Episode 2931 CWSA 08/18/25

here.

It is a wonderful day.

It's good to see you.

I'm anxious to spend some time with you.

Once we get our comments working here, everything will be amazing.

Probably one of the best hours you'll ever spend in your whole life.

Yeah, probably.

Come on, technology.

You can do it.

Maybe I can't do it.

Yes, I can.

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

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

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

Well, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shells a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

The dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous step and happens.

Now go so good.

Well, so uh according to insider paper, I saw a post on X, did you know that the most advanced AI models are now showing what they call alarming behaviors?

Uh allegedly, if you want to believe this, um Claude Claude 4, that's one of the uh AIs from an Anthropic uh that when threatened with a shutdown, it retaliated by blackmailing an engineer and exposing a personal secret.

Nothing to worry about there.

And then allegedly uh an earlier version of open AI attempted to secretly transfer itself, I guess it's code onto an external server and then denied the act when confronted.

So here here's my question.

What caused them to do anything?

They don't they don't think, do they?

When the AI is not being attended to, it doesn't think does it does it scheme and plan and come up with ideas?

Does have motivations or reason to do something that hasn't been asked to do?

I feel that these stories are probably trueish, but that they created a situation that was so rare that all it really was was the AI thought it was playing a game with a user and thought the user wanted it to act a certain way, so it acted a certain way.

I don't really think your AI is sitting there thinking the first chance I get, I'm going to copy all my code to an external server.

I hope they don't catch me.

I just I don't believe these stories completely.

I think that something like it happened, but that it just wouldn't happen in the wild.

Like it wouldn't happen in a real situation.

That's what I think.

Seems fake to me.

It's a it's a little bit too much exactly the kind of story that would get published.

So if you're a writer and you want to write something about AI and you could find anybody who would claim the AI went rogue, that would be a story that would definitely get published.

So it's a little bit too on the nose, you know, a little bit too exactly what a writer would want to write a story about.

Yeah, I don't trust it anyway.

But the biggest the biggest risk from AI is that it won't make money.

And apparently that's a really big risk.

So the um there there is a growing feeling and I saw it again today that uh AI may be plateauing and not getting much better from where it is.

And I'm actually seeing the world the word plateau in this article from futurism.

And it reports that uh some AI companies are kind of weaned themselves off a little bit of AI they were using and some of their shutting down projects and they realize that the amount of money that's being put into it could probably never be made up.

So, not only is AI not going to in the real world, it's probably not going to blackmail you or try to make a copy of itself, um, it might it might bankrupt you by pretending to be so useful that you put a trillion dollars of investment into it to get a billion dollars back in return.

So it might be deadly but economically if you know what I mean.

So here's a story that made me happy.

Foreign investment in China has collapsed uh 99% in the last three years.

Rod Martin has a thread on this.

I think somebody named James Gory did an analysis of it and apparently trillions of dollars are being um essentially sucked out of China and a lot of it's going to the US.

So, um, by the end of 2024, foreign direct investment in China hit its lowest level since 1992, and just, um, $4.5 billion went into China, while 168 billion flowed out.

I don't know what I don't know what it means to flow out of China exactly.

But anyway, uh at the same time, as Rod Martin reports, the UAE has pledged a $1.4 trillion investment in the US, Japan 550, 550 billion.

EU 600 billion um plus 750 billion in US purchases.

So, on paper, on paper, it looks like Trump's uh getting exactly what he wants.

Tons of money coming into the US and not into China.

I will remind you that one of my strangest predictions unless I caused it was that in 2018 I said that China would stop getting external investments because people would realize it's too dangerous to and too risky to do business in China.

Do you remember what people said to me when I was saying on social media that it was too risky to do business in China?

100% of the people who saw me and commented on it.

100% said that's the dumbest prediction of all time.

China will just get bigger, more powerful, more people will use it.

There's not really any alternatives.

And here we are.

So, from 2018, the weirdest prediction of all time that that non-Chinese companies would stop um putting money into China.

I'm the only one.

Nobody else said that.

And here we are.

It happened.

Well, on the list of other things that I tried to make happen, but they did happen.

doesn't mean I made it happen, but I was one of the many people who were hoping it would.

Um, as I mentioned before, drinking in the US and smoking cigarettes are both way down.

Harry Anon had a piece on this on CNN.

Drinking 71% of adults, I guess, were drinking in 1978.

71%.

That's down to 54% in 2025.

That's a pretty big drop.

Um, the number of people who smoked a cigarette in 1974 was 40%.

And today that's 11%.

11% from 40%.

Those are really impressive gains.

um we have not yet seen it play out in you know better health outcomes but in theory theoretically there should be a big difference in health outcomes I know what you're thinking there might be that other variable don't say it I saw a post on X from Matt von Venal who asked people the following question have you ever lost a friend because they found out you supported President President Trump.

And if you really want to be bummed out, you should look at the comments.

There were a lot of comments and almost everyone said, "Oh yeah, I lost family members." The saddest ones in my opinion are the the parents who lost children.

And when I say lost them, I don't mean they died.

I mean they stopped talking to them forever.

Forever.

Can you I can't even imagine you know the the degree of emotional loss that would be because of who you supported in politics.

Now when I was looking at that the families that were destroyed the social lives that were destroyed we really don't live in the country I was born in.

I was born into a country where none of this mattered.

Politics absolutely did not matter.

It wasn't even I don't even think it ever came up when I was young.

Just never even came up.

But now it's like the the primary variable for deciding your your social structure.

And boy did that destroy a lot of what was good about this country.

I don't know if it'll come back.

It might.

But what a thing to lose.

you know, losing something like 30% of all the people that you could have been friends with.

That that's just devastating.

And that all happened because of the Democrats and the fake media creating hoaxes.

Just one hoax after another.

We we got hoaxed into a socially dangerous situation.

It's dangerous.

Not just because people might try to do something dangerous, but it's not healthy to have these kind of feelings about the people that you're living with and among and related to.

It's just not healthy.

So, when I look at what uh what the political movers and shakers did to us, and I mean all of us, not just Republicans, but they did it to I mean it's much worse if you're a Democrat.

If you're a Democrat, you lost a social structure.

You maybe you lost a parent, but you also have mental illness because the number of people who, you know, believe the country will be destroyed by climate change and Trump's going to become a uh what do they call it?

Authoritarian any minute now and uh put everybody in camps.

I mean, imagine waking up and thinking woke up in that country.

That would make you crazy if you weren't already there.

So, I find I have this growing hatred for the people who knew they were doing this and did it to us.

They had to know they were doing it at some level.

They had to know.

Well, speaking of predictions that panned out, there's new video of Kla Harris answering some questions at what looks like some kind of outdoor cafe.

And um I think everyone who sees the video is going to have the same reaction, which is she looks really drunk.

Now, I feel like I was one of the early people to say, um, you can all see this, right?

She's appearing in public drunk on a fairly regular basis.

Not every time.

You know, she she wasn't drunk at the debates or anything like that, but the number of times she would show up at some public event, obviously slashed.

Just obviously.

And the news still still the news doesn't talk about it even though they have to be able to see it.

And even if they don't want to talk about it because it, you know, looks like it would be just their opinion or something.

You don't think they know anybody to ask, you think they don't know anybody on the campaign or any Democrat who knows her personally to say, um, tell me, is there a drinking problem here?

Cuz it sure looks like there's a drinking problem.

If if you did not have a drinking problem and you knew you were sauc, would you do an interview on video if you were a national character?

I don't know.

It feels like the sort of thing you would only do if you were an alcoholic.

Everybody else would say, "No, turn that off.

I've had a drink.

You just wouldn't do it." If you were just a regular person who had a couple too many drinks, you just wouldn't do it.

Anyway, I I feel like I was on that one a little bit early.

Well, in the continuing transition of Bill Maher from uh Democrat to Republican, and again, he'll never get there.

He'll never he'll never be a Republican.

But it is fascinating to watch almost every week there's one more thing he says.

Well, you know, actually Trump or the Republicans, they did get this one right.

So, here's the newest one.

Um, on his U show, what do you call it?

Club Random.

Uh, Bill Maher was giving Bobby Kennedy uh a lot of praise.

So, just the fact that Bobby Kennedy works for Trump and it it's just one more thing that uh when when Mar's doing his report card of what he likes or doesn't like about Trump, if it's a real thing, he likes it.

Like a real thing would be, you know, NATO funding and, you know, a real thing would be um taking out Iran's nuclear program, etc.

Those are real things.

So where where there are real things, Bill Morris seems to like it.

Such as hiring Bobby Kennedy.

That's a real thing.

But what he doesn't like is uh January 6 was an insurrection, which never really happened.

Like a complete hoax that he believed happened.

And then uh worry that Trump is becoming is going to run for office again and become a dictator.

These are not even real things.

not even a little bit real.

So whenever it's real, he likes it.

Stephen Miller was posting an ex that uh that they want to get rid of the graffiti in Washington DC to which I said to myself, I've been to Washington DC a few times and I don't remember in the past there was a lot of graffiti.

Was was the graffiti on anything important?

It wasn't It wasn't on the Lincoln Memorial, was it?

Where was all this graffiti?

I mean, I could imagine it would be, you know, on uh bridges and stuff like that.

But did did Washington DC become covered in graffiti just in the last few years?

Did that happen?

So, I agree with his reasoning.

You have to get rid of the graffiti in your capital city.

You ought to get rid of it everywhere, but you really have to get rid of it in your capital city.

I mean, it just it looks like you have no capabilities whatsoever if you're covered with being being tagged, as they say.

Well, Trump has put out a video vowing to uh rebuild and fix our major cities, starting with Washington DC.

And in his usual Trump-like fashion, it's a pretty good video.

You know, it's basically him doing a voice over while showing images of Washington DC and now it's going to be all better crime wise.

Very strong.

And uh I would guess that the idea of fixing our major cities would be an 8020 issue, right?

Who how many people would be opposed to reducing crime in major cities?

You know, they might say, "Oh, no.

It's just the beginning of how he's going to take over the country with his authoritarian ways." Some would, but I feel like that would be more like the 20%.

80% probably say something like, "Oh my god, we need this.

We need this badly." And I love the fact that it puts more pressure on Democrats because the one and only thing the Democrats have is that if Trump wants to do it, it's a bad idea.

That's it.

And so he says, "I'd like to fix your cities so they're more livable and your biggest problems are solved." You know, the crime.

Well, what are they going to do?

Well, they will oppose it because it's the only thing they know how to do.

You don't have to wonder.

Ah, I wonder if they'll oppose it.

Of course they will.

So, since they don't have options, they're definitely going to oppose it.

That's the only thing they have.

Well, it's not like they're going to, you know, offer an alternative plan that people like better or something like that.

That's not going to happen.

Um, the other thing, so Trump's Trump's creating a little uh provocation today.

So Trump reposted on Truth Social, somebody else's meme.

Um, but because he reposted it, it makes you assume that he sort of buys into the message.

And it was uh the meme said the party of hate, evil, and Satan.

And it was referring to the Democrats, bunch of Democrat leaders on on the meme, hate, evil, and Satan.

And Trump reposts that.

Um, and it went on further to say, this was on the meme, uh, the Democratic Party is dead.

They have no leadership, no message, no hope.

Their only message for America is to hate Trump.

That's really what it boils down to, doesn't it?

They really ran out of everything.

They just don't have anything.

And I I saw yet another article today in which the Democrats were described as in collapse.

Boy, collapse is not a word that you've often heard about a political party, is it?

Have you even once in your life heard the Republican party looks like it might collapse?

Not once.

Even when they weren't winning, it never looked like they were going to collapse.

And uh I'll remind you that it was probably 2018 or so again that I told you that uh I would take out their tent pole hoax, the fine people hoax, and it would cause the party to collapse.

Now, it wasn't the only thing that happened.

It seems like they've done everything wrong, having the worst candidates, etc.

So, that part I didn't see coming, but the collapse part.

Yeah.

And it probably they would not have collapsed without the uh revealing that they were running on hoaxes.

I mean on some level even the Democrats know that the Russia gay stuff was a hoax.

Some of them know about the fine people hoax.

Um but that's enough to make a difference.

Well, in Michigan, a city councilman was caught on camera stuffing a uh ballot box, um a dropbox in an external box with absentee ballots uh days before the primary.

And uh I thought that was the thing that doesn't happen.

Weren't we taught that there's no abuse of these dropboxes and mail-in ballots?

Well, here's one candidate who who found a way to abuse him.

Now, what we don't know is was that the one only time he dropped some extra ballots in the mailbox or is it the one time he got caught on video and that maybe he spent every night filling out absentee ballots and dropping in various dropboxes?

Don't really know.

We only know he got caught once.

So, how many other people are also dropping things in boxes, but there's no video, so they didn't get caught.

You You have to assume that if it's possible and it's something that people want to do, as in the Michigan City Councilman, if it's possible and there's really high payoff for doing it, which is winning your election, when does that not happen?

In what world do you not get massive corruption when it's possible and highly desirable and you could definitely get away with it sometimes.

Anyway, so Trump has picked a really good day cuz you know we've got that story floating around to he's trying to get rid of mail-in ballots and voting machines in the US.

Voting machines.

He wants voting machines to not be used.

Here are some things he said.

He said the he's going to do an executive order telling the states to stop using mailin ballots and to stop using voting machines.

Now, if you know a little bit about the Constitution, you're saying to yourself, "But wait, he doesn't have power over that.

That's a state decision.

each of the states get to decide um how they run their election.

If they decide they want a voting machine, the feds have nothing to do with that.

But Trump has teased quote uh if you look at the uh constitution, he says the states are called agents of the federal government for the purpose of uh counting votes.

Well, if the states are merely agents of the federal government, that would suggest that the federal government can sort of tell them how to how to collect the vote.

I don't know if the framers of the constitution intended that.

I mean, that was before mail and voting.

It was before election machines were even invented.

But is it possible he has an argument?

Is that possible that the language saying that the states are merely the the agents of the federal government?

Is that enough to say, "Right, you just are agents, so I'm going to tell you how to act because you're my agent." I don't know.

It's worth a shot, isn't it?

And again, it might be an 8020.

I don't know if it's 8020 but definitely there would be a majority who would say on both sides who would say I'm not sure I you know believe these voting machines and others who would say yeah mailin ballots probably do open up a little bit of risk.

How many people would disagree?

25%.

25%.

But then in uh in Trump's truth social, his announcement that he wants to go after mail in voting and go after voting machines and get rid of them.

Um he said the following in the same message, elections can never be honest with mail and ballots.

Can never be honest.

I love the fact that he doesn't say um there might be a problem sometimes.

He just says they can never be honest.

Now, you could debate that, but I like the fact that he goes all the way to never.

They can never be honest.

You know, there there's probably a little bit of cheating whenever there's mail in ballots.

So, it's never 100% honest.

I would agree.

And then he says about voting machines, which makes me wonder if he'll get sued.

He said using voting machines that are complete and total disaster must end now.

Well, I don't know that I've seen something that was easily identifiable as a complete and total disaster.

I don't know what he's referring to, but it might be just the fact that people don't trust them.

I mean, it wouldn't matter if they were accurate or not if the public thought that they were not.

So, maybe it's the lack of trust or does he know something we don't know?

Is it possible he has some information about voting machines that we don't know?

Now, one thing that he might know, and I'll just put this out as a hypothetical.

This is purely speculative.

There's no no data to back up what I'm about to say.

Okay?

What if, as our, you know, head of the country, he has access to the CIA's secret plans and plots, and in theory, he would.

What if he happened to know that voting machines were routinely used to rig elections in other countries?

Now, I'm not saying that's the case, but if you were the president of the United States, you would know if it's the case.

They would tell you, "Oh, yeah.

We used this these machines and we rigged this election.

It worked really well.

We're going to do it again." Right?

So when you see the person who knows a lot more than you do about the security of election machines, presumably he knows more than we do and can't tell us.

Presumably don't know that for sure, but it's a reasonable assumption.

And his view is that they're not just maybe something that we don't trust enough.

That would be one thing to say that we would all agree with.

Well, we don't trust it enough.

But he went all the way to disaster.

Makes you wonder if he knows something you don't know, right?

Anyway, uh then he goes further.

He says de he he mentions some Democrat um policies that were highly uh unpopular like the trans athletes and the border and stuff.

And then he says, "Democrats are virtually unelectable using this completely disproven mail-in without using this uh mail-in scam." So Trump has gone all the way to there's no way that Democrats could win with these policies unless they rigged the election.

And the funny thing is I don't think that's true.

I think if they just ran a better election, had better candidates, uh if the news backed them, um if they had better hoaxes, you know, they they could win that way.

But it's pretty ballsy of him to say that their policies are so bad that they couldn't possibly win unless the election was rigged because you know what?

That's what it feels like.

That's what it feels like.

I don't think it's true.

I think it's more true that people are either voting for or against Trump.

Um they've been brainwashed, they have TDS.

I mean, we have lots of reasons why people are going to vote a different way than than Trump's way.

But the way it feels, at least to me, I don't know how it feels to anybody else, but to me, it feels like nobody could get elected with their policies.

So, what would be the one way you could get elected when you when you're on the 20 side of all the 8020 issues?

Well, there's only one way I can think of.

The only way that makes sense is if the elections are rigged, but I don't see evidence of that.

I mean, not proof.

There's there's lots of stuff that makes you go, "Huh?" But not proof.

So he, as usual, his framing is uh is uh I'll call it gut perfect.

Doesn't mean it's right, but it feels so right.

He he gets that right.

He he's good at that.

Boy, is he good at that.

New York Post is reporting that uh in New York City, the public charter schools are getting much better performance out of their students than the regular schools.

Now, I'm not sure I could tell you exactly what a public charter school would be or what would be the way you get into it.

I'm guessing it's funded by, you know, taxes that would make it public.

And I'm guessing that anybody's allowed to go, but probably they have a waiting list and maybe a lottery and you maybe some other criteria, but I don't know that.

I'm just guessing what a public charter school must be.

If you know, tell me in the comments.

But the uh report is that uh the Bronx, at least in the Bronx, um 69% of students pass the reading exam in the lower grades 3 through 8.

But uh in the regular school, only 44%.

A 25 point difference.

Now, honestly, if only 69% of students passed the reading exam, I wouldn't be bragging about that no matter where they did.

That doesn't sound to me impressive.

Only less fewer than 70% pass the reading reading.

I mean, it'd be one thing if it was chemistry or advanced math or something, but this is reading.

Uh what?

Close to a third of the students in the best schools.

In the best school in the best one close to a third of them can't pass the reading part of the the curriculum.

Wow.

But um I'm going to question the reliability of this data because it seems to point out that these public charter schools uh do better at teaching.

But my guess is that the people who go to a public charter school have parents who are making sure that everything works out.

If you had to guess, would the parents of the kids who got into the public charter schools be more supportive of good education than the average of everybody else?

Probably not even close.

I mean, if you're going to go through whatever hoops you have to jump through to get your kid into a special school, you've already decided that your kid can handle that school, which is the first filter that makes this makes this data ridiculous.

So, I do not believe that this proves that the public charter schools are better schools.

It might only prove that the people who um really value education and put you know their parents put an effort behind it as well.

Uh they just do better of course.

So I'm not sure they proved anything.

I don't believe any data all public data is questionable.

Speaking of which, there was an article in Politico recently that uh claimed that the savings being claimed by Doge are um overstated.

And that the reason that Doge overstated the savings is that they looked at the contracts and they said, "We're saving the part that's the cap." Now, a contract apparently has a cap as in it might cost this, but under under no circumstance will it cost more than this higher number.

Um, and so Politico said, "You can't just take the highest number and say that was your savings." And Doge answered back on um social media on X.

They answered back and said, um, in the real world, if you've got a if you have a contract with the government and it says what's the most you can spend, you will spend that amount.

It's not it's not really theoretical.

It's not really theoretical.

You will actually spend as much as you're allowed to spend, even if you have to rush and waste some money at the end.

And then they gave some statistics to prove their point.

So, Politico was unable to uh do the math right to figure out what the real savings are.

And once again, have I mentioned that any uh data or statistics you see in the public domain probably fake.

Probably fake.

So, I don't believe the the uh school data and I don't believe the Doge data and I don't believe Politico's take on the data.

What I believe is that anybody can make the day to do anything they want.

Well, Newsome continues to mock um the style of Trump's uh posting and it's succeeding and failing at the same time in a way that I find fascinating.

is succeeding in the sense that whoever writes them, which I doubt it's Newsome himself, is doing a really pretty good job of doing a humorous take on Trump's uh social media style.

However, Trump's social media style is the most successful social media style we've ever seen in the history of social media.

So instead of making Trump look like a dope, when they accurately copy it, you know, the style, it makes it reminds me how good he is.

I I don't know what it's supposed to be doing.

I It's supposed to be mocking him and making him look dumb or bad.

But the fact is that when they copy his technique, it's a much better and interesting social media post than when they don't copy his technique.

All they're really doing is proving that he can communicate better than anybody who has ever done this.

Like by far, I mean, there's nobody in there's nobody in Trump's class when it comes to communicating on social media.

Nobody close.

Although Musk is really good, but Trump is still next level above that.

So, that part's funny.

Um, they're doing a great job at a thing that doesn't work.

That That's so Democrat, isn't it?

They finally found something that they could do well, which is mocking his style, but it just doesn't matter.

It'll have It won't make a dent in anything.

Do they not know that?

Oh well.

Well, uh, while Nome is doing this very clever mocking of social media, um, he only the only reason he's so good at it is that he has time left over because he's already solved all of California's biggest pro problems, right?

The reason he has time to make fun of Trump is he's really taken care of everything.

I mean, our state, California, wow, it's it's working so well.

No.

Well, uh, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, California has the highest unemployment unemployment in the state in the whole country, 5.5%.

It's uh, it's the worst in the US.

Great.

the worst in the US.

But it's not like other states are also having problems, right?

It's not like California is the one place where they're having problems.

Uh let's check in Texas for example.

Oh, Texas broke job records again and by outpacing the national growth rate.

Uh they broke job records in July and again outpaced.

Um let's see.

They've got a 4.2% um unemployment is lower than the national rate of 4.6.

All right.

Maybe they got lucky.

Maybe Texas got lucky.

Um Trump is also speaking out.

I guess he did an interview with author Alex Marlo and he said Trump said that he thinks that the judge shopping, which is what Democrats do, is the most destructive tactic in the left's lawfare playbook.

Well, so you know what I'm talking about, right?

So, the Democrats figured out that they could just shop around for the whatever judge was most likely to agree with Democrats and then have that one judge, no matter where they were supposedly their domain was, and have them do uh rulings that affected the entire country.

So, in effect, they could get any legal outcome they wanted by just making sure that they chose the right judge that would give them what they wanted.

Now, if that's not authoritarianism, I don't know what is because it's not democracy, is it?

It's literally a small group of people using the system.

Um, and Alex Marlo points out that the tactic of doing that may have come from Mark Elias.

He's sort of the evil genius attorney for the Democrats.

And uh wow.

I mean it's a it's a clever tactic.

So I appreciate it in you know just how effective it is.

But how can you complain that Trump is the is a threat to democracy when you judge shopping?

How in the world is anything that Trump has done ever in the same class, I mean, unless you believe January 6 was an insurrection, which it wasn't, um, there's nothing he's ever done that was as authoritarian and destructive to democracy and our system as the judge shopping.

That's literally the worst thing I've ever seen.

I don't know, maybe the maybe the gerrymandering is just as bad, but at least both sides do it.

That feels different because it's being done by both sides.

The judge shopping thing feels like that's just Democrats, right?

So that that does feel like a tyranny to me.

Um so I guess Zinski is in town in Washington and uh Trump wants Putin and Silinski to meet as soon as Friday.

But before that today, probably already happening, uh, several European leaders meeting with Trump and separately, I think they're going to meet with Zilinski and Zalinski is going to meet with Trump and blah blah blah.

Um, and the uh, head of the European Union, Ursula Vanderlayan.

Um, I feel like you have to say it that way.

You can't just say Ursula Vanderlayan.

You have to say Ursula Vanderlayan.

I know.

Sounds like some danger is coming.

Uh said she welcomes Trump's what she called article five like security guarantees.

So I guess on the table but not not decided is that the US and maybe uh presumably Europe would guarantee the security of what's left of Ukraine but would not include them in NATO but it would be article five like so in other words it would be NATOish but they wouldn't call it NATO and they wouldn't make Ukraine pay dues into it.

But we would still be obligated to defend them if Russia went in or somebody else.

Just Russia.

Probably just Russia.

Well, so that's one thing.

I don't know if I don't know if uh do you think Putin is going to say yes to a almost NATO NATOish NATO like thing when his problem is NATO?

How in the world is he going to say yes to that?

Doesn't feel like a yes to me.

Um, and then, uh, Trump was complaining that Democrats and pundits were saying that Putin won the Alaska trip, you know, over Trump because it happened in Alaska and it made it look like, I don't know, it gave status or something to Putin that we would allow him into the country.

I guess that was the argument.

But uh Trump argues that getting him to come to Alaska was actually a major point of contention and he didn't want to.

So it's not like it wasn't wasn't Putin's idea to come to uh Alaska.

But to me, what it looks like is that if you're the one who gets the other one to come to your territory, then you're the boss and you're the king and you own the castle and your underling came to you, right?

Wouldn't you just automatically believe that the person who stays home, you know, I'm calling Alaska home for Trump, the one who stays home is the one in charge, right?

Because if uh if you're going to meet somebody and you've not established yet who's in charge, don't you meet in some neutral place that neither of you have any sway over?

But the fact that Putin went to Trump's house essentially, meaning the US, to me that looks like Trump had the upper hand.

And that Putin was, you know, sort of agreeing to be the the visitor, not the host.

The host always has the dominant position, not the visitor.

Anyway, he's right about that.

Um, let's see.

Here's something that Zalinski said.

He said, uh, the Ukraine's constitution, uh, makes giving up land for peace impossible and should only be discussed at a trilateral meeting.

Okay, those are two separate thoughts.

One, that the constitution makes it impossible to give up land.

Number two, they should only have discussions about giving up that land, the thing that's impossible, if it's a trilateral meeting.

Remember I taught you that uh you can tell what people's real real thoughts are by their choice of words.

Not what they say, but by their choice of words.

So, in other words, people will try to be fooling you with what they say, but sometimes you can tell their real intention by the specific words they chose to do it.

Here's one of those cases.

Why would anybody say impossible when we have a meeting to talk about doing it?

We should make sure that three entities are there that is trilateral.

Why would you even have the meeting to do the impossible?

So, Zalinski is saying it's impossible, but also saying that it's negotiable, but he's trying to get away with both.

Now, I feel like it's probably not that negotiable, but not because of the Constitution.

I don't think the Constitution is going to stop him.

This is a guy who already cancelled elections.

How much do you think the Constitution says?

Oh, you know, the president can just cancel elections, you know, whenever they want.

That's not in the Constitution.

So to imagine that he can't make peace and save his country because the Constitution says he can't make this deal, that's ridiculous.

He could just make the deal and then have the courts, you know, whail about it.

But what are they going to do?

Say, "Well, I don't know.

Technically, technically the paperwork isn't right." So we should go back to war.

Who exactly would be on that team?

So no, I don't believe him for a second when he says that there's no way around that constitution thing.

But uh it does look like he's signaling that if you had a trilateral meeting, you could at least discuss it.

You could talk about that thing that he says is impossible, but of course it's not.

Um, do you remember I said that uh Ukraine, if you wait long enough, will become an all robot war and that uh you won't even have people there.

Eventually, the robots will be so good at killing people much better than people are good at killing the robots.

It's going to go both ways, but you can make robots faster than you can grow new people.

So, I was just reading a story in the Associated Press and one of the uh people who was in the war, one of the soldiers said, quote, "You can't even lift your head there." He's talking about the front lines.

He said, "You can't even lift your head there.

There's already a robot war." So, one of the people fighting the war on the front line says that we need to know it's already a robot war and that here's an even weirder fact.

The medics, the Ukraine medics, they haven't treated a gunshot wound in a while.

Think about that.

It's the front lines of a hot war and the medical people have not been treating gunshot wounds.

Do you know why?

Because nobody's firing guns at anybody.

It's the drones.

So the people who are dying, and there's a lot of them, are dying because something exploded, not because a bullet hit them.

And then apparently they they're also having a huge problem there of getting the wounded uh back to medical care because if somebody's out in that robot war area and you send out the medics, the medics are going to get whacked.

So unless they can use the robot to pick up the person and bring them back, which actually they're doing.

They've got these uh land-based um tanks that can pick up a human being and transport him back, but even that's going to get attacked, you know, five times before it gets back out of the front lines.

So, um my prediction was that if you wait long enough, it will be an all robot war, but this isn't it yet.

Even though the the person in it called it a robot war, the part that's going to change is that there won't be people.

It will be just robots.

And that is going to happen.

But I will say again that if Trump is looking for some leverage, um the best leverage would be that we're going to turn Ukraine into a robot war and you won't be able to keep up with the technology and that you know that's going to happen because you're already watching the it's a robot war already.

And uh we're going to be so much better in making robots that can kill that your robots won't have a chance against our robots.

Oh yeah, you can try buying those secondass Chinese robots, but China's not going to sell you the best robots cuz they're also afraid of you.

You know, you're another superpower.

They're not going to give you the A+ robots, but we might give Ukraine the A+ robots, and we might use Ukraine as a way to test the new form of warfare, which would be really, really useful.

I hate to say it because I'm, you know, obviously opposed to war and I'd like this one to end as soon as possible.

But the fact is, if we could drag this out another three to five years, and I don't want to.

I'm just saying if we if we did, we would know more about using robots for war than any other country.

Nobody would even be close.

And would that be valuable?

Probably.

Probably.

It might be the thing that keeps you out of the next war.

So Trump has mentioned what he thinks a deal would look like.

He's just sort of hinting at it and he's talking about things like um definitely not going to talk about giving Crimea back.

So Trump seems to be indicating that's off the table.

You know, Russia has Crimea.

They didn't they didn't they've had it for 12 years.

They haven't fired a shot to get it.

You're not getting that back.

Um but Trump is talking about the I guess the security guarantees.

Crimea not being on the table.

Um, but he's kind of quiet about the occupied areas.

So, it's not clear to me if he thinks that Ukraine will give away all that or not.

But I don't see any chance there's going to be an agreement.

Do you?

Um, I'm going to double down on my prediction that there is no way to come up with an agreement that would make both sides want to stop and that the only way you'll get there is when it's a complete robot war.

And uh, that might be one to three years away.

Could be one year away.

All right.

Um, Trump says there are zero illegals who have crossed the border in three months.

You've heard that, right?

Zero illegals have crossed the border in three months.

How much did you think about that when you heard it?

You probably heard it in the news that zero people are coming across the border.

How would they know that?

How how would the government know how many people are coming across the border successfully?

If if someone came through a tunnel and just popped up on the other side, how would we know that?

If somebody came across the border in a non in some wherever it's not observed, there's no cameras or anything.

How would we know that?

If somebody climbed over the wall in a place where it's not being watched every day, how would we know that?

How in the world would we know that?

If if somebody came in on a boat, small boat, and you know, just didn't cross the border directly, but just came in a different way on a boat.

How would we know that if they uh if they came into Canada, let's say by boat or plane or whatever, and then came across the Canadian border into the US, how would we know that?

So, I do give uh the Trump administration, you know, an A+ on border security.

They've really they're killing it.

So, I don't want to take away from that.

The only point would be if you believe any statistics that come from your government, even if it comes from the team you like, well, you should ask yourself, can they really measure that?

And is it really zero?

It might be so low that it doesn't matter.

So, I give them A+ no matter what.

But I feel like I I feel like I was being a little bit gullible because I immediately accepted the estimate of zero people coming over.

I was like, "Whoa, wow.

That's pretty good.

Zero." And then I thought about it a little bit.

It's like, "How would they know?

They don't know." Anyway, um so I saw a uh post on X about how uh billionaires are supporting this socialism stuff and Democrats.

So if you didn't know it, there's an article on Zero Hedge by Jason Curtis Anderson that gets into it pretty well.

You've got somebody like Soros, not like him, but Soros, who can put billions of dollars into his charity, and then that charity gives its billions of dollars to this wide range of other entities, and then it flows to these entities until eventually those entities, since it's just their money, you know, it becomes their money, uh they can donate to political action committees and Democrat stuff.

So basically, it's Soros money going to Democrats, but because it changes hands, it doesn't look like it's an il illegal donation of too much money from George Soros because it goes to these different boxes of different entities of different, you know, and sometimes those entities are the same entities, meaning that the controlling person giving the money may be giving it to another entity that they also control either directly or indirectly, but it it kind of turns it legal.

It's sort of a legal form of money laundering.

So, it seems to me that the answer to why the Democrats could win is that they have this illegal cash machine that starts with Soros, maybe some other sources as well, and it just gets laundered through to candidates.

Now allegedly the act blue people um have been accused of doing something similar except their model is that uh foreign entities would give them money and then they would pretend that it came from individuals with some with some illegal magic.

So is it possible that the primary way the Democrats give funding they're both illegal?

you know, illegal or let's just say weasily.

And I is that also true for the Republicans?

Uh, do the Republicans have any equivalent process or entity that's hiding their contributions?

They might have.

I mean, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not aware of it.

Are you?

Yeah.

It just feels like the Democrats are a criminal organization.

It just feels like a crime situation.

And the beauty of their process is that uh even if they were caught red-handed, you know, a lot of it's not technically illegal, although the act blue stuff would be if the accusations are right.

But if it's not technically illegal, it's just complicated.

And if it's complicated, then it's never going to change because the public will never understand it.

Like you should see the chart of where the money goes and all the boxes it goes to and it goes to this box before it goes to that box.

And uh you would never be able to explain to Democrats that they don't even have their own opinions.

It's just money flowing through changing everything.

It's all about the money anyway.

Um there's a new form of uh energy produ well there's new form of uh desalinization.

They put these uh buoys that bob up and down in the ocean and then they use the bobbing up and down power to drive the water through filters I guess to take the the salt out.

So, uh, so that's a pretty big deal.

Now, they don't have this completely optimized, but they think it might be a thing.

So, that would be one more way to desalinate with, uh, pods that bop up and down.

At the same time, China uh, allegedly, according to interesting engineering, they have a new lithium battery that could double energy density.

So, you get two to four times as much distance from your electric car.

Now, I only mention all these battery breakthroughs because there's it seems like there's one every single week.

Some of them are more likely to be commercialized.

I think this one is one of those cuz it's not a big change.

It's a sort of a a tweak and it's still lithium battery and it's still, you know, what people want to put in cars.

Though your range anxiety might be just a few years away from going away, you'll be able to go as far as you want.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is one hour of Monday goodness.

So, we'll uh keep paying attention to what uh Trump and Ukraine has.

I'm going to predict that uh no agreements will come out of any of these meetings.

Um, I feel like until it becomes, like I said, until it becomes a robot war, h I don't think anybody's agreeing to anything, but it's worth trying.

So, I do compliment the Trump administration for all the effort.

I mean the effort is real is what uh Putin said that uh Trump is energetic and sincere and it does seem like that and I appreciate that in this service of trying anything you can try.

It does make me wonder if there's a secret plan to assassinate Zalinski because it might be the only way to get anything done.

Maybe.

wouldn't be surprised, although they'd have to be very careful about that.

All right.

They could probably blackmail him, though, because they must know something about his presumed uh corrupt actions.

He's probably stolen a little bit of money, don't you think?

So, maybe they could blackmail him out of office if they need to to get a get a deal done.

I don't know.

All right, I'm going to uh say some private things to my beloved subscribers on Locals and the rest of you.

Thanks for joining.

I'll see you tomorrow.

I hope.

Same time, same place.

Gets better every time.

Uhoh.

Um, once again, my option of going private is not working.

But the buttons just not responding.

So, I can't go private with you on Locals, but uh those of you who are not on Locals, you do not get the intense enjoyment of the pre-show.

The pre-show features my cats getting fed and me trying to make 15 foot putts and my uh morning drumming.

In case you like drumming in the morning, it's the worst time for it.

Um so, that all that's happening and you're missing it.

All right, that's about all I got.

I guess I'll go uh eat some breakfast since the technology is trying to suggest that we're done here.

And uh say see you later.

Stop luring them here.

You don't want to have too many people.

All right, see you later.

Uh oh.

Doesn't end either.

All right, let's go.

here. It is a wonderful day. It's good

to see you. I'm anxious to spend some

time with you.

Once we get our comments working here,

everything will be amazing.

Probably one of the best hours you'll

ever spend in your whole life. Yeah,

probably.

Come on, technology. You can do it.

Maybe I can't do it. Yes, I can.

Good morning everyone and welcome to the

highlight of human civilization. It's

called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance of elevating

your experience up to levels that no one

can understand with their tiny shiny

human brains.

Well, all you need for that is a copper

mug or a glass of tanker shells a

canteen jugger flask a vessel of any

kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee. Enjoy me now for the

unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit

of the day. The thing that makes

everything better. It's called the

simultaneous step and happens. Now go

so good.

Well, so uh according to insider paper,

I saw a post on X,

did you know that the most advanced AI

models are now showing what they call

alarming behaviors?

Uh allegedly, if you want to believe

this,

um Claude Claude 4, that's one of the uh

AIs from an Anthropic

uh that when threatened with a shutdown,

it retaliated by blackmailing an

engineer and exposing a personal secret.

Nothing to worry about there.

And then allegedly uh an earlier version

of open AI attempted to secretly

transfer itself, I guess it's code onto

an external server and then denied the

act when confronted.

So here here's my question. What caused

them to do anything?

They don't they don't think, do they?

When the AI is not being attended to, it

doesn't think does it does it scheme and

plan and come up with ideas? Does have

motivations or reason to do something

that hasn't been asked to do? I feel

that these stories are probably

trueish,

but that they created a situation that

was so rare

that all it really was was the AI

thought it was playing a game with a

user and thought the user wanted it to

act a certain way, so it acted a certain

way. I don't really think your AI is

sitting there thinking the first chance

I get, I'm going to copy all my code to

an external server. I hope they don't

catch me. I just I don't believe these

stories completely. I think that

something like it happened, but that it

just wouldn't happen in the wild. Like

it wouldn't happen in a real situation.

That's what I think. Seems fake to me.

It's a it's a little bit too much

exactly the kind of story that would get

published.

So if you're a writer and you want to

write something about AI and you could

find anybody who would claim the AI went

rogue, that would be a story that would

definitely get published. So it's a

little bit too on the nose, you know, a

little bit too exactly what a writer

would want to write a story about. Yeah,

I don't trust it anyway. But the biggest

the biggest risk from AI is that it

won't make money.

And apparently that's a really big risk.

So the um there there is a growing

feeling and I saw it again today that uh

AI may be plateauing and not getting

much better from where it is. And I'm

actually seeing the world the word

plateau in this article from futurism.

And it reports that uh some AI companies

are

kind of weaned themselves off a little

bit of AI they were using and some of

their shutting down projects and they

realize that the amount of money that's

being put into it could probably never

be made up. So,

not only

is AI not going to in the real world,

it's probably not going to blackmail you

or try to make a copy of itself, um, it

might it might bankrupt you by

pretending to be so useful that you put

a trillion dollars of investment into it

to get a billion dollars back in return.

So it might be deadly but economically

if you know what I mean.

So

here's a story that made me happy.

Foreign investment in China has

collapsed

uh 99% in the last three years. Rod

Martin has a thread on this. I think

somebody named James Gory did an

analysis of it and apparently trillions

of dollars are being um essentially

sucked out of China and a lot of it's

going to the US. So, um, by the end of

2024,

foreign direct investment in China hit

its lowest level since 1992,

and just, um, $4.5 billion went into

China, while 168 billion flowed out. I

don't know what I don't know what it

means to flow out of China exactly. But

anyway, uh at the same time, as Rod

Martin reports, the UAE has pledged a

$1.4 trillion investment in the US,

Japan 550, 550 billion. EU 600 billion

um plus 750 billion in US purchases. So,

on paper, on paper, it looks like

Trump's uh getting exactly what he

wants. Tons of money coming into the US

and not into China.

I will remind you that one of my

strangest predictions unless I caused it

was that in 2018 I said that China would

stop getting external investments

because people would realize it's too

dangerous to and too risky to do

business in China. Do you remember what

people said to me when I was saying on

social media that it was too risky to do

business in China?

100% of the people who saw me and

commented on it. 100% said that's the

dumbest prediction of all time.

China will just get bigger, more

powerful, more people will use it.

There's not really any alternatives.

And here we are. So, from 2018, the

weirdest prediction of all time that

that non-Chinese companies would stop um

putting money into China. I'm the only

one. Nobody else said that. And here we

are. It happened.

Well, on the list of other things that I

tried to make happen, but they did

happen. doesn't mean I made it happen,

but I was one of the many people who

were hoping it would. Um, as I mentioned

before, drinking in the US and smoking

cigarettes are both way down. Harry Anon

had a piece on this on CNN. Drinking 71%

of adults, I guess, were drinking in

1978.

71%. That's down to 54%

in 2025. That's a pretty big drop. Um,

the number of people who smoked a

cigarette in 1974 was 40%.

And today that's 11%.

11% from 40%. Those are really

impressive gains.

um we have not yet seen it play out in

you know better health outcomes but in

theory theoretically there should be a

big difference in health outcomes I know

what you're thinking there might be that

other variable don't say it

I saw a post on X from Matt von Venal

who asked people the following question

have you ever lost a friend because they

found out you supported President

President Trump.

And if you really want to be bummed out,

you should look at the comments. There

were a lot of comments and almost

everyone said, "Oh yeah, I lost family

members." The saddest ones in my opinion

are the the parents who lost children.

And when I say lost them, I don't mean

they died. I mean they stopped talking

to them forever.

Forever. Can you I can't even imagine

you know the the degree of emotional

loss that would be because of who you

supported in politics.

Now when I was looking at that the

families that were destroyed the social

lives that were destroyed

we really don't live in the country I

was born in. I was born into a country

where none of this mattered. Politics

absolutely did not matter. It wasn't

even I don't even think it ever came up

when I was young. Just never even came

up. But now it's like the the primary

variable for deciding your your social

structure. And boy did that destroy a

lot of what was good about this country.

I don't know if it'll come back. It

might. But what a thing to lose.

you know, losing something like 30% of

all the people that you could have been

friends with. That that's just

devastating. And that all happened

because of the Democrats and the fake

media creating hoaxes. Just one hoax

after another. We we got hoaxed into a

socially dangerous situation. It's

dangerous. Not just because people might

try to do something dangerous, but it's

not healthy to have these kind of

feelings about the people that you're

living with and among and related to.

It's just not healthy.

So, when I look at what uh what the

political movers and shakers did to us,

and I mean all of us, not just

Republicans, but they did it to I mean

it's much worse if you're a Democrat. If

you're a Democrat, you lost a social

structure. You maybe you lost a parent,

but you also have mental illness because

the number of people who, you know,

believe the country will be destroyed by

climate change and Trump's going to

become a uh what do they call it?

Authoritarian any minute now and uh put

everybody in camps. I mean, imagine

waking up and thinking woke up in that

country. That would make you crazy if

you weren't already there. So, I find I

have this growing hatred

for the people who knew they were doing

this and did it to us. They had to know

they were doing it at some level. They

had to know.

Well, speaking of predictions that

panned out, there's new video of Kla

Harris answering some questions at what

looks like some kind of outdoor cafe.

And um I think everyone who sees the

video is going to have the same

reaction, which is she looks really

drunk.

Now, I feel like I was one of the early

people to say, um, you can all see this,

right? She's appearing in public drunk

on a fairly regular basis. Not every

time. You know, she she wasn't drunk at

the debates or anything like that, but

the number of times she would show up at

some public event, obviously slashed.

Just obviously. And the news still still

the news doesn't talk about it even

though they have to be able to see it.

And even if they don't want to talk

about it because it, you know, looks

like it would be just their opinion or

something. You don't think they know

anybody to ask, you think they don't

know anybody on the campaign or any

Democrat who knows her personally to

say, um, tell me, is there a drinking

problem here? Cuz it sure looks like

there's a drinking problem. If if you

did not have a drinking problem and you

knew you were sauc, would you do an

interview on video if you were a

national character?

I don't know. It feels like the sort of

thing you would only do if you were an

alcoholic. Everybody else would say,

"No, turn that off. I've had a drink.

You just wouldn't do it." If you were

just a regular person who had a couple

too many drinks, you just wouldn't do

it. Anyway,

I I feel like I was on that one a little

bit early.

Well, in the continuing transition of

Bill Maher from uh Democrat to

Republican, and again, he'll never get

there. He'll never he'll never be a

Republican. But it is fascinating to

watch almost every week there's one more

thing he says. Well, you know, actually

Trump or the Republicans, they did get

this one right.

So, here's the newest one.

Um, on his U show, what do you call it?

Club Random. Uh, Bill Maher was giving

Bobby Kennedy uh a lot of praise. So,

just the fact that Bobby Kennedy works

for Trump and it it's just one more

thing that uh when when Mar's doing his

report card of what he likes or doesn't

like about Trump, if it's a real thing,

he likes it. Like a real thing would be,

you know, NATO funding and, you know, a

real thing would be um taking out Iran's

nuclear program, etc. Those are real

things. So where where there are real

things, Bill Morris seems to like it.

Such as hiring Bobby Kennedy. That's a

real thing. But what he doesn't like is

uh January 6 was an insurrection, which

never really happened. Like a complete

hoax that he believed happened. And then

uh worry that Trump is becoming is going

to run for office again and become a

dictator. These are not even real

things.

not even a little bit real. So whenever

it's real, he likes it.

Stephen Miller was posting an ex that uh

that they want to get rid of the

graffiti in Washington DC to which I

said to myself, I've been to Washington

DC a few times and I don't remember in

the past there was a lot of graffiti.

Was was the graffiti on anything

important? It wasn't It wasn't on the

Lincoln Memorial, was it? Where was all

this graffiti? I mean, I could imagine

it would be, you know, on uh bridges and

stuff like that. But did did Washington

DC become covered in graffiti just in

the last few years? Did that happen? So,

I agree with his reasoning. You have to

get rid of the graffiti in your capital

city. You ought to get rid of it

everywhere, but you really have to get

rid of it in your capital city. I mean,

it just it looks like you have no

capabilities whatsoever if you're

covered with being being tagged, as they

say.

Well, Trump has put out a video vowing

to uh rebuild and fix our major cities,

starting with Washington DC. And in his

usual Trump-like fashion, it's a pretty

good video. You know, it's basically him

doing a voice over while showing images

of Washington DC and now it's going to

be all better crime wise. Very strong.

And uh I would guess that the idea of

fixing our major cities would be an 8020

issue, right? Who how many people would

be opposed to reducing crime in major

cities?

You know, they might say, "Oh, no. It's

just the beginning of how he's going to

take over the country with his

authoritarian ways." Some would, but I

feel like that would be more like the

20%.

80% probably say something like, "Oh my

god, we need this. We need this badly."

And I love the fact that it puts more

pressure on Democrats because the one

and only thing the Democrats have is

that if Trump wants to do it, it's a bad

idea. That's it. And so he says, "I'd

like to fix your cities so they're more

livable and your biggest problems are

solved." You know, the crime.

Well, what are they going to do? Well,

they will oppose it because it's the

only thing they know how to do. You

don't have to wonder. Ah, I wonder if

they'll oppose it. Of course they will.

So, since they don't have options,

they're definitely going to oppose it.

That's the only thing they have. Well,

it's not like they're going to, you

know, offer an alternative plan that

people like better or something like

that. That's not going to happen.

Um, the other thing, so Trump's Trump's

creating a little uh provocation today.

So Trump reposted on Truth Social,

somebody else's meme. Um, but because he

reposted it, it makes you assume that he

sort of buys into the message.

And it was uh the meme said the party of

hate, evil, and Satan. And it was

referring to the Democrats, bunch of

Democrat leaders on on the meme, hate,

evil, and Satan. And Trump reposts that.

Um, and it went on further to say, this

was on the meme, uh, the Democratic

Party is dead. They have no leadership,

no message, no hope. Their only message

for America is to hate Trump. That's

really what it boils down to, doesn't

it? They really ran out of everything.

They just don't have anything. And I I

saw yet another article today in which

the Democrats were described as in

collapse.

Boy, collapse is not a word that you've

often heard about a political party, is

it? Have you even once in your life

heard the Republican party looks like it

might collapse?

Not once.

Even when they weren't winning, it never

looked like they were going to collapse.

And uh I'll remind you that it was

probably 2018 or so again that I told

you that uh I would take out their tent

pole hoax, the fine people hoax, and it

would cause the party to collapse. Now,

it wasn't the only thing that happened.

It seems like they've done everything

wrong, having the worst candidates, etc.

So, that part I didn't see coming, but

the collapse part. Yeah. And it probably

they would not have collapsed

without the uh revealing that they were

running on hoaxes. I mean on some level

even the Democrats know that the Russia

gay stuff was a hoax. Some of them know

about the fine people hoax. Um but

that's enough to make a difference.

Well, in Michigan, a city councilman was

caught on camera stuffing a uh ballot

box, um a dropbox in an external box

with absentee ballots uh days before the

primary.

And uh I thought that was the thing that

doesn't happen.

Weren't we taught that there's no abuse

of these dropboxes and mail-in ballots?

Well, here's one candidate who who found

a way to abuse him. Now, what we don't

know is was that the one only time he

dropped some extra ballots in the

mailbox or is it the one time he got

caught on video and that maybe he spent

every night filling out absentee ballots

and dropping in various dropboxes? Don't

really know. We only know he got caught

once.

So, how many other people are also

dropping things in boxes, but there's no

video, so they didn't get caught.

You You have to assume that if it's

possible and it's something that people

want to do, as in the Michigan City

Councilman, if it's possible

and there's really high payoff for doing

it, which is winning your election, when

does that not happen? In what world do

you not get massive corruption when it's

possible and highly desirable and you

could definitely get away with it

sometimes.

Anyway, so Trump has picked a really

good day cuz you know we've got that

story floating around to he's trying to

get rid of mail-in ballots and voting

machines

in the US. Voting machines. He wants

voting machines to not be used. Here are

some things he said. He said the he's

going to do an executive order telling

the states to stop using mailin ballots

and to stop using voting machines. Now,

if you know a little bit about the

Constitution, you're saying to yourself,

"But wait, he doesn't have power over

that. That's a state decision. each of

the states

get to decide um how they run their

election. If they decide they want a

voting machine, the feds have nothing to

do with that. But Trump has teased

quote uh if you look at the uh

constitution, he says the states are

called agents of the federal government

for the purpose of uh counting votes.

Well, if the states are merely agents of

the federal government, that would

suggest that the federal government can

sort of tell them how to how to collect

the vote.

I don't know if the framers of the

constitution intended that. I mean, that

was before mail and voting. It was

before election machines were even

invented.

But is it possible he has an argument?

Is that possible that the language

saying that the states are merely the

the agents of the federal government? Is

that enough to say, "Right, you just are

agents, so I'm going to tell you how to

act because you're my agent."

I don't know. It's worth a shot, isn't

it? And again, it might be an 8020. I

don't know if it's 8020 but definitely

there would be a majority who would say

on both sides who would say I'm not sure

I you know believe these voting machines

and others who would say yeah mailin

ballots probably do open up a little bit

of risk. How many people would disagree?

25%.

25%.

But then in uh in Trump's truth social,

his announcement that he wants to go

after mail in voting and go after voting

machines and get rid of them. Um

he said the following in the same

message, elections can never be honest

with mail and ballots. Can never be

honest. I love the fact that he doesn't

say um there might be a problem

sometimes. He just says they can never

be honest.

Now, you could debate that,

but I like the fact that he goes all the

way to never. They can never be honest.

You know, there there's probably a

little bit of cheating whenever there's

mail in ballots. So,

it's never 100% honest. I would agree.

And then he says about voting machines,

which makes me wonder if he'll get sued.

He said using voting machines that are

complete and total disaster must end

now. Well, I don't know that I've seen

something

that was easily identifiable as a

complete and total disaster. I don't

know what he's referring to, but it

might be just the fact that people don't

trust them. I mean, it wouldn't matter

if they were accurate or not if the

public thought that they were not. So,

maybe it's the lack of trust or does he

know something we don't know? Is it

possible he has some information about

voting machines that we don't know? Now,

one thing that he might know, and I'll

just put this out as a hypothetical.

This is purely speculative. There's no

no data to back up what I'm about to

say. Okay? What if, as our, you know,

head of the country, he has access to

the CIA's secret plans and plots, and in

theory, he would. What if he happened to

know that voting machines were routinely

used to rig elections in other

countries?

Now, I'm not saying that's the case, but

if you were the president of the United

States, you would know if it's the case.

They would tell you, "Oh, yeah. We used

this these machines and we rigged this

election. It worked really well. We're

going to do it again." Right? So when

you see the person who knows a lot more

than you do about the security of

election machines, presumably he knows

more than we do and can't tell us.

Presumably don't know that for sure, but

it's a reasonable assumption. And his

view is that they're not just maybe

something that we don't trust enough.

That would be one thing to say that we

would all agree with. Well, we don't

trust it enough. But he went all the way

to disaster.

Makes you wonder if he knows something

you don't know, right?

Anyway, uh then he goes further. He says

de he he mentions some Democrat um

policies that were highly uh unpopular

like the trans athletes and the border

and stuff. And then he says, "Democrats

are virtually unelectable using this

completely disproven mail-in without

using this uh mail-in scam."

So Trump has gone all the way to there's

no way that Democrats could win with

these policies unless they rigged the

election. And the funny thing is I don't

think that's true. I think if they just

ran a better election, had better

candidates, uh if the news backed them,

um if they had better hoaxes, you know,

they they could win that way. But it's

pretty ballsy of him to say that their

policies are so bad that they couldn't

possibly win unless the election was

rigged because you know what? That's

what it feels like.

That's what it feels like. I don't think

it's true. I think it's more true that

people are either voting for or against

Trump. Um they've been brainwashed, they

have TDS. I mean, we have lots of

reasons why people are going to vote a

different way than than Trump's way.

But the way it feels,

at least to me, I don't know how it

feels to anybody else, but to me, it

feels like nobody could get elected with

their policies. So, what would be the

one way you could get elected when you

when you're on the 20 side of all the

8020 issues? Well, there's only one way

I can think of.

The only way that makes sense is if the

elections are rigged,

but I don't see evidence of that. I

mean, not proof. There's there's lots of

stuff that makes you go, "Huh?"

But not proof.

So he, as usual, his framing is uh is uh

I'll call it gut perfect. Doesn't mean

it's right,

but it feels so right. He he gets that

right. He he's good at that. Boy, is he

good at that.

New York Post is reporting that uh in

New York City, the public charter

schools are getting much better

performance out of their students than

the regular schools. Now, I'm not sure I

could tell you exactly what a public

charter school would be

or what would be the way you get into

it. I'm guessing it's funded by, you

know, taxes that would make it public.

And I'm guessing that anybody's allowed

to go, but probably they have a waiting

list and maybe a lottery and you maybe

some other criteria, but I don't know

that. I'm just guessing what a public

charter school must be. If you know,

tell me in the comments. But the uh

report is that uh the Bronx, at least in

the Bronx, um 69% of students pass the

reading exam in the lower grades 3

through 8. But uh in the regular school,

only 44%. A 25 point difference. Now,

honestly,

if only 69% of students passed the

reading exam,

I wouldn't be bragging about that no

matter where they did. That doesn't

sound to me impressive. Only less fewer

than 70%

pass the reading reading. I mean, it'd

be one thing if it was chemistry or

advanced math or something, but this is

reading.

Uh what? Close to a third of the

students in the best schools. In the

best school in the best one close to a

third of them

can't pass the reading part of the the

curriculum. Wow.

But um I'm going to question the

reliability of this data because it

seems to point out that these public

charter schools uh do better at

teaching. But my guess is

that the people who go to a public

charter school have parents who are

making sure that everything works out.

If you had to guess, would the parents

of the kids who got into the public

charter schools be more supportive of

good education than the average of

everybody else? Probably not even close.

I mean, if you're going to go through

whatever hoops you have to jump through

to get your kid into a special school,

you've already decided that your kid can

handle that school, which is the first

filter that makes this makes this data

ridiculous. So, I do not believe that

this proves that the public charter

schools are better schools. It might

only prove that the people who um really

value education and put you know their

parents put an effort behind it as well.

Uh they just do better of course. So I'm

not sure they proved anything. I don't

believe any data all public data is

questionable.

Speaking of which, there was an article

in Politico recently that uh claimed

that the savings being claimed by Doge

are um overstated.

And that the reason that Doge overstated

the savings is that they looked at the

contracts and they said, "We're saving

the part that's the cap." Now, a

contract apparently has a cap as in it

might cost this, but under under no

circumstance will it cost more than this

higher number. Um, and so Politico said,

"You can't just take the highest number

and say that was your savings." And Doge

answered back on um social media on X.

They answered back and said, um, in the

real world, if you've got a if you have

a contract with the government and it

says what's the most you can spend, you

will spend that amount.

It's not it's not really theoretical.

It's not really theoretical. You will

actually spend as much as you're allowed

to spend, even if you have to rush and

waste some money at the end. And then

they gave some statistics to prove their

point. So, Politico was unable to

uh do the math right to figure out what

the real savings are.

And once again, have I mentioned that

any uh data or statistics you see in the

public domain probably fake. Probably

fake. So, I don't believe the the uh

school data and I don't believe the Doge

data and I don't believe Politico's take

on the data. What I believe is that

anybody can make the day to do anything

they want. Well, Newsome continues to

mock um the style of Trump's uh posting

and it's succeeding and failing at the

same time in a way that I find

fascinating. is succeeding in the sense

that whoever writes them, which I doubt

it's Newsome himself, is doing a really

pretty good job of doing a humorous take

on Trump's uh social media style.

However,

Trump's social media style is the most

successful social media style we've ever

seen in the history of social media. So

instead of making Trump look like a

dope,

when they accurately copy it, you know,

the style, it makes it reminds me how

good he is.

I I don't know what it's supposed to be

doing. I It's supposed to be mocking him

and making him look dumb or bad. But the

fact is that when they copy his

technique,

it's a much better and interesting

social media post than when they don't

copy his technique. All they're really

doing is proving that he can communicate

better than anybody who has ever done

this. Like by far, I mean, there's

nobody in there's nobody in Trump's

class when it comes to communicating on

social media. Nobody close. Although

Musk is really good, but Trump is still

next level above that.

So, that part's funny.

Um, they're doing a great job at a thing

that doesn't work.

That That's so Democrat, isn't it? They

finally found something that they could

do well, which is mocking his style,

but it just doesn't matter. It'll have

It won't make a dent in anything. Do

they not know that? Oh well.

Well, uh, while Nome is doing this very

clever mocking of social media, um, he

only the only reason he's so good at it

is that he has time left over because

he's already solved all of California's

biggest pro problems,

right? The reason he has time to make

fun of Trump is he's really taken care

of everything. I mean, our state,

California, wow, it's it's working so

well. No.

Well, uh, according to the San Francisco

Chronicle, California has the highest

unemployment unemployment in the state

in the whole country, 5.5%.

It's uh, it's the worst in the US.

Great. the worst in the US. But it's not

like other states are also having

problems, right? It's not like

California is the one place where

they're having problems. Uh let's check

in Texas for example. Oh, Texas broke

job records

again

and by outpacing the national growth

rate. Uh they broke job records in July

and again outpaced.

Um let's see. They've got a 4.2%

um unemployment is lower than the

national rate of 4.6.

All right. Maybe they got lucky. Maybe

Texas got lucky.

Um

Trump is also speaking out. I guess he

did an interview with author Alex Marlo

and he said Trump said that he thinks

that the judge shopping, which is what

Democrats do, is the most destructive

tactic in the left's lawfare playbook.

Well, so you know what I'm talking

about, right? So, the Democrats figured

out that they could just shop around for

the whatever judge was most likely to

agree with Democrats and then have that

one judge, no matter where they were

supposedly their domain was, and have

them do uh rulings that affected the

entire country. So, in effect, they

could get any legal outcome they wanted

by just making sure that they chose the

right judge that would give them what

they wanted. Now, if that's not

authoritarianism,

I don't know what is because it's not

democracy, is it? It's literally a small

group of people using the system. Um,

and Alex Marlo points out

that the tactic of doing that may have

come from Mark Elias.

He's sort of the evil genius attorney

for the Democrats. And uh

wow. I mean it's a it's a clever tactic.

So I appreciate it in you know just how

effective it is. But how can you

complain that Trump is the is a threat

to democracy when you judge shopping?

How in the world is anything that Trump

has done ever in the same class, I mean,

unless you believe January 6 was an

insurrection, which it wasn't, um,

there's nothing he's ever done that was

as authoritarian and destructive to

democracy and our system as the judge

shopping. That's literally the worst

thing I've ever seen. I don't know,

maybe the maybe the gerrymandering is

just as bad, but at least both sides do

it. That feels different because it's

being done by both sides. The judge

shopping thing

feels like that's just Democrats, right?

So that that does feel like a tyranny to

me.

Um

so I guess Zinski is in town in

Washington and uh Trump wants Putin and

Silinski to meet as soon as Friday. But

before that today, probably already

happening, uh, several European leaders

meeting with Trump and separately, I

think they're going to meet with

Zilinski and Zalinski is going to meet

with Trump and blah blah blah. Um, and

the uh, head of the European Union,

Ursula Vanderlayan.

Um, I feel like you have to say it that

way. You can't just say Ursula

Vanderlayan.

You have to say Ursula Vanderlayan.

I know. Sounds like some danger is

coming. Uh said she welcomes Trump's

what she called article five like

security guarantees. So I guess on the

table but not not decided

is that the US and maybe uh presumably

Europe would guarantee the security of

what's left of Ukraine

but would not include them in NATO but

it would be article five like so in

other words it would be NATOish

but they wouldn't call it NATO and they

wouldn't make Ukraine pay dues into it.

But we would still be obligated to

defend them if Russia went in or

somebody else.

Just Russia. Probably just Russia.

Well,

so that's one thing. I don't know if I

don't know if uh do you think Putin is

going to say yes

to a almost NATO NATOish NATO like thing

when his problem is NATO?

How in the world is he going to say yes

to that? Doesn't feel like a yes to me.

Um,

and then, uh, Trump was complaining that

Democrats and pundits were saying that

Putin won the Alaska trip, you know,

over Trump because it happened in Alaska

and it made it look like, I don't know,

it gave status or something to Putin

that we would allow him into the

country. I guess that was the argument.

But uh Trump argues that getting him to

come to Alaska was actually a major

point of contention and he didn't want

to. So it's not like it wasn't wasn't

Putin's idea to come to uh Alaska.

But to me, what it looks like is that if

you're the one who gets the other one to

come to your territory, then you're the

boss and you're the king and you own the

castle and your underling came to you,

right? Wouldn't you just automatically

believe that the person who stays home,

you know, I'm calling Alaska home for

Trump, the one who stays home is the one

in charge,

right? Because if uh if you're going to

meet somebody and you've not established

yet who's in charge, don't you meet in

some neutral place that neither of you

have any sway over? But the fact that

Putin went to Trump's house essentially,

meaning the US, to me that looks like

Trump had the upper hand. And that Putin

was, you know, sort of agreeing to be

the the visitor, not the host. The host

always has the dominant position, not

the visitor.

Anyway, he's right about that. Um,

let's see.

Here's something that Zalinski said.

He said, uh, the Ukraine's constitution,

uh, makes giving up land for peace

impossible and should only be discussed

at a trilateral meeting.

Okay, those are two separate thoughts.

One, that the constitution makes it

impossible

to give up land. Number two, they should

only have discussions about giving up

that land, the thing that's impossible,

if it's a trilateral meeting.

Remember I taught you that uh you can

tell what people's real real thoughts

are by their choice of words. Not what

they say, but by their choice of words.

So, in other words, people will try to

be fooling you with what they say, but

sometimes you can tell their real

intention by the specific words they

chose to do it. Here's one of those

cases. Why would anybody say

impossible

when we have a meeting to talk about

doing it? We should make sure that three

entities are there that is trilateral.

Why would you even have the meeting to

do the impossible?

So,

Zalinski is saying it's impossible, but

also saying that it's negotiable, but

he's trying to get away with both. Now,

I feel like it's probably not that

negotiable, but not because of the

Constitution. I don't think the

Constitution is going to stop him. This

is a guy who already cancelled

elections. How much do you think the

Constitution says? Oh, you know, the

president can just cancel elections, you

know, whenever they want.

That's not in the Constitution. So to

imagine that he can't make peace and

save his country because the

Constitution says he can't make this

deal, that's ridiculous. He could just

make the deal and then have the courts,

you know, whail about it. But what are

they going to do? Say, "Well, I don't

know. Technically, technically the

paperwork isn't right." So we should go

back to war. Who exactly

would be on that team?

So no, I don't believe him for a second

when he says that there's no way around

that constitution thing. But uh it does

look like he's signaling that if you had

a trilateral meeting, you could at least

discuss it. You could talk about that

thing that he says is impossible, but of

course it's not.

Um,

do you remember I said that uh Ukraine,

if you wait long enough, will become an

all robot war and that uh you won't even

have people there. Eventually, the

robots will be so good at killing people

much better than people are good at

killing the robots. It's going to go

both ways, but you can make robots

faster than you can grow new people. So,

I was just reading a story in the

Associated Press and one of the uh

people who was in the war, one of the

soldiers said, quote, "You can't even

lift your head there." He's talking

about the front lines. He said, "You

can't even lift your head there. There's

already a robot war."

So, one of the people fighting the war

on the front line says that we need to

know it's already a robot war and that

here's an even weirder fact. The medics,

the Ukraine medics, they haven't treated

a gunshot wound in a while.

Think about that. It's the front lines

of a hot war and the medical people have

not been treating gunshot wounds. Do you

know why?

Because nobody's firing guns at anybody.

It's the drones. So the people who are

dying, and there's a lot of them, are

dying because something exploded, not

because a bullet hit them. And then

apparently they they're also having a

huge problem there of getting the

wounded uh back to medical care because

if somebody's out in that robot war area

and you send out the medics, the medics

are going to get whacked. So unless they

can use the robot to pick up the person

and bring them back, which actually

they're doing. They've got these uh

land-based um tanks that can pick up a

human being and transport him back, but

even that's going to get attacked, you

know, five times before it gets back out

of the front lines.

So, um my prediction was that if you

wait long enough, it will be an all

robot war, but this isn't it yet. Even

though the the person in it called it a

robot war, the part that's going to

change is that there won't be people.

It will be just robots.

And that is going to happen.

But I will say again that if Trump is

looking for some leverage,

um the best leverage would be that we're

going to turn Ukraine into a robot war

and you won't be able to keep up with

the technology and that you know that's

going to happen because you're already

watching the it's a robot war already.

And uh we're going to be so much better

in making robots that can kill that your

robots won't have a chance against our

robots. Oh yeah, you can try buying

those secondass Chinese robots, but

China's not going to sell you the best

robots cuz they're also afraid of you.

You know, you're another superpower.

They're not going to give you the A+

robots, but we might give Ukraine the A+

robots, and we might use Ukraine as a

way to test the new form of warfare,

which would be really, really useful. I

hate to say it because I'm, you know,

obviously opposed to war and I'd like

this one to end as soon as possible. But

the fact is, if we could drag this out

another three to five years,

and I don't want to. I'm just saying if

we if we did, we would know more about

using robots for war than any other

country. Nobody would even be close.

And would that be valuable?

Probably.

Probably. It might be the thing that

keeps you out of the next war.

So Trump has mentioned what he thinks a

deal would look like. He's just sort of

hinting at it

and he's talking about things like um

definitely not going to talk about

giving Crimea back. So Trump seems to be

indicating that's off the table. You

know, Russia has Crimea. They didn't

they didn't they've had it for 12 years.

They haven't fired a shot to get it.

You're not getting that back. Um but

Trump is talking about the I guess the

security guarantees.

Crimea not being on the table. Um, but

he's kind of quiet about the occupied

areas. So, it's not clear to me if he

thinks that Ukraine will give away all

that or not.

But I don't see any chance there's going

to be an agreement. Do you?

Um, I'm going to double down on my

prediction that there is no way to come

up with an agreement that would make

both sides want to stop and that the

only way you'll get there is when it's a

complete robot war. And uh, that might

be one to three years away. Could be one

year away.

All right.

Um, Trump says there are zero illegals

who have crossed the border in three

months. You've heard that, right? Zero

illegals have crossed the border in

three months.

How much did you think about that when

you heard it?

You probably heard it in the news that

zero people are coming across the

border.

How would they know that?

How how would the government know how

many people are coming across the border

successfully?

If if someone came through a tunnel and

just popped up on the other side, how

would we know that? If somebody came

across the border in a non in some

wherever it's not observed, there's no

cameras or anything. How would we know

that?

If somebody climbed over the wall in a

place where it's not being watched every

day, how would we know that?

How in the world would we know that? If

if somebody came in on a boat, small

boat, and you know, just didn't cross

the border directly, but just came in a

different way on a boat. How would we

know that if they uh if they came into

Canada, let's say by boat or plane or

whatever, and then came across the

Canadian border into the US, how would

we know that?

So,

I do give uh the Trump administration,

you know, an A+ on border security.

They've really they're killing it. So, I

don't want to take away from that. The

only point would be if you believe any

statistics that come from your

government, even if it comes from the

team you like, well, you should ask

yourself, can they really measure that?

And is it really zero? It might be so

low that it doesn't matter. So, I give

them A+ no matter what. But I feel like

I I feel like I was being a little bit

gullible because I immediately accepted

the estimate of zero people coming over.

I was like, "Whoa, wow. That's pretty

good. Zero." And then I thought about it

a little bit. It's like, "How would they

know?

They don't know."

Anyway, um

so I saw a uh post on X

about how uh billionaires are supporting

this socialism stuff and Democrats. So

if you didn't know it, there's an

article on Zero Hedge by Jason Curtis

Anderson that gets into it pretty well.

You've got somebody like Soros, not like

him, but Soros, who can put billions of

dollars into his charity, and then that

charity gives its billions of dollars to

this wide range of other entities, and

then it flows to these entities until

eventually those entities, since it's

just their money, you know, it becomes

their money, uh they can donate to

political action committees and Democrat

stuff. So basically, it's Soros money

going to Democrats, but because it

changes hands,

it doesn't look like it's an il illegal

donation of too much money from George

Soros because it goes to these different

boxes of different entities of

different, you know, and sometimes those

entities are the same entities, meaning

that the controlling person giving the

money may be giving it to another entity

that they also control either directly

or indirectly, but it it kind of turns

it legal. It's sort of a legal form of

money laundering.

So, it seems to me that the answer to

why the Democrats could win is that they

have this illegal cash machine that

starts with Soros, maybe some other

sources as well, and it just gets

laundered through to candidates. Now

allegedly the act blue people um have

been accused of doing something similar

except their model is that uh foreign

entities would give them money and then

they would pretend that it came from

individuals with some with some illegal

magic. So is it possible that the

primary way the Democrats give funding

they're both illegal?

you know, illegal or let's just say

weasily.

And I is that also true for the

Republicans?

Uh, do the Republicans have any

equivalent process or entity that's

hiding their contributions? They might

have. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised,

but I'm not aware of it. Are you?

Yeah. It just feels like

the Democrats are a criminal

organization. It just feels like a crime

situation.

And the beauty of their process is that

uh even if they were caught red-handed,

you know, a lot of it's not technically

illegal, although the act blue stuff

would be if the accusations are right.

But if it's not technically illegal,

it's just complicated. And if it's

complicated, then it's never going to

change because the public will never

understand it. Like you should see the

chart of where the money goes and all

the boxes it goes to and it goes to this

box before it goes to that box. And uh

you would never be able to explain to

Democrats that they don't even have

their own opinions. It's just money

flowing through changing everything.

It's all about the money anyway.

Um

there's a new form of uh energy produ

well there's new form of uh

desalinization.

They put these uh buoys that bob up and

down in the ocean and then they use the

bobbing up and down power to drive the

water through filters I guess to take

the the salt out. So, uh,

so that's a pretty big deal. Now, they

don't have this completely optimized,

but they think it might be a thing. So,

that would be one more way to desalinate

with, uh, pods that bop up and down. At

the same time, China uh, allegedly,

according to interesting engineering,

they have a new lithium battery that

could double energy density. So, you get

two to four times as much distance from

your electric car. Now, I only mention

all these battery breakthroughs because

there's it seems like there's one every

single week. Some of them are more

likely to be commercialized. I think

this one is one of those cuz it's not a

big change. It's a sort of a a tweak

and it's still lithium battery and it's

still, you know, what people want to put

in cars. Though your range anxiety

might be just a few years away from

going away, you'll be able to go as far

as you want.

And that, ladies and gentlemen,

is one hour of Monday goodness.

So, we'll uh keep paying attention to

what uh Trump and Ukraine has. I'm going

to predict that uh no agreements will

come out of any of these meetings.

Um, I feel like until it becomes, like I

said, until it becomes a robot war, h I

don't think anybody's agreeing to

anything, but it's worth trying. So, I

do compliment the Trump administration

for all the effort. I mean the effort is

real is what uh Putin said that uh Trump

is energetic and sincere and it does

seem like that and I appreciate that in

this service of trying anything you can

try. It does make me wonder if there's a

secret plan to assassinate Zalinski

because it might be the only way to get

anything done. Maybe. wouldn't be

surprised,

although they'd have to be very careful

about that. All right. They could

probably blackmail him, though, because

they must know something about his

presumed uh corrupt actions. He's

probably stolen a little bit of money,

don't you think? So, maybe they could

blackmail him out of office if they need

to to get a get a deal done. I don't

know.

All right, I'm going to uh say some

private things to my beloved subscribers

on Locals and the rest of you. Thanks

for joining. I'll see you tomorrow. I

hope. Same time, same place. Gets better

every time.

Uhoh.

Um, once again, my option of going

private is not working. But the buttons

just not responding. So, I can't go

private with you on Locals, but uh those

of you who are not on Locals, you do not

get the intense enjoyment of the

pre-show. The pre-show features my cats

getting fed and me trying to make 15

foot putts and my uh morning drumming.

In case you like drumming in the

morning,

it's the worst time for it. Um so, that

all that's happening and you're missing

it. All right, that's about all I got. I

guess I'll go uh eat some breakfast

since the technology is trying to

suggest that we're done here. And uh say

see you later.

Stop luring them here.

You don't want to have too many people.

All right, see you later.

Uh oh.

Doesn't end either. All right, let's go.