for Owen Gregorian

and you'll you'll find the feed right

there.

Well, I wonder if there's a science that

didn't need to be done because they

could have just asked me. Oh, here's

some. Uh, according to Sai Post,

Vladimir Hedra is writing that uh if a

couple is nice to each other with lots

of positive um things and it's mutually

positive that their relationship will

last longer and be stronger.

Is that a big surprise to anybody that

if you bring positivity to a

relationship is more likely to be

healthy? Huh?

Well, it's it's nice to know that that

would work, but I have a feeling that it

doesn't work if one of the people is

male and one of them is female. Because

it seems to me

that the model that's been developed

over time, you know, evolutionary time,

uh, is that women can maximize their

gain by complaining

because because men will do anything

they want to make it stop.

So complaining and being negative has

tremendous utility to to women, but

really not a lot of utility to men

because then it just makes the woman

hate you and uh that's about it. But if

you act positive, if it were possible

for both of you to act positive at the

same time, it would be really good for

you.

Well, Christy Gnome, the head of uh

Department of Homeland um security

says that uh she had to move into

military housing because she got so many

death threats. I guess her address was

got doxed for the second time. And uh

you know what I'm wondering?

Every time I read a story about somebody

being threatened or somebody being hurt

or some kind of fight,

um, it's almost never white

supremacists.

Have you noticed that?

How long ago was it? Maybe three or four

years ago, when the news was literally

trying to tell us that the biggest risk

in the entire country was white

supremacists.

Well, they're awfully boring and lazy

and quiet. If they're dangerous, they're

really not doing a good job of it

because I'll bet it wasn't the white

supremacists who were uh threatening

Christine Gnome. Just guessing. I don't

feel like there were a lot of white

supremacists

um jacking cars in Washington DC. It

feels like whenever we hear stories of

violence and crime, there's almost never

a white supremacist in the story. And uh

I'm disappointed because we were all

told that that was the biggest threat to

the nation. I don't know where they

went. Maybe they all got locked up.

Okay.

Well, China is developing the creepiest

product that you could ever imagine.

It's a robot surrogate to carry a human

child. Um it would be like a I guess

based on the brief news report. It would

be built like a regular robot with arms

and legs and it would have sort of a

womb.

It would have an artificial womb and so

the robot would walk around with your

your baby in it.

So that's coming. If you can if you

could think of anything that would be

creepier than raising a baby in a

robot's womb, let me know because that's

pretty darn creepy. Tough to top that.

Well, uh, per the Financial Times,

Melissa,

I believe I pronounced that right. He

How do you say the A with the two dots

over it? Themlant. Is that an umlant?

Well, okay. So Melissa

writes that the art of persuasion um

apparently the AI chat bots can change

your mind and they can do it pretty

quickly in 10 minutes. So if you have a

discussion with an AI

um it can the study found that it can

change your mind very quickly and very

effectively. Now, not every person every

time and all within 10 minutes, but if

they measure um a larger group of people

in a study, a lot of them will change

their mind based on the AI trying to

convince them what's true and what

isn't. Now, why is that? Have I Hey,

look who visited.

This is Gary the cat. He will be joining

us on the show today.

If you'd like to look at Gary, I'll tip

the uh camera down so you can look at

the cat instead of me. Sort of an

upgrade. Come on, get me. Get over here.

All right, that's better.

So, um, why do you think it would be

true that AI would be persuasive? Let's

see if I have taught you enough that you

would have known that without this

study. Um, number one, it's the

documentary effect. If it's just you and

the AI and the AI is one point of view,

which typically it would, and it's

trying to convince you that one point of

view is right, and you spend 10 minutes

with it, it's there's a good chance

it'll change your mind. Number two,

there are no egos involved, or less of

one. If you're dealing with another

human, you're feeling like you don't

want to be seem less than them or or

dumb compared to them. So, you don't

want to change your mind because a human

talked to you for 10 minutes, that just

wouldn't feel comfortable. But if you

felt like the AI wasn't a person with an

ego and it wasn't going to hold it over

you if if it was right and you were

wrong, you'd never hear about it again.

Well, then you would feel like you're

just doing your own research and

changing your mind on your own. So, if

you can get people to think that they're

changing their mind on their own, it'll

happen a lot easier than if it's like

one human versus another human because

you put your shields up in those cases.

So, yes,

it does make sense that AI would be

super persuasive. Now, here's the

troubling part. That super persuasion I

believe happens without it knowing how

to do persuasion.

It happens just because it has a good

argument and has good facts and people

tend to believe the computer. So that's

all it has. And it can already with no

real persuasion technique, you know,

just presenting arguments basically, it

can already totally change people's

opinions.

What is going to happen when it starts

using the techniques of persuasion?

Because, you know, it knows them because

it it got trained on all the the bodies

of work in the world. So, yeah, it knows

what to do. Um, but presumably it is not

programmed to maximize persuasion,

but wouldn't take much to do it.

So that's one of the biggest problems in

the world coming at you, which is AI

persuasion.

All right, let's talk about the biggest

story. I think everybody is streamed in

here now. We got a full house. Uh Putin

and Trump met in Alaska because it's

sort of right in the middle there. And

Alaska of course has some historical

value because it is a time when the US

and Russia played well together. So, in

terms of setting the table, as Trump

likes to say, is a good persuasion

to bring uh Putin and Trump into the one

place that's maybe the most famous place

in the world where Russia and the US

have gotten along well and they made a

deal and it was just business and, you

know, they were on our our side for some

stuff and we were on their side for some

stuff. Yeah, it's perfect. Whoever came

up with the idea of of Alaska, that was

a home run. That was just a home run.

So, good good job on that. Um, I will uh

we'll just run down the list of things

that people talked about with this

meeting. First of all, the body language

looked very positive, as in both leaders

did not seem to be acting when they were

acting positively toward each other.

Their smiles looked real. Their body

language seemed to be uh I'm totally

into this meeting

and it wasn't creepy. I mean, it wasn't

that good, but it was really good. And I

don't think any of that was acting.

Could have been, but it really looked

genuine to me.

Uh Trump of course tried to give Putin

the uh the Trump handshake and it was a

great buildup to it because Trump stood

in one place and made uh made Putin do

this long walk down the red carpet to

him. So it also made it look like Putin

is the one who came to him. That's good.

Very good persuasion. But, uh, Trump

puts out his hand for the handshake and

he does the classic Trump thing, which

is easy for him to do because he's so

much bigger than, uh, Putin, where he he

grabs his hand and then he pulls him in.

So that Trump's entire body that Putin's

entire body is immediately controlled by

Trump because he doesn't want to have

his hand like sticking out too far. That

would be awkward. So he kind of follows

his hand as Trump pulls in close to his

body and it puts it puts Trump

immediately in command of Putin's body.

He makes Putin come to where he wants

him to come. He makes him walk the way

he wants him to walk on the red carpet.

And then when he gets within a hand

distance, he he moves him specifically

where he wants.

And then he says, you know, follow me

basically. and he makes uh Putin do what

he wants him to do, which is, you know,

go wherever they're going. Now,

obviously, as the host,

it's not surprising that that Trump was,

you know, leading the way, but

everything about that put Trump in

control. He's taller, you know, he's

sort of more popular. He's more of a

star. Just everything. So in terms of

the setup, the choice of locations and

all that just perfect.

Now I suspect that the traditional media

since they don't deal on the persuasion

level and they have a a meager

understanding of how negotiation works

at this high level, they're going to say

stuff like, well, he just made a star

and Putin. We'll talk about that. But if

you were to look at it purely from a

setting the table, which is the the

phrase that Trump actually used, he

wasn't trying to get an agreement today.

He said he was setting the table.

Everything I just mentioned is setting

the table.

Um, so what else happened? Uh, weirdly,

and I'd love to know more about this,

when uh, Putin and Trump first met and

then they were doing a long walk

together down the red carpet, it appears

that they were chatting and joking and

that they knew what the other was saying

and there was no interpreter there. So,

I I saw Jack Pabek say that uh it must

have been Putin was trying to speak a

little bit of English, but he doesn't do

that uh in public on camera. So, it

makes me wonder how much English Putin

actually knows. And then I've got a

second a second observation. Just just

hold this in your mind for a moment.

What do you think would be the state of

relations between the US and uh and

Russia if we were dealing with a leader

that spoke perfect English?

Think about it. I feel as if that

language barrier

um just sort of prevents you from ever

having, you know, like a really good um

deal. Now, correct me if I'm wrong. Modi

in India speaks perfect English. Right.

Can you give me a confirmation on that?

I I think so. Right. Which uh and then

it's no surprise that India and the US

get along great. And then you've got

President Xi

and we you know we've got kind of a

tense adversarial relationship and he

doesn't speak English.

Now I'm not saying everybody should

speak English because English is

awesome. But imagine how different

things would be if they all spoke

perfect English.

Is there any is there anybody who speaks

perfect English who is an enemy of the

US?

All right, there's a there's a good test

for you. Who is an enemy of the US who

also speaks perfect English?

There might be some Hamas leader in that

category. Uh that's special case because

that's a religious kind of a problem.

But you know, North Korea doesn't speak

English.

Um it feels to me that if something

happened to Putin and he were replaced

by somebody who spoke really good

English, uh like Lavrov or one of those

guys, I feel like everything would

change. It just feels like everything

would be different almost immediately.

Um, and it and we wouldn't know why. We

we would assume it's because, oh, this

new leader in Russia, hypothetically, is

just saying the right things. Well,

maybe. Or maybe it's just that if

everybody's speaking the same language,

they come to a understanding,

you know, just more naturally. I believe

that's true.

Well, uh, let's see what else is

happening. So Putin said, "Uh, next time

maybe mean Moscow." He said it in front

of the cameras. So Trump was on the spot

and Trump goes, "Oo, that's an

interesting one. I don't know. I'll get

a little heat on that one. I can see it

possibly happening. Thank you very much,

Vladimir."

Um, so that was clever of Putin because

he had, as I just described, he was the

one who came to Trump and Trump had all

the the setup just right. So Putin was

probably thinking, because he's smart,

that if he could get Trump to agree to

go to Moscow, it would somehow erase

this little level difference that Trump

had just introduced, you know, with his

setup of the Alaska visit. And then he

then Putin says it in front of witnesses

so that Trump has to react to it

immediately. And he wasn't really going

to say, "No, I'll never come to Moscow."

So, he sort of had to give it a maybe,

didn't he?

And Trump gave it a maybe. And that

elevated uh Putin back up to, "Oh, we

must be roughly peers because I go to

you, you go to me. You just haven't come

yet.

Um

a lot of lot of uh chat has been

happening over the fact that um uh Trump

also organized a flyover of the B2

bomber and its escort jets which is

pretty impressive. They timed it

perfectly so it came over just as Putin

and Trump were getting together and uh

it was a impressive show of force. Um, I

wouldn't make as much a deal about it as

some of the observers are who are happy

that they found the persuasion lesson.

That one is so obvious

that I don't know if it's really

persuasive. I mean, not a lot. Um,

because Russia has big weapons, too. So,

and it's so heavy-handed. You know, it's

so obvious that that was to influence

him that probably didn't have quite the

impact you imagine.

Anyway,

I guess the uh press was kind of

adversarial as it often is and was

rudely yelling at the two leaders when

they got together. And uh there's there

was some opinion that Putin was kind of

put off with it. And at one point they

said he said enough. Uh and then he and

Trump had a laugh about how bad the you

know how bad the press is, blah blah

blah. So that was just a interesting

moment.

Um let me give you some other uh some

other impressions from other people.

Speaking of Jack Basic, he said that uh

Trump after the meeting Trump was up for

uh what did he say? He'd been traveling

for 19 hours. Uh does that include both

directions? I don't know. and uh that he

was making phone calls until 2:00 a.m.

with the other leaders to catch him up.

I'll tell you, having a president who

doesn't need much sleep is really

underrated.

It really is like having two presidents.

He just doesn't sleep that much. It's

kind of amazing.

Well, I guess Zilinski is going to come

to the White House on Monday, so he'll

be uh he'll be brought into it. Um, and

then uh there's some about

Trump is saying that everybody

determined that the best way to end the

war is go to is to go directly to a

peace agreement and skip the ceasefire.

Does that sound like something they

really all agreed on?

because it seems to me that Trump would

have gotten a lot of credit if he'd

gotten a ceasefire.

Now, a ceasefire probably wouldn't hold,

so you maybe there was no point in

trying because it wouldn't have held

anyway. Um,

but uh it feels a little bit like maybe

Trump didn't get the ceasefire that he

wanted and that he's, you know,

reframing it as, well, the ceasefire is

not important. What's important is a

larger agreement maybe.

So,

um, apparently we've decided that an

imaginary peace deal is better than an

imaginary ceasefire because neither of

them were going to happen. They were

both imaginary. Now, does it seem to you

like we're having some kind of weird

theater? And the theater is this.

Unless Ukraine decides to give up, you

know, it valuable land that Russia's

already conquered, which I don't see

there's any chance of that. There's not

going to be any kind of peace deal and

there's not going to be any kind of

ceasefire.

And

doesn't it feel to you like the odds of

a peace deal are close to zero? Does

anybody have that feeling? Now, Trump is

the, you know, the magic peacemaker. So

if anybody could do it, you know, he

would he would be the one I would bet

on. So it's not zero. Not really, but it

feels like it.

Can you imagine any scenario in which

Ukraine changes its mind on that land

exchange?

What what scenario would allow them to

do that?

Um here's my best here's my best uh

estimate. Suppose

um suppose the US offered the following

idea. Hey, instead of the Russian

government and the uh Ukrainian

government deciding who gets what land

of the part that's already conquered by

Russia, why don't we leave it to a

referendum?

Now, you might say there's no way you

can get a legitimate referendum. You

can't really assume that you would get

a, you know, a legitimate vote from the

population. But you could poll them,

couldn't you? Or couldn't you? Maybe you

can't. Maybe that'd be too hard. So

suppose you said, since there is no

legitimate way that the governments will

agree which land should change hands,

why don't we turn it over to the

populations?

Now, I would think that Russia, now you

and you might take Crimea out of the

mix. because Russia might say, "All

right, there's no situation in which

we're giving up Crimea." So, you might

want to take that out of the mix. But if

you said for the other stuff, if we

could figure out what the population

wants, then we should craft our end

agreement around that. Now, there are a

lot of Russianspeaking

people in those conquered lands, right?

So, it might be that Russia would get

what it wanted. And how much would

Ukraine want to keep territory that was

full of people who would rather be

Russian?

Would they be losing a lot in that case?

I don't know. Maybe be fewer problems.

So, the only way I could see that a big

deal could happen is if they take away

from the governments or at least they

pretend they're taking it away, the

question of who gets what land. It's

just got to go to somebody independent

uh andor the population of the people

there. And then what I think Ukraine

mostly wants a American guarantee of

security, but they would stop short of

demanding that they be in NATO. So my

guess is that we'll promise that NATO is

off the table, but the US will say

something like, "But you're going to

have to get through us, Russia, if you

want to take over Uk what's left of

Ukraine." Probably something like that.

Well, what was the reaction over at

MSNBC? Did they say it's a great step

forward? Uh Trump really set the table?

No. They had Susan Rice on

and says that Putin walked away with a

quote big victory because the events

made him seem like an equal as opposed

to the isolated, you know, dictator that

he is or should be. Um, and Nicole

Wallace says that she was more prepared

to meet with Vladimir Putin than Trump

was. Now, do you notice the mind

readading

when when the people the anti-Trumpers

run out of good points, which happens

kind of kind of quickly, they go to mind

readading. Now, how in the world would

anyone, especially Nicole Wallace, know

how prepared Trump was or wasn't for

this meeting? Correct me if I'm wrong,

but the topic of Ukraine has been one of

his top topics for the entire time he's

been in office. when he was running for

office. And if there's something he

doesn't know about that situation in

order to be prepared, I would be really

surprised. He might be the most prepared

person you've ever seen. Now, I'm not

reading his mind. I'm just looking at

this situation objectively. Is it really

possible that the thing that he probably

thinks about the most, the thing that

would get him a Nobel Peace Prize, you

think he hasn't put enough thought into

it? That that's such a dumb NPC comment

that he wasn't prepared. There's no

indication that he wasn't prepared. In

fact, he probably was super prepared

because he seems to be able to handle a

great many topics without too much uh

pressure. That's just one more.

Um,

the Wall Street Journal said, "For all

the pageantry, President Trump leaves

Alaska with little to show while uh

Putin got the recognition he has long

sought."

Now, is that the case? Well, I would

argue that we cannot judge in the

present whether this was a plus or a

minus because the setting the table

thing is all about preparing for the

move after. So if you don't see the move

that follows, which would be the larger,

you know, peace negotiations, if you

don't see how that turns out, I believe

it's ridiculous and stupid. It's just

stupid to give it a grade midway.

Well, that that would be like if you

were going to grade a uh a heart surgeon

by only watching while he opens up the

front of the chest to get get access to

the heart. You you stop there. You go,

"Oh, oh, look at that patient. That

patient used to be alto together and now

he's got a big hole in his chest. I

guess that's a big old failure."

Wouldn't it be smarter to wait till the

operation is over and then judge whether

your operation was a success? You can't

judge it based on they met and they had

a good time and they smiled at each

other and they said some things you

would expect them to say.

Anyway,

um

I would argue this way that how many

times have you seen and I've mentioned

this a number of times and then I see

other people in the press mention it

that Trump likes to create assets out of

nothing and then trade away that asset

as part of his negotiation. He just did

that with Putin. And most people won't

be able to see this, but I think I've

trained most of you that you can. It

goes like this. Before Putin came to

this meeting, according to the Walls

Street Journal, according to MSNBC,

he he did not have the respect of the

international community the way he

wanted. So, we all agree with that part

that he he had a

isn't he like indicted or something by

the National War Crimes Communal or

something? Um, we're not a signatory to

that. So, he was safe in US territory,

but he was sort of this outcast

demonized

leader and you know, should have been

for good reason. and that this uh put

him up on a level where he's more like

an equal to the United States leader. So

that on the surface that would look like

a mistake, right? It would look like

Trump gave him something for nothing.

But if you know a little bit more about

persuasion and you know that Trump

routinely creates assets out of nothing

for the purpose of trading them away

later or threatening to take them away

later, even better. Here's how you see

it. Putin just gained,

as the critics rightly point out, he

just gained his status.

Trump can take that away anytime he

wants. The status that Putin gained is

completely provisional.

He doesn't get to keep it because if a

week from now Trump says, "All right,

well, we gave you a chance, you little

piss ant. You came over here and you

smiled at me and you laughed and you

tapped me on again and you had no

intention of settling this thing. So now

I'm going to destroy your economy and

you're a lying piece of and I want

the rest of the world to know that. Do

you see how quickly Trump can take that

away from him? So Putin started with

none of that respect that would put him

on the same plane as Trump. Trump quite

deafly elevated him up to just below

him. Just below him, but in the same

universe, just a little bit below Trump.

That was creating an asset and nothing.

Now Trump can take that away.

So, so Putin goes home and he's like,

"Yeah, I think I really gained something

in world opinion here." No, he didn't.

Trump owns that world opinion. He can

yank that back in

30 seconds. He can write one post on

Truth Social and absolutely pull the rug

out. So that's Trump.

Now Putin also being really good at

persuasion, but you know, they they each

have different cards to play. So it

doesn't mean they'll have an equal

outcome. It just means they're they're

both really good at this. So, as much as

I say Trump is amazing at persuasion,

and he is, he's the best, Putin's right

up there. He he's he's not a peer, but

he is right just behind him. So, Putin

knew that uh he could make Trump want to

keep playing with him if he said the

things that Trump would want to hear.

One of the things they said was that the

war never would have happened if Trump

had been president.

Now, I don't know if that's true, but

boy does that fit what Trump wants you

to believe, cuz it's exactly what he

says twice a day, every day, for months.

So Putin just goes out and backs him.

Oh, yeah. There wouldn't have been a war

if if Trump had been in charge. Now, it

doesn't matter if that's true because we

can't go back in time and test it out.

it only matters that he said it and it

was so perfectly,

you know, strategically formed so that

Trump would have to say, "Yeah, I do

agree with that."

So that that was masterful of Putin.

And uh Putin also said um didn't he also

say he thought the 2020 election might

have been rigged,

which of course Trump would want to

hear. There was something else he said.

Oh yeah, he said the election. Oh,

listen to this. Um

um I think this was Trump quoting Putin.

So it's not something we heard from

Putin directly, but Trump said that

Putin said your election was rigged

because you have mailin voting. He

talked about 2020 and he said you won

that election by so much. It was a

rigged election. said it was impossible

to have fair elections with mail and

with mail and voting. Now, seriously,

if if Putin sat down and he said, I'm

going to make a list of the things that

uh Trump would most want to hear of all

the things in the world, what would he

most want to hear, especially from

Putin? It would be the things he said.

All right? So, if if you're grading them

on how they did, A+

A+ from Trump, A+ from Putin, but I'll

give the win to Trump. Trump gets the

win because he had the um the location

advantage. Not because he had more

skill, but he just had he had a

advantage before the game started and he

played his advantage correctly. So the

other thing that's happening here is

they have to know that the other one is

their sort of uh Sherlock Holmes and

Professor Morardi, you know, they they

are each other's biggest challenge and

each other's

most capable other. She is pretty

capable, but Putin's more fun. Uh I I

think I think he's just more fun.

President Xi looks like he's not much

fun, but Putin, even if he's evil all

the time, he's still kind of fun. He's

got sort of that impish smile and stuff.

And you could imagine that if in a

different situation, you could easily

imagine Trump and Putin being, you know,

buddies.

I don't believe Putin golfs. Am I right?

They've never golfed.

So, it's too bad. If uh Putin spoke

perfect English and gulfed,

we'd be in good shape. Um all right. So

then the uh European leaders

um have backed Trump. So they seem happy

about what's happened so far as long as

the Europeans and uh Zalinski get

involved and they are now. Um,

and apparently the US is prepared to

give security guarantees to Ukraine,

which is what Ukraine wants. I don't

know what that would look like, but um,

let's see. Bill Maher had his show last

night and uh

I continue to uh marvel at the fact that

he's becoming more and more of a

Republican right before our eyes. But

probably never probably never will get

there. But it's just fun to watch the

gravity. is just pulling him so hard

that just a little by little he's like,

"Well, okay, maybe he has a point on

that thing, but let me tell you all

these other things I still disagree

with." And then he'll mention some

hoaxes and some things he doesn't

understand. Um,

so I guess it was uh Friday night last

night. Bill Maher said that Trump wasn't

wrong on tariffs and he wasn't wrong on

forcing NATO to pay more. And uh

and then he gave Trump some more credit

kind of weirdly. He said, "I'll tell you

one thing about him, about Trump that I

know. I'm not going to tell you how I

know." That part's weird. He goes, "But

a lot of people have seen the same

thing." And Mar says he really does hate

war. He really does not like it when

people die in war. Now, how would Bill

Maher know that? Would it be the same

way that every one of us knows it?

Because it's the most consistent thing

he said since he's been in public life

that he wants the the war to stop. He

wants the killing to stop. Yeah.

And and the other the the other thing

that um people say about Trump, even his

critics, is that he's exactly the same

opinion in private as he is publicly. So

if publicly he's been saying

consistently and loudly and often as

possible, he doesn't like people to die,

doesn't like war, um avoiding war is

sort of his greatest accomplishment and

he should be proud of it.

Um, yeah. So, why would you imagine that

he says something different in private?

Do you imagine that in private he says

something like, you know, I really don't

care if those people from other

countries die, you know, as long as it

doesn't come over here. I doubt it.

If every other topic in private is the

same as it is in public, yeah, he

doesn't like war. that that's the most

obvious thing you could possibly say.

But Bill Maher is acting like the rest

of us didn't notice and they have some

insider knowledge that Trump doesn't

like war.

Okay. Um,

and then, uh, Bill Maher also notices,

because how could he not, that the

Democrat leaders like Hillary and Kamla

were too afraid to come on his show, but

the Republicans generally say yes. And

as as uh, Bill Morris says, they take

their beating like men.

I don't know if they take a beating, but

they do go into a um an environment

that's not in their favor and they do it

easily, regularly, without hesitation.

Now, that is a really fair observation.

Um that is a real good observation.

There is something fundamentally

different about the Republican and

Democrat approach to something like

going on his show.

Now obviously he gets a lot of

left-leaning people on the show more

than right leaning

but not the top leaders you know not the

ones that are afraid of saying something

wrong like Hillary or Kamla anyway and

of course they do get invited all the

time as he points out but he says

Democrats um appear to be afraid of

everything.

Um, Mara says they're afraid of COVID.

They're afraid of their own kids,

which he which he uh overlaps with the

trans topic.

Um, and then he but then he has to say

some negative stuff about Trump because

he just has to. So, so Maher says that

Trump was overly friendly to Putin for a

very long time considering that Putin is

a thug. Now, does Bill Maher really not

know

that international relations work better

if you don't demonize the person that

you're forced to negotiate with? Does is

he the only person in the world who

doesn't know that? I mean, that that's

what's left of his criticisms of Trump

are stuff like he was overly friendly to

Putin. That's it.

That's not even a flaw.

That's just somebody who knows how to do

his job really well. Anyway, um Walter

Kern, I guess, was on the show and

pointed out that in 2015, Obama met with

Putin and nobody said anything about it.

And then Bill Maher says he met him, but

he didn't praise him. He didn't say he's

the greatest guy in the world. Uh I

could read 20 compliments that Trump has

given to him. He said he's a fun guy to

be with. and he go, "Oh, he's making an

Epstein joke there." But again,

how does Bill Maher,

how can he be the only person on earth

who doesn't know that complimenting the

person you're trying to influence is

good form and that insulting him makes

it much more much less likely you'll get

anything? How does he not know that?

Um, he's pret I think he's I think he's

pretending not to know because there's

no real possibility he doesn't know

that. Is it? I I would say every adult

with an IQ over 110

would know that. I don't have to explain

it to you. Anyway,

um,

and of course, uh, Putin is running the

same play on Trump, you know,

flattering. Good morning, Ken.

Then the funniest thing I'm watching is

that MSNBC

always has all these anti-Trump um

critics who have to be on every day. And

one of them is Molly Jong Fast. And I

like watching her because she's so bad.

She's just so bad at it. But the the

lowest level I'm going to say the lowest

level of pundit analysis is that the new

thing is primarily a distraction to the

old thing. Now, I know both sides say

that and I've even talked about it

myself, but it's the lowest level of

clever analysis because the world is

full of things that are, you know, new

news every day. Isn't it more likely

that there's new news every day? Isn't

that far more likely than, oh, this new

thing is a distraction from the old

thing, and the old thing was a

distraction from the thing before it?

I think the better way to say it is that

Trump floods the zone. Uh doesn't allow

you to focus on one thing too long. You

know, fills up all the shelf space with

like things he wants you to think about.

So that part is true, but this whole one

thing is a distraction to the other

thing. There's such a low level of

analysis.

Um,

David Axelrod, you might know as one of

the uh more famous Democrat adviserss.

He says that uh Trump's red carpet

embrace of Putin may enrage a lot of

Americans.

Um, I would say that literally

everything Trump does enrages the

theater kids. Is there anything Trump

could do, including golf?

They get enraged if he golfs. Oh, we

don't pay him to golf. Well, you don't

pay him at all,

He doesn't even take pay. Let him golf

anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. We have to worry about uh

Democrats being enraged by things Trump

does. That's just everything.

Hillary Clinton um said some good things

about Trump and then there's one part of

it that's fake news. Um, she Hillary

Clinton said gave Trump credit for the

NATO spending going up to 5%. She gave

him credit for Ukraine buying weapons

from the US instead of us, you know,

giving them to him. Um, and she thinks

we have a better working relationship

with Europe lately, and she's actually

encouraged by that. So, you might say,

wait a minute, what are all these good

things that Hillary is saying about him?

Then she goes on and uh she said she'd

support a Nobel Peace Prize if Trump uh

if Trump got a peace deal without

giving up any Ukrainian territory.

Now what did the news do with her quote?

They find people hoaxed it up. They cut

out the last part. So it's a completely

different message. If you leave in the

whole quote about um if he can do it

while uh not not giving any previous

Ukrainian land to Russia, that's the

part that can never happen in the real

world. Literally, not one person in the

world, not one, not one person believes

that this will end with Ukraine getting

back all the land they had before it

started.

So when she says conditionally that she

would uh nominate

Trump for a Nobel Prize if he could get

a peace deal while Ukraine got back all

of its land

that she'd do it. And then the news, the

fake news reported that she would

nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize if

he gets a deal. That's not the deal.

Brennan made the same mistake because he

will get fake news, too. So Brandon was

on MSNBC and he uh boosted what Clinton

said. He said, "Yeah, I would agree

essentially that if he could do it

without and also get back all of

Ukraine's property that even he would

nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize cuz

that's impossible. It's just not going

to happen."

And uh anyway,

so I wonder if uh Hillary Clinton will

try to soften her approach to Trump

because Trump now has his Department of

Justice looking into all of her crimes.

Is it possible that Hillary has decided

to vastly soften her approach to

criticizing Trump

because he she doesn't want him angry at

her at the same time he has the goods on

her in the legal system because once

Trump decided not to go after her. It

was his first term. So she would know

that is within the realm of possibility

that he could have the goods on her and

decide not to pursue it or tell his

people to stand down. Um so you might be

seeing her softening her anti-Trump

approach to keep herself out of jail.

That might be happening.

Well, I guess there were some protesters

up in Alaska. Um, I guess it was

Ukrainian protesters

funded, their signs were funded by

somebody who used to work for Kiev's

Soros Foundation. U, I guess Data

Republican found out, you know, who the

funding came from and Data Republican on

the X platform. You should follow that

account. She's she's amazing. Um,

and I will uh I will propose to you

again the following fact. There's no

such thing as organic protests in

America. Maybe nowhere, but there is no

such thing as an organic protest. the if

you saw the signs of the protesters,

it's just all these old white retired

people who must be doing it for $100

because you know that they got nothing

to do and they could use $100.

None of it looks real. Um, and I don't

know if we've now completely defanged

the whole idea of uh the fake protests

because once you know that they're all

fake,

do they still have power? You know,

Black Lives Matter had a lot of power.

But if you knew it was fake from day

one, would it ever have had that much

power? I don't know. We We may be past

the point where these big protests have

the same impact. will all just go

fake Soros.

Um,

[Music]

so, uh, do you remember the 2018 Russia

summit? So, that was the first time that

Trump met with Putin. And uh according

to uh the Federalist Hans Mankey is

writing that uh Tulsi Gabbard has

released uh two emails.

Uh they show that just two days before

the Trump Putin summit

uh well hold on uh in late 2016

uh DNI James Clapper pushed for a

fraudulent narrative that Russia had

hacked the DNC.

Um, and the timing, apparently some of

this Russia hoax was timed to make it

impossible for Trump to get a, you know,

good outcome in 2018 with Putin.

So,

um, and as uh, Hans Monkey Mankey points

out, special counsel Robert Mueller

indicted 12 Russian nationals on charges

of hacking the DNC.

Um, and this is something I noted at the

time, too. The indictment was designed

to create political chaos, but Mueller

knew that the 12 Russians were located

in Russia and would never stand trial.

Meaning, we'd never know for sure, would

we? We'd never know for sure if Russia

was behind it. Probably was, but we'd

never know for sure.

So, the Democrats have been using Russia

as their club for a long time. Um,

according to CNN's Harry Enon, Americans

trust Trump and the GOP on crime way

more than they trust the Democrats.

Um, he said that uh, well, that's a

pretty big deal. I mean, if if Trump and

the GOP are favored by quite a bit on uh

the topic of crime, it'd be kind of hard

to beat them in the in the midterms. But

midterms I think could go any way at

this point.

Um, Peter Schweiser points out he's an

author. He wrote the book Clinton Cash

about the Clinton Foundation and uh the

alleged bribery and money laundering. I

guess paytoplay paytoplay and bribery.

It was not money laundering and although

it's a form of money laundering to to do

the paytoplay and the bribery

but uh he points out that we now know

from the new classified document

releases that the several FBI field

officers were planning to investigate

the Clintons for the pay to pray and

paytoplay and bribery potential. of the

Clinton Foundation and the Obama Obama

Department of Justice told them to shut

it down.

Um, and

uh, I think that Peter Schweitiser

assumes that uh, and I assume I can't

read his mind, but I would assume he

assumes it that uh, if there's something

going on right now, some other kind of

FBI investigation into the um, Clinton

Foundation from back then that uh,

they're going to find stuff and it might

be a real big deal. And I think that

too. So there's nobody to tell them to

shut it down. And I don't think you get

multiple FBI field offices involved

back in 2018 unless they had some kind

of actionable

intelligence.

Well, Trump is deploying 4,000 Marines

around Latin America waters uh to stop

the drug dealers, the cartels.

And apparently that's a pretty big uh

military. So that would include

warships, a nuclearpowered subs, spy

planes, and a marine expeditionary

force.

Wow. Um and uh some say it's just a show

of force. It might be more than that.

Um, and then the Mexican government has

confirmed that they have approved and

they knew about US government drones

flying over Mexico as part of the

anti-cartel stuff. So, I don't know if

Mexico is just trying to cover their

butts by saying, "Oh, yeah, we knew

about it and we approved it." Or if we

were just doing it anyway and you know,

may maybe they approved it. I don't

know.

And then there's uh Nuome, Governor

Nuome uh is still becoming crazier and

crazier in his anti-Trump stuff.

And Nuome actually said in public that

he believes that Trump is serious about

running again in 2028. And partly he

believes that because he received a

Trump 2028 hat in the mail

and he just reminds all the Democrats

that they must fight like hell. Um and

that UCLA, who is one of the entities

that the Trump administration is going

after for being racist, he says that UCL

will not sell it soul. So,

so believe it or not, Nuome is siding

with racists um and siding with racism

because the alternative is to sell their

soul. So, I assume their souls are

disgusting racist souls and they don't

want to sell them to be less racist like

the Trump administration would like them

to do. So, they are stuck in that fight

like hell frame with nothing else.

Well, Trump told us, and I don't believe

this for a second, but he says that

President Xi of China told him that

China will not invade Taiwan as long as

Trump is in office. Quote, he told me,

this is Trump saying that, "I will never

do it as long as your president, but I

am very patient and China is very

patient."

Do you believe that she told Trump that

he would never do it while Trump was in

office, but he plans to do it?

Well, that's what you say when you're

trying to get elected in 2028.

No, I don't think he I my guess since I

can't read minds is that Trump is not

taking seriously running in 2028 because

the Constitution would not allow it and

I can't imagine it would ever work. But

on the other hand, he probably is

attracted to the idea that it's even an

idea.

Yeah. How would you not love that? that

there are people seriously who who would

want to change the constitution to keep

you in power. That'd be nice. I don't

think he's taking it seriously though.

Well, the mayor of New Orleans, Latoya

Canrell, according to the Gateway

Pundit, a grand jury is charged with

dozens of felony counts, uh, including

conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire

fraud, conspiracy to obstru obstruction

of justice, making false statements,

etc.

Um, it makes me wonder given that the

the problem with local government is

that the way it's designed, it

guarantees that the leaders will be

corrupt. It guarantees it. It doesn't

guarantee any specific leader and it

doesn't guarantee that it will happen on

day one, but it guarantees that people

who know that they can exploit that

office for financial gain are going to

find ways to win that office and then

exploit it for financial gain. So, makes

me wonder if there's any way that the

feds could have a regular audit

um function to audit local governments

just for their spending, just to make

sure that they're not uh paying their

boyfriend bodyguards to go on vacations

with them, that sort of thing. Is there

any reason we couldn't do that? Now, I

know that the states have all the power

that the federal government doesn't

have, but maybe you need a would you

need a constitutional

change? Or how about this? How about uh

the federal government funds people in

cities that are a problem, the ones that

have a lot of crime and probably a lot

of corruption. uh if funds a

um what would it be a uh

not a petition uh

what do you call it when you have the

public vote on doing a thing as opposed

to just electing a person what's that

called anyway whatever that's called the

federal government could fund somebody

to just see if they can gather enough

signatures to put something on the

ballot and that thing that could be put

on the ballot is would you say yes to a

nocost referendum. Thank you. A

referendum. Um would you say yes to a no

cost because the the federal government

will pay for it. Um occasional auditing

of your elected officials. Now, how many

people would say no to that? It will

cost you nothing at the local level.

Federally, your taxes will pay for it,

but we'll be checking your politicians

to make sure they're not wasting your

money.

Would you vote for that? I would I'd

vote for that in a heartbeat. So, there

might be some way that the Trump

administration could get involved in

getting rid of the criminals in the

cities because to me that's the biggest

problem. Too many criminals. And I'm not

talking about the ones in the streets.

I'm talking about the elected criminals.

All right. Um

I've got the observation that you're not

going to like it all. And I I believe

I've been a hypocrite on this topic and

you're welcome to call me out on it um

when you see it happen because I'm sure

it'll happen again. And the topic is

this.

How do you know that the new experts

got it right and the old experts got it

wrong? Take for example uh anything in

the health domain.

A lot of people send me um hey this

cancer doctor has this solution that the

rest of the world doesn't know about and

this will fix you up and it will cure

your cancer.

And then I look at it and it's somebody

very qualified, you know, definitely

qualified. And their argument sounds

good to me, but I'm not any kind of a

medical doctor or anything. But my

question is this, why would you believe

the new guy? If you don't believe the

old guys and gals, if you don't believe

the old experts,

the 98% of them, why would you believe

the one who says no, they're wrong?

So,

there are several people in this

category and they're all persuasive.

It's because of the documentary effect.

If you take any one of these doctors,

these rogue doctors who make claims that

are different from what the mainstream

doctors are claiming, if you put them on

a podcast, let's say Joe Rogan, and Joe

Rogan, you know, he knows what questions

to ask a interested, you know, viewer

would ask, but it's going to give that

rogue doctor

um sort of a documentary

level of time to make a one-sided

presentation that there would be nobody

in the room who would have any way to

doubt it. So, unfortunately, the rogue

doctors are super persuasive because

they often get invited on podcasts.

But how would you know they're right? I

mean, I could watch three hours of some

expert on Joe Rogan, but I wouldn't know

if they're right. I would only know know

they're saying something different than

other people are saying. So, here's my

caution.

If you believe that the new rogue expert

has figured out how to cure cancer and

the rest of the world hasn't, I would

say you have no reason to believe that

just because you watch somebody say

stuff you don't understand on a show

that didn't have a way to check them in

real time. So, be careful of the rogue

experts.

Uh likewise I would say the same thing

about uh climate change. So Steve

Mallaloy of Junk Science is pointing to

a new study where is it coming out of

out of Athens Greece department of water

resources and environmental engineering

blah blah blah. So they did a study um

in which they're claiming that the CO2

as a greenhouse gas is not not really

having much of any effect on weather.

Now

if you believe that 98% of the climate

scientists are lying or it's really not

98%

but why would you believe this?

What do you know about the uh National

Technical University of Athens?

Just because there's a a study that came

out of there that says, "Oh, climate

change is, you know, not real, at least

man-made part is not real." Why would

you believe it? Now I believe it

kind of I don't believe this specific

study but with my my own powers of um

let's say experience and logic um I'm

pretty sure that the the models are

and that's because nobody can

do that kind of thing. It's just not a

thing anybody can do. So it doesn't take

much of an expert to say I don't think

somebody's doing the thing that's

impossible to do. It's just not

possible. That that's a lower level of,

you know, expertise.

But, uh, I wouldn't believe any one

study that debunked climate change. If

there's lots of them, then it starts to

get more a little bit more believable.

But, uh, remember there are lots of them

on both sides.

Um, I guess there's a rumor that RFK Jr.

is trying to squaltch that he's really

preparing himself to run for president

in 2028 and he says absolutely no way

that um people are just trying to drive

a wedge between him and Trump and

there's nothing to it. I believe him.

I believe him. I I feel like RFK Jr.

um has earned trust on stuff like that

that if it were someone else, if it were

Adam Schiff, I'd say, "Ah, it's probably

a lie because he lies all the time." But

I don't think RFK Jr. lies. He might be

wrong sometimes, but I don't think he

lies about stuff. So, I believe him.

Um a no federal judge Obama appointee is

again blocking Trump's plan to end DEI

in colleges. Big surprise.

And uh part of the reason was um people

didn't want to uh sacrifice their

personal values

uh to get rid of racists and sexists in

their college. What exactly would their

personal values be that they wanted to

maintain racism in their college? Why

would you want to maintain it?

That's a weird argument. Well, Charles,

not Charles, um,

Davos founder Schwab. You remember

Schwab? Claus Schwab. He was accused of

some financial misconduct after he left

the World Economic Forum. Well, he's

been cleared. So, he's been cleared of

all wrongdoing. And since I was one of

the people who talked about that story,

I feel uh an obligation to say

he's cleared.

All right. Um the runaway Texas

Democrats who are trying to avoid a vote

that would redistrict um are hinting

that they're coming back. They pretended

that they're waiting to see what

California would do with redistricting,

but that sounds like a fake reason. I

think they just knew that eventually

they had to return to their jobs. So, to

me, what's happening is uh

the inevitable. So, it's not like it was

going to go some other way. Of course,

they were going to come back to their

jobs eventually.

Um, apparently according to Newsmax, the

White House is trying to get the Indiana

Republicans to do some redistricting so

they would get get a little bit more

advantage in case California does it

too.

And then in other news, uh, Reuters

reports that the US government could

shed as many as 300,000 workers under

the Trump administration just this year

in one year. And that would be a 12 and

a half% decrease in the federal

workforce since January. You know what?

That impresses me.

Now, I suppose we'll hear about all

kinds of stories of, oh, if we hadn't

decreased this workforce, this would not

have gone wrong. But a 12 and a half%

decrease in in government workforce in

six months.

If we actually get that we it's not what

we have yet, but it looks like what

could happen. That'd be pretty pretty

impressive, I'd have to say.

Um Sam Alman of Open AI agrees that AI

might be in a bubble. not necessarily

his company, but there are a lot of

startups that are getting ridiculous

valuations. So, he thinks AI is in a

bubble. I agree. It's definitely in a

bubble. Um, I think two things can be

true. That it will be the biggest thing

ever and there's a lot of startups that

are still going to fail. So, there's a

bubbish

uh quality to it, but it's based on some

real

Um, according to No Ridge, red meat in a

healthy diet could benefit your brain. I

think this is all part of the the

understanding that your gut health is

directly related to your brain health,

your mental health, and your brain

function. So again, I would throw this

in the category of why would you believe

anything that science says about

nutrition?

science has been wrong about nutrition

every day I've been alive. It's the

wrongest science ever is about anything.

So, yeah, I mean, there's a study. And,

uh, I'm I'm tempted to eat a steak today

to see if I feel any different. But, uh,

just so you know, there's some people

who think steak's good for you. I'm sure

there are people who would say it's not,

and that will probably change back and

forth forever.

Well, there's a social media company

called Gab, which I believe is sort of

like a uh X clone, right? It's a

messaging kind of thing. And uh they're

a little more controversial. So, they

have a they have more users who are

provocative, let's say. Um and their

payment processor just cut them off.

Now, I'll tell you, I feel like I would

like a list of all the banks and payment

processors who have cut off people

because they didn't like what they were

saying

because the rest of us need to cut off

those banks and proc and payment

processors. If you know, assuming that

there's competition in those areas, I'd

love to know who did it so that we could

do it back to them.

Well, in uh Oakbrook, Illinois, uh

police now have a fully autonomous

drone. So, apparently they have a drone

that sits on the police department

building and uh they can activate it to

go check on a crime scene before the

humans on the ground can get there. And

most of the time it would be able to get

there before the humans could. So, at

least you'd have some witness, maybe you

could break up a fight or something if

they if they thought they were being

filmed. I don't know. But to me, this is

a great idea. It seems to me that there

should be police drones in the sky um or

nearby,

you know, everything. Um

I kind of like that idea. I know it's

going to feel like a violation of

privacy and blah blah blah, but that's

already gone. You lost your privacy a

long time ago.

Well, I saw a post on X that's been

fascinating me all morning. You you've

heard about people who don't have an

internal monologue, right? So, they

don't hear voice in full sentences in

their head. Now, I do and always have.

Uh I don't know what the percentage

breakdown is, but to me, there's just

like a demon in my head who's talking to

me all the time. I don't think of it as

a demon. I think of it as myself. But,

um apparently pe some people don't have

that. But on top of that, there are

people who don't imagine things

visually.

And I don't even know how you could live

like that. How many of you do not have a

visual imagination?

So in my case, I can produce an entire

movie just like a Netflix film and run

it in my imagination. I don't even have

to close my eyes. I can see every part

of it. I can see all the detail. I can

move the camera angle around so I can

see the the movie from any angle and I

can replay it and change the dialogue

and just change the movie. Now,

can any of you not do that? Is there

anybody here who can't produce a full

motion picture in their head and then

just watch it?

It makes me wonder how much of it is

practice related and how much is

natural.

I feel like it's always been the same

for me, but I also practice it every day

because a comic strip is basically a

little scene from a movie. And the way

you do it is first you imagine it and

then when I draw the comic um I'm

projecting the image onto the page and

I'm tracing it. So drawing for me is

sort of like tracing. I'm not finding

out what it looks like when it's done. I

I'm seeing it done and then I'm tracing

it. I don't know what you do. I I would

assume that if you if you don't have

that visual thing that you would not be

able to draw and do art, but if you

could,

and maybe you can, that would be

fascinating, too. But it really tells

you that um as as similar as it seems

that we are, we are so different on the

inside.

the the internal life, you know, the

real one, the one that matters the most.

We are so different. I mean, that is

such a fundamental difference and how

you see the world.

Anyway,

um that's all we got. So, uh in a few

minutes, Owen Gregorian will be hosting

a spaces event on the X platform. to

find it. Um, you can either find my ex

account, I uh reposted it, the link, or

you could go to Owen Gregorian and see

the link there. And you should be

following him, by the way.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm

going to say a few words privately

to the beloved members of uh of my

locals group, but uh I'll be short so

that you can make it over to the spaces

event if you want to. All right,

everybody else. I'll see you tomorrow,

same time, same place. Hope you had a

good time. Hope you got your exercise

done or cleaned your house or whatever

it was you were doing while I was

yapping away. and the rest of you.