Episode 3004 CWSA 10/30/25

Come on in.

We'll give you the show that you deserve today for the first time.

All right.

Well, I'm lost in the locals menus and cannot determine any way that I can see my own show.

Let's see.

I'll close locals on that screen.

Reopen.

It should open right up to where I want.

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

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

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker chalice or ste a canteen jugger flask of vessel of any kind filled with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called, that's right, the simultaneous sip.

and it happens.

Now, if you're wondering why I'm using two hands for my cup, it's cuz my hands are semi paralyzed at the moment.

Thanks to something that's going on with my body.

went to the uh I told the local subscribers before I got on here, I went to the emergency room yesterday on my doctor's orders because of the growing paralysis in my hands.

And the emergency room sent me home without the MRI cuz they said this is no emergency.

We're not allowed to use the MRI unless it's an emergency.

And I said, "My doctor's here." She even emailed ahead to make sure you knew what you were going to do so that you would do it.

Yeah, but upper back.

It's not an emergency.

I'm getting paralyzed.

I can barely move one hand.

Yeah, but you're not dying.

So, guy with a snake bike came in.

He didn't do much better, but I think he I think they saved his life.

Anyway, so today is the first day I get my um radiation treatment.

It'll just be a spot treatment for the the one place that bothering me in my lower body.

It would not be a treatment for whatever is happening is my paralysis.

But the plator might help with that if I ever get it scheduled.

So that's the update.

I'd like to start with a reframe to change your life.

As you know, the reframes in my book, Reframe Your Brain, change people's lives with one sentence.

Although each person is different, so the sentence that changes your life will be different than the one that changes somebody else's.

But maybe maybe today's your day.

Let's see.

Here's a usual frame.

Um people tell you that you should compete against yourself.

Have you ever heard that?

They'll say, you know, no, no, no.

You're not competing against other people.

You're just trying to do better than you do.

Have you ever heard that advice?

Very common advice.

Bad advice.

Here's some better advice.

I'm going to reframe it.

Instead of competing with yourself and trying to improve over time, which sounds like a good idea, you can do better.

Compete against other people.

You'll do better.

if you compete against other people.

But here's the trick.

Even if they're unaware that you're competing with them, so you don't have to tell them you're competing with them.

Could be a co-orker, could be, you know, classmate or something, but you just tell yourself, "Okay, I'm going to beat that one.

That one I'm going to beat." And then you've got a target.

You've got something specific.

And uh you're far more likely to accomplish something specific than something generic.

Like everybody knows that, right?

So if you say, "I'm going to beat that person on that chemistry test." Even if they don't know you're competing, it's going to help you compete.

So that's your reframe of the day.

Good for young people especially.

All right, let me make sure I got all your comments.

Yes, I do.

Well, according to somebody named Lara Weed, best last name I could ever imagine, Lara Weed.

Uh, anyway, she's a circadian research lab person from Stanford, so she knows what she's talking about.

And there's a new study that says you shouldn't change the time.

You know how we do this standard versus daylight time.

But here's the new wrinkle.

Uh so so changing the time is bad for people's circadian rhythms and they have health problems and other problems.

Uh but it's bad no matter how you change it.

So if you stuck with daylight versus standard time, it would still be better than if you changed it twice a year.

So it's the change that's the problem.

But on top of that, um, keeping things at standard time would be the least burden on your circadian rhythms.

So, at least according to one study, not that we trust science anymore, but something to talk about, uh, that keeping it on standard time would be the healthiest.

So, we don't know.

Well, according to Dr.

Peter Diamandis, who I see on X, I follow on X.

Um, I guess chemo may be something that we won't need anymore for skin cancer because there's a new research.

Scientists say they can kill 92% of skin cancer cells using an LED light without damaging healthy cells.

H, that sounds pretty good.

Uh, what will Democrats say about the development of LED light to fight cancer?

What will they say?

Well, we already know what they'll say.

Democrats will say, "Why would you use household disinfectants and bleach to kill cancer?" And then I would say, "What?

Nobody said anything about bleach." Yeah, you just said bleach will cure your cancer.

No, nobody even used the word.

Nobody even used the word.

No, we're talking about light.

From the beginning to end, we're talking about light.

Yeah.

Were you?

Cuz the news said that you said bleach would do it.

Do you all remember the the uh drinking bleach hoax, which was exactly it was done exactly the same way as the fine people hoax?

In both cases, the the hoax was because you cut off the clarifier when Trump said, "But I'm, you know, but I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis.

They should be condemned totally." You take that off and it reverses what he said.

with the uh the drinking bleach thing.

If you take off the beginning where where Trump said he was talking about light and then you take off the clarifier at the end where he again emphasizes he was only talking about light.

If you take those clarifiers off, it allowed the news to say that he was talking about household disinfectants or bleach because the other people had talked about it before.

It's the same hoax.

So, it's funny to see that uh there's yet another light treats a disease will CNN reported as why would you put bleach on your skin?

No, they won't because Trump didn't say it.

According to interesting engineering, uh now we can make art, we like you and I can do it.

Somebody can make uh artificial neurons that replicate real brain chemistry.

And you would do that because it might be another way to get to AI.

How many times have I told you that our current big AI models, the large language models, will never get you to general intelligence.

They'll just sort of be able to do what they can do now, but maybe a little bit better.

They're they're not really going to get over the hump to be like a thinking conscious anything.

It doesn't have that potential in my opinion.

But there are a whole bunch of other AI approaches that are being uh rapidly prototyped at least because I think people know that there's a limit to the large language models.

And so the this neuron replicator was specifically so they can build a better AI with a completely different you know completely different method.

I I think I've read several now there are several different approaches that all have that same quality which is they're not regular LLMs.

They're a completely different approach because I think that would get you to advanced general intelligence.

So if I had to bet I would bet that the LLMs are going to get leapfrogged by some smaller entity and then they'll get bought up pretty quickly.

But uh if some smaller entity could do that, you know, do the whole large language model without a trillion dollars, you know, if they could do it for a $100, some trillion dollar company's going to buy them pretty quickly.

So that'll happen.

Uh as you know, Elon Musk has said, and I like repeating it because every time I hear it, it makes me happy.

The Optimus, the robots that Tesla is going to make and and it's making already um will cost less than a car, 20 to $30,000 eventually.

But here's the fun part.

Elon says it will be able to do anything you want.

Well, anything.

I don't know about anything, but it could teach, babysit your kids, walk your dog, mow your lawn, get groceries, serve drinks, or just be your friend.

Whatever you can think of, it will do.

I can think of a lot of things.

It's going to be awesome.

And I think this will be the biggest product of ever of any kind.

Now that's that's the exciting part that that we could be you know watching the greatest product innovation rollout trend of all time of all history and we're going to get to watch it I think.

Uh, but this would suggest that Elon Musk thinks that he has a version of AI that can get to something like general intelligence because that's what he's describing here.

The LLMs would never get you to a robot that could do with that stuff.

It just isn't just the wrong technology.

But he uses uh visual training.

So, he's doing a lot of visual training and I think some probably some artificial worlds training, too.

So, it looks like he thinks he has a path and if he says he has a path, I would not doubt him.

Um, did you know that uh in addition to drugs that are uh uh what do you call them?

Generics.

So, you know, we have generic drugs, but the pharma would wish we didn't because if if there were no such thing as generics, then they could forever have a monopoly on, you know, their IP, their their property.

But over time, their IP times out and then there can be a generic for the drug.

But did you know there's a separate category of drugs and I'm not smart enough to know what's in the category, but the biologics?

Biologics.

So that's a category of drugs.

But apparently the uh according to RFK Jr.

who just did a an announcement about it.

Apparently the pharma was doing a great job of marketing and persuading Congress not to allow knockoffs of their biologics.

And the argument was that nobody would be able to make a proper copy.

That's sort of like magic and wizardry and you more like making a fine wine and you couldn't let anybody knock off the biologics because it might be dangerous and ineffective.

And somehow they sold that.

Meaning that if you tried to make a imitation or copy of one of these biologics that had, you know, had lost its copyright protection or whatever protection has um that you could you couldn't do it because they had put too many obstacles in the way.

But, uh, apparently there's going to be a rules change and President Trump's going to sign something that would allow, um, companies to compete for this big category of biologics.

And that would be, in my opinion, a huge win for RFK Jr.

because it's not the sort of thing that necessarily would have even come up had he not been, you know, running the show.

So, not only did he identify a problem that has potentially enormous economic value to consumers, um, but it looks like he acted, identified the problem, acted, solved.

I mean, I'm sure it's nothing's that easily solved, but looks like a win to me.

ONN is reporting on that.

Well, meanwhile, NASA is reportedly building or it's well along the way of building a quiet supersonic jet.

So, something that doesn't go bam when it crosses the sound barrier.

This one goes thud.

Uh a more a more uh let's say acceptable noise in the atmosphere.

And they're already they're already testing.

It's already built and they're doing test flights and it works.

And if it works and if it brings in a new era of uh air travel, it could reduce the time that you go across the country to I don't know maybe half.

So imagine flying from, you know, California to New York in 3 hours instead of sixish.

That'd be a pretty big change.

Imagine uh you know, I live in California.

Most of the Californians who have a little extra money like to go to Hawaii.

That's sort of our the the closest, you know, tropical looking place.

Imagine instead of 6 hours to Hawaii, it's three.

It completely changes the experience for me.

For me, any kind of travel, you know, when I could travel, uh, was all about the time you had to be in the plane.

If you can reduce the time when you're on the plane, I'm all in.

But if you're gonna tell me I need to be on a plane for 14 hours to go to, you know, Bora Bora or something, I can't do 28 hours of sitting on a plane there and back.

But if you cut it in half, yeah, suddenly suddenly it looks kind of practical.

All right, so we'll wait for that.

Supersonic flights allegedly according to Dr.

Singularity, who's got some news on X.

Um, number of the big AI companies have built an artificial simulated fusion reactor situation.

So, allegedly, I'm a little skeptical about this one, but let me tell you what it is.

That uh, you know, we've been trying to get fusion energy, but it's really complicated and hard.

We know we can do it because it's now fusion as a technology is a proven technology but not not engineered to economic success yet.

So there's an economic iteration process has to go through.

We don't need to prove it can work.

We're already past that.

We just need to engineer it so it does work and it's reliable and safe.

Fusion should be safer if you do it right.

should be safer than than Fision, but uh except for the Gen 4.

And uh so Nvidia and some other big companies have allegedly gotten together and built an artificial fusion situation so that they can iterate a bunch of different things within a a virtual world and then that will tell them what to do in the real world.

Now, do you believe that they can they do you believe that they can't build a fusion reactor yet that's you know meets all the requirements but that they could build an accurate AI simulation of it.

Does that sound like something people could do?

I'm going to say no.

Sorry.

I'm going to say no.

I don't think people could do that.

It might teach us something or it might you it might you maybe pop up a possibility that we had not considered but I don't think it would accurately simulate it do you?

And how would you know if it accurately simulated it cuz we can't do it in the real world.

So what would you compare it to to know that it had accurately simulated it so you weren't wasting your time seeing what the simulation would do?

So, let's just say, call me skeptical.

All right.

Uh, have you heard of my book, Loser Think?

Let Let me grab it off the shelf.

Hold on.

Oh, there it is.

coming.

>> Sorry, I meant to be more prepared.

So, my book lose or think uh has many examples of how to poorly think so that you know not to do it.

One of the one of the more important points in the book is what I call word thinking.

Have you heard me talk about that before?

Word thinking.

So word thinking is where you're trying to make an argument that really just forces the other person to accept your definition of a word as opposed to an argument.

So word thinking is is is the opposite of being rational and the opposite of making an argument.

is just trying to browbe somebody into accepting that the word you're using for a thing is the right word because that carries the argument with it if you buy the word.

For example, if they can sell you that Gaza was a genocide, then they don't need to make an argument.

If if you accept the word, they're done, right?

But it's really, you know, more complicated than it is or is not a word.

There's a whole backstory.

There's a context, there's everything.

So whenever you see somebody trying to force you to take their word as their definition, that's just propaganda.

That's just power.

That has nothing to do with what's right or wrong or logical.

Now, what do Democrats say about the government shutdown?

Well, Governor Nuome's press office says, quote, "If you control all three branches of government, how are you not in charge?" So, they're using the word control as the word that they want you to accept.

If you accept control, then you have accidentally accepted that that the Republicans are the ones that can open the government all by themselves, right?

It's there's no argument there.

They just want you to accept control.

If you buy into the definition of who's in control and they've defined it as, you know, who's got control of the three po parts of the government, then you are in control and therefore logically only you can open the government.

Now, everybody who pays attention to the news knows that the Democrats would have to vote for it also in at least large enough numbers to get it passed, and they're not.

So the Democrats have complete control because all they have to do is say yes and the government opens because the because the Republicans have already said yes to a continuing resolution which is would get it done.

Now you may have seen Jessica Charles arguing on the five the same the same point and what she does is she uses a wording substitution.

Uh, I think the word she used, if I remember, was incumbent.

She said that if you're the one who owns all the if you're in control of the three branches of government, as Republicans are, that it is incumbent upon you to negotiate with the minority, the Democrats, and give them something in return for them agreeing to open the government.

Now, do you see the word thinking there?

That's word thinking.

There's no argument there.

>> >> She's trying to replace an argument with a word incumbent.

It's incumbent upon you.

But where is the connecting tissue?

Where's the logic that says that uh you've got two teams.

One team has already said yes to open the government.

The other team has not yet said yes.

Why would it be incumbent on the ones who have already said yes to give something away when they've already agreed to do the thing that's the thing which is open the government and pay for it?

They've already agreed.

They're not there's no incumbent to anything.

Who wrote that rule that is there something in the Constitution about what makes you incumbent?

Now, I hope I'm using the right word.

Was it incumbent the the word she used on the five?

I I didn't write it down, but I from memory I think that's what but if it's not incumbent it's a word like that.

So it's the same point even if it's a different word.

So how many of you recognize this now?

How many of you recognize that this was always word thinking and that's all it ever was?

And and that uh a great deal of the Democrat uh narratives and approaches are this.

They just try to get you to buy into a word.

What are some other words the Democrats are trying to get you accept insurrection when they talk about January 6th?

They don't want to give an argument because the argument would go like this.

What did those people want to accomplish?

Oh, they thought the election was rigged and they were trying to pause it to make sure that we had a fair election.

That's what an actual argument would look like.

But if you can't win the argument, you try to do it with word thinking.

You say, "It's an insurrection." Well, no, not really.

Because that was not the intention of any of the people who had attended.

It was an insurrection.

Yeah, but it really wasn't.

So, so if you get into the arguing over what the word means, then they have a chance of at least a tie because people who don't pay attention to the news will think, well, half of them say it's an insurrection and half of them say it's not sort of a tie, so I'll just go with my team that says it is.

It's not a tie.

It's not even close to a tie.

There probably wasn't one person there who thought that they could take over the government by walking around unarmed and a and trespassing.

Not one person thought that that would take over the government.

Anyway, so that's what word thinking is when there's no argument, but they're trying to get you to accept their words.

Meanwhile, Trump's been over in Asia trying to making deals.

I guess he might have made a deal for some soybeans.

I I can't tell if this is a good deal or a bad deal, but 25 million tons uh and 12 million tons immediately.

So, Bessent was announcing that and also he rents land to farmers who do soybeans.

So, Bessent went over there and got a deal that was good for Bentley.

Was it good for anybody else?

I have no context to know whether that would be good for anybody else, but certainly would be good for the soy farming landlords.

Sorry, I just needed that extra sip.

All right, what else did he get?

Uh, but that's not all.

We've got reports of other deals that uh Trump made.

Um, let's see.

So, we got the soybeans.

So, that's good for the farmers.

What I wonder about, and I don't know if we'll ever find this out, did our farmers grow a bunch of soybeans and then have to throw them away because they didn't have any place to sell them.

Have they already wasted the soybeans that they grew or do they have a bunch of stored up soybeans that are just ready to go and that this is just pure good news?

I don't know.

Because if they already lost the whole season, which they might have, right?

Isn't it possible that farmers lost the whole season?

That would put a lot of people out of business.

So, I I don't know how good or bad this is.

Does it save us?

By us, I mean the soy farmers.

I don't know.

Um, but I guess they the president and president Xi, they met, but they did not talk about Taiwan or the deal for Tik Tok.

And I think that was the right play because it's not like they were going to make a decision on Taiwan, you know, while they were there for an hour and a half.

And it's not like I don't think the Tik Tok deal needed any extra approvals, right?

He didn't need she to say yes because they already said yes.

So, doesn't make sense that they would have talked about those.

That those were lower priority for the meeting, I think.

But they did talk about other stuff.

And Trump says he's going to drop the tariff by by 10 basis points, 10%.

Um because China promised to do more on fentinel.

Does that sound like a win for the United States?

We lowered their tariff because the tariff had been put on because they weren't doing enough about fentinel.

Uh but she said he would try harder on fentinyl.

That's a nothing.

Unfortunately, that's a nothing.

Try harder.

No, he's not going to try harder.

That's a nothing.

Um, but we did reduce their tariffs, so they got a something.

So, China got a something, but it was also something artificial because Trump has simply made up the tariff.

So, Trump So, she got something that didn't have any actual value because it was just something that Trump made up.

I'll give you more, you know, I'll increase your tariff.

And then he took away the thing he made up.

So that's sort of a break even.

Uh we were not getting enough help with with fentinol.

We're still not going to get enough help with fentinol.

That's a nothing.

So apparently this deal for of tariffs reduced or fentinel help to me it looks a little more like we gave them nothing in return for nothing.

To me, that's just nothing.

Love to be wrong.

I would love to be wrong about that.

And then apparently, uh, China is not going to bother us on the rare earth minerals.

They're going to be somewhat unrestricted, but they can change that on a dime, right?

China can change their mind on the rare earth minerals five minutes.

So, does it really mean anything when they say they're not going to try to restrict our rare earth minerals?

To me, it looks more like they want to make sure that they can corner that market and not encourage us to create alternative sources because I think they know that they would have more power if we believe that we had a secure supply of rare earth from them only or or if it they're the biggest source.

So, I got a feeling that strategic than being a good friend.

You know, they're like, "We'd rather we'd rather maintain our total power over your rare earth.

So, for now, we're going to sell you all you want." Sort of like a drug dealer.

So, I don't know.

It's better that they're not restricting it at the moment as long as we don't pull back from our effort to diversify our sources.

I don't think we are.

All right.

What else do they agree on?

uh that China is going to quote discuss trip the microchip restrictions with Nvidia.

Is that anything?

So they agree that somebody's going to talk to somebody.

So China's going to talk to Nvidia.

But Nvidia doesn't get to approve or not approve the chip sales.

That's the government.

So the people who can't make the decision are going to talk about it.

That's a nothing.

Again, it's a nothing.

But maybe it looks good on paper.

Um, and then according to the Coobei letter on X, I didn't see it anywhere else, but uh, allegedly one of the agreements is that China and the US will quote collaborate on Ukraine.

Do you think the US and China are going to collaborate on Ukraine?

No.

No.

That's a nothing.

That couldn't possibly be a thing.

No, that's not going to happen.

Um, and that uh there's there's talk that a real trade deal, a more comprehensive trade deal might be coming.

Maybe.

I don't see it.

So, it could be that the only real thing on this list of accomplishments and and you know, you you've been with me long enough, you know, I'm totally pro Trump, right?

You know, I'm totally pro America, pro Trump.

I don't think he got anything.

Is that okay?

Everybody okay with that take?

I don't think he got anything.

But he didn't lose anything.

I don't think he lost anything.

Did you see the body language when they were doing the extended handshake?

God, that looked awkward, didn't it?

We we've seen Trump shake hands with every kind of leader in the world and it always looks like he has some kind of physical dominant advantage over them.

Well, President Xi obviously, you know, he's operating at a high level and he knows what the handshake means and he knows what it looks like and he's a big guy.

He's physically a big guy.

So, she held held tight and he just kept his President Xi face.

He didn't he didn't uh he didn't get pulled in by the charisma.

He was absolutely charisma resistant.

And I didn't see any other leader who ever even tried that.

So if you if you were going to um grade them on their body language, it was a tie.

and well maybe she won because he was not affected in any way by the handshake and you're looking for him to be affected.

So it looked very awkward.

They looked very uncomfortable.

There was no point where they look like buddies but you know Trump's trying to sell it as their best friends and they work can work together which is good by the way that he he should Trump should be acting like you're my friend.

we're going to do great.

China and the US can grow together.

Those are all the right messages.

So, he's doing the right messaging.

But no, she is very clearly, you know, holding his cards close to his chest.

He's not giving up anything.

And, you know, Trump did a good job of complimenting him, saying he was a, you know, great leader of a great country.

And I think those are both true statements.

He's a strong leader of a great country.

Um, so saying that is smart and good good politics.

All right.

What else?

Uh, and also Secretary Basant says that Trump's coming back with $2 trillion in added investments.

That's not from China.

That's from the other countries, Japan, South Korea, etc.

Um, that's pretty good.

I don't think any president has has done as well as Trump in bringing business to the United States.

Nobody's even close, right?

Is it fair to say that nobody's even tried this hard to make the US the dominant place you do business?

Well, it's a little out of order, but I was going to talk about Trump was giving a speech somewhere over there and he was talking about making America the easiest place to do business.

And um that is the smartest thing you'll ever see.

for the US because the the contrast, he didn't have to say it out loud.

The contrast is that it's dangerous to do business in China, right?

Did did any of you catch that?

When he was giving his speech, it looked like he was just talking about the US.

We're going to make the US the easiest place to get a permit, the the easiest place to get approved, the, you know, the best systems.

um presumably the best, you know, court systems, etc.

That's important.

He didn't say that, but that's important.

So, he's consciously saying, I'm going to brand the United States as the best place to do business.

That would be worth the whole trip.

that that reframe of America is the best place to do business in the context of all of us knowing, but we don't even have to say it out loud anymore, that China is the worst place to do business because it's going to be hard to get permits.

If you get things approved, it might be yanked back.

Uh they're going to spy on you, steal your IP, um put every obstacle in the way, and then eventually steal your entire business if they can.

comparing comparing America.

You can be free, you can get here, you can set up shop, you can get a permit, you'll get approved, the the legal system will treat you right.

That's no competition.

That is just no competition.

And Trump knows a winning play.

So, by making it a big deal to brand the US as the best place to do business, he's sort of bringing together a bunch of things that we know to be true or could be true, which is the easy to get a permit.

It's not true yet.

He has to make that true, but he can do it.

Um, this is one of the strongest, best plays you'll ever see an American president do.

It It would be hard to top that as the smartest, best, most capable thing you could do if you're president.

Really, I'm I'm just I'm blown away by how smart that is.

It seems like only a simple thing, but other people could have done it, right?

If you say to yourself, "But Scott, that's just a simple thing.

It's just a thing he's saying in a speech." Anybody could have said that before, right?

But they didn't.

It's the saying it that matters.

The saying it matters.

Well, are you following the story of Arctic Frost?

That was the the legal project that uh that Jack Smith was going after the Republicans, going after Trump.

But what we know now is that part of that effort, Ted Cruz is telling us about it, is that the Department of Justice under Biden issued 197 subpoenas for 430 Republican entities and individuals.

The Democrats, once Biden was elected, were literally hunting Republicans.

Do you remember when Bill Maher mocked me last week for saying that Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected?

I said that back in 2020 on X.

He mocked me for that.

He mocked me for saying they would be hunted while at the same time one of the biggest stories in the country is the Republicans were being hunted.

Now, maybe he thought I meant with a gun and in some cases that too, but I didn't mean that necessarily with a gun, just that they would be hunted, you know, hunted by people who wanted them harm.

This is hunted by people who wanted them harm people.

I could not have been more right about this.

And that's not even counting the January 6, you know, just the civilians.

This is the the elected Republicans.

My god.

Oh my god.

Now, it's being called, of course, worse than Watergate.

Uh, and you know, I'm totally biased on this topic, but isn't it worse than Watergate?

It looks like it to me.

Watergate was a tiny little thing when you look at it in the rearview mirror especially.

You know it seemed bigger then of course because the news told you it was bigger but in the rearview mirror this looks a lot bigger.

A lot bigger you like a hundred times bigger.

So we'll see where this goes.

Probably nowhere.

Eric Dhy has a post X.

Uh he was noticing on the view that Whoopi Goldberg was being especially stupid.

I think he called her ironic.

Uh and she was talking about the Biden auto patent.

So this is Whoopi Goldberg on the view.

And she says she wants she wants the Biden admin I'm sorry the Trump administration to quote stop investigating a man who is no longer in office.

This is Whoopy on the view.

Stop investigating a man who is no longer in office.

meaning Biden.

Now, did I mention that this is the same time as the Arctic Frost story is one of the biggest stories in the country?

You know, the part where the Biden administration couldn't stop investigating Trump after he was out of office at the same time.

The same time it's one of the biggest stories.

And she's saying, "Stop investigating a man who's no longer in office." Uh, and here's what Whoopi said that they should be talking about and worrying about.

Are you ready for her priorities?

All right, so it's 2025 and this are Whoopi's priorities.

Soybeans solved.

Epstein files don't really exist.

and those narco boats.

She wants to make sure that we've identified them as actual criminals, not just kill them.

So, those are her three priorities.

Soybeans solved.

Epstein probably imaginary.

I doubt there's any files.

And narco boats that probably the government is doing exactly what they should be doing.

We just don't know the details.

What's missing?

Do you see anything missing from the list?

How about crushing national debt missing?

How about their biggest concern used to be say it climate change?

Yeah, we'll talk about climate change a little bit too.

So what happened to climate change?

Suddenly that's not a big deal.

It's all about the soybeans and the epste and the narco boats.

Uh, I would like to make my own list of the least important things to me.

The least important things.

Soybeans, Epstein files, and narcoats.

I'm kind of interested in all of them.

They're interesting in their own little way, but they're the smallest problems I have in the world.

But Whoopi, she's got to get those soybeans and Epstein files solved.

Climate change, not so much.

Let's talk about Thomas Massie and the and the many dust ups with President Trump.

So JD Vance was asked at uh one of the Turning Point USA events recently.

He was asked why Trump is going after Thomas Massie, which he is trying to primary him.

And uh here's JD's explanation, and I'll give you my take on this.

He says, "It's one thing to disagree with the party on an issue.

voting against the party on every single issue.

Every time we've needed Thomas for a vote, he's been completely unwilling to provide it.

That's why Trump turned his eyeire on Massie.

We could never count on him for some of the most difficult votes.

I say that as someone who knew Thomas well before I got into politics.

All right, here's my take on Thomas Massie.

What JD is leaving out of his um explanation is why he does it.

Why would you leave out why he does it?

Now, I'm not like an expert on every single thing that Thomas Massiey's ever done, but can you answer this question for me?

Is it not true that his resistance to Republican things is always based on the Constitution and always based on an accurate reading of the Constitution?

Am I wrong about that?

That our problem with him is that he can accurately read our own Constitution and then he acts upon it.

There there may be some exceptions where there's just something he knew more about than the government.

you know, he's into the allowing farmers to sell things directly.

I think that's one of his issues.

I I don't know if the rest of the government or the Republicans disagree with that or not.

I mean, he has some other issues, but I think JD, if you wanted to be fair about this, and you know, to be fair, his job is to support the president.

His job is not to be completely transparent.

He's he's a supporter of the president, and that's his right role.

So within his role as vice president, this is totally acceptable the way he framed it.

But as a consumer and as a fan of Massie, I just need to say I like one person who's supporting the Constitution, even if he's a pain in the ass.

I will accept his pain in the assess because it doesn't seem to affect too many votes.

How many times has he been the one the only one who determined which way the vote went?

Has that ever happened?

Or is he just reliably not in their column?

Because if he'd actually changed the outcome of things that I cared about, maybe I'd reassess.

But I don't think he actually changes any outcomes.

I think he's just not reliably under vote.

So anyway, I'm pro Massie.

I completely understand the argument that winning is more important than maybe some nicities.

Um, but I like my constitution and I like that there's one person who will risk everything to remind us what's in it.

Well, Obama is talking.

He was at some event and said some scary Obama sounding things uh that I'll criticize in a moment.

He said, quote, "Part of what we're going to have to do, who is we, the government, the Democrats?

Part of what we're going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism." Uh-oh.

Already there's a problem.

And how we use social media.

Uh-oh.

In ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion.

We want diversity of opinion.

No, you don't, you liar.

We don't want diversity of facts.

That, I think, is one of the big tests of social media, by the way.

It will require some government regulatory constraints.

There it is.

There it is.

He wants some government regulatory constraints.

Now, the way I read this is he wants the government to be in charge of telling you what's real and what isn't real.

Is it a fact or not a fact?

Well, the government the government will help you with that.

What's that called?

It's called censorship.

It's the dumbest thing.

But here's my take.

Doesn't it feel like old thinking to imagine that we know our facts are true?

Can you tell me which domain we're confident that we know the facts are true?

What about those employment numbers?

What about our uh food pyramid?

What about all the pandemic data?

What about our uh GDP?

What about the inflation numbers?

There's not a true number in the country, people.

There is no real reliable fact that any of us will ever agree on.

So, what makes this seem like an opinion from the 70s?

It just feels old.

It's like Obama hasn't noticed that everything from climate change to everything is fake.

It's all fake.

Once you realize that all of the all the facts are fake and always will be.

It's just an idiot idea to follow the facts.

There was a time when we all thought that made sense, right?

If 10 years ago, maybe more, let's say 20 years ago, if 20 years ago he had said exactly this, we have to make sure that people are following facts because if they're not following the facts, we're all in trouble and the government will be helpful in helping you know what the facts are.

20 years ago, I would have actually thought that was a thing.

And I I would have given that serious consideration knowing that there's a censorship, you know, risk there.

But I would have given that serious consideration because I would have thought, well, we're definitely better if we follow the facts, right?

Wouldn't you say that?

Following the facts has got to be better than not following the facts.

And then fast forward 20 years to 2025 and you learn the brutal truth of life.

There are no facts.

There are no facts.

There are only narratives.

There are claims.

There are lies.

There are lucky guesses, but there are no facts, people.

There are no facts.

So, this is all bad.

This is really just Obama saying, "We want to control what you think is true." That's what this is.

We don't want that.

saw a video yesterday of uh I guess one of Joe Biden's closest adviserss, a guy named Mike Donalan had been uh I guess he was being interviewed about his Biden experience and uh they made him admit that he had millions of dollars on the line for keeping o keeping Biden in the race.

Now you know what the problem was, right?

Didn't you know that there had to be some financial thing going on that Biden's adviserss were keeping him in the race?

It always seemed to me that there would be a this big class of professionals who literally would have millions of dollars a piece that were on the line if he got elected, right?

Not only would they get paid for helping him get elected as this Mike Donan said he would get up to $4 million if if Biden became president again.

$4 million.

And coincidentally, Mike Donan did not think that he should pull out of the race, right?

So, we all watched Biden looking, you know, like a vegetable.

But the guy closest to him, who obviously knew what the situation was, had millions of dollars on the line if he lied to us and said he's fine.

Now, I'm not sure that he lied because I can't read his mind, but I certainly wouldn't trust the guy who's got millions of dollars at stake.

There's a video libs of Tik Tok has a video that I don't know exactly who this group is, but it's a group of Democrats, I guess, who are planning to surround the capital on uh November 5th, which they call one year since the fascists got into office.

and they're going to try to increase their number of people around the capital until the current administration resigns.

So, they're literally planning an insurrection.

No, no exaggeration and no word thinking.

So, it would be word thinking if it were not an actual insurrection they were planning, but they even talk about it as removing the government uh before the term is over.

So, if you're if you're trying to use um a protest to remove the government before the government would normally be done, that's an insurrection, right?

I mean, what else would you call that?

So, I'm not doing word thinking.

That's just what they say they're doing.

Uh I don't know who this group is.

Look like a small group in room.

I don't know if we have to worry about them yet, but the fact that they're even talking about that is just wow.

So, as you know, Bill Gates made some news by saying that maybe climate change is not the crisis that people thought and maybe we should spend our money on feeding people and taking care of our other biggest problems.

And people like me made a lot of noise about that.

Um, what's interesting, there's a lot interesting about this.

We'll talk about it.

What's interesting is that uh we're all trying to read his mind and trying to figure out what what was Bill Gates thinking before and was he really thinking now and why do he make this pivot?

Well, I don't know.

So, I always I always warn you that you can't read his mind.

I I saw that Mike Cernovich is going hard at him um reasonably and calling people um was it naive?

I think he used the word naive if you think that all he did was look at the facts and adjust to the new facts.

And I would I would agree with Mike that although I can't read Bill Gates mind, I doubt it had anything to do with facts.

It might have to do with the fact that he has now got approval for his Gen 4 nuclear power plant that he's invested in because if that works out, there's going to be he's going to make more money from nuclear power than he's ever made before in any other thing.

I mean, he could be the richest person in the world just because of Gen 4 nuclear power.

I mean, that that would be enough.

Uh so when somebody has a big financial uh a financial incentive to say yeah let's go strong on energy and don't waste our money so much on these other things we'll put it all in this area.

It might be just financial but again I can't read his mind so I don't know.

Um but uh according to Harry Anon who did a uh survey on or looked at the numbers on CNN, he's their data guy on CNN.

Uh he says that the climate change message has not worked for 36 years.

So back in the year 2000, 40% of the public I guess were alarmed about climate.

40%.

That was in the year 2000.

by the year 2020 had gone up to 46% um were concerned and then after uh 2020 it dropped.

So by 2025 only 40% back to where it was in 2000.

So from 25 years of uh climate alarmism didn't move the needle at all.

25 years of massive propaganda in one direction didn't move it at all.

Where was Trump the whole time?

Trump was saying that climate change was a hoax the whole time.

Not necessarily the warming part, but the way it was treated as a crisis was a hoax.

And uh he he of course couldn't help himself.

So he posted today, "We won the war on climate change hoax.

And he said that uh this is what Trump said on X.

Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely wrong on the issue.

It took courage to do so and for that we're all grateful.

MAGA.

So, so Trump got one of the biggest wins of all time.

Imagine how he feels.

Is there anything that Trump has been more mocked for besides his haircut than the fact that he called climate change a hoax?

I think that was always besides the trivial stuff like hair and you know girlfriends and stuff.

I think that was like the biggest knock against him, right?

That he was he was anti-science and he didn't understand what all the smart people did that we were all going to die in a climate crisis.

Well, people fast forward.

He was right.

He was right.

So, what happened between the years 2020 and 2025 that would have caused that would have caused people to have, you know, less belief in climate change.

Is there anybody who got involved in that conversation around 2015?

Well, you could do the math.

All right.

Um, ABC's Jonathan Carl was interviewing uh Gavin Newsome.

This is funny.

So, you would you would think that ABC might be sort of pro-democrat, especially in their news division.

Uh, but here's what Jonathan Carl actually did in a in a recorded podcast with Gavin Newsome.

This is almost hard to believe.

This is a real thing.

He held up a picture of the character from the movie American Psycho and held it next to a picture of Gavin Newsome and told him that even his even his supporters note that he looks like a uh a comic book villain from Central Casting.

Imagine being in a uh in an interview with a legitimate news source and the legitimate news guy holds up a picture of you as a character in a movie who's literally a a psychopath and it has no news value whatsoever except to point out that he looks like a psychopath.

Now that's funny.

That's just funny.

Um, however, uh, you know, I have to support Jonathan Carl on this.

The way people look totally matters, right?

That's something I can say because I'm just, you know, a guy on a podcast, but you you can't say that if you're legitimate news, but he did.

I mean, in his own way, he's saying it as a legitimate news guy.

Uh, the way you look matters a lot.

AOCC's look.

Do you think that makes a difference?

Of course it does.

Uh President Trump's height, does that make a difference?

Of course it does.

Of course it does.

Yeah.

The the way people look is hugely influential.

And I do believe I agree that Newsome does look like a uh a movie or a comic book book villain.

He looks exactly like the Joker, doesn't he?

He's even got the Joker's haircut.

He he could walk into a role as the Joker on a Batman movie with almost no makeup.

I'm not wrong about that.

So, if people can't notice that, I don't know.

Meanwhile, here's a shock.

According to the National Pulse, uh I guess Elaine Stefonic, a uh a Republican, just pulled the highest for a potential future governor of New York.

And they haven't had a Republican governor in New York in 20 years.

So, I don't know if that's real.

That's one that's just one poll.

You can't really believe one poll, but it's new poll from the Manhattan Institute shows Elise Elise Stefonic, Republican, leading both the current governor Hawl and uh and Lieutenant Governor of New York, too, who's also a Democrat.

So, hypothetically, if they ever ran, she would win.

That would be amazing.

Wouldn't expect that.

Um, meanwhile over in Gaza trying to figure out how to get that all settled out.

Axios is reporting that there's there's some lots of conversations and progress I think has been made figuring out who's going to run that place in terms of physical security.

And at the moment it looks like the idea I don't know if this is going to work but the idea is that the US Egypt and Jordan alongside some other this Axios is reporting on this along with some uh other Arab and Muslim countries that might include Indonesia, Azeran, Egypt and Turkey might be all part of this security deal.

But it sounds like if they're talking about maybe this country, maybe that country, that sounds a lot like they don't they're not that close to getting any kind of a thing um going.

But here's the most interesting thing that happened.

Oh, well, let me let me just say this.

I'm sure they'll get it.

So, I don't think there's any risk that they won't be able to figure out how to get some countries that want to do security there.

It's just going to take some grinding.

It just looks like it's going to be hard, but totally doable.

So, they they'll get there.

But, uh, as you know, there have been some breaks in the ceasefire, which everybody expects.

You know, there there always going to be minor breaks in the ceasefire, but so far it's holding.

And, uh, even though they're breaks, that gets back on plan when it does.

But I didn't know this, but apparently uh Israel had planned as sort of a retaliation for the the ceasefire break that they say Hamas did, they were going to retake some part of Gaza and reoccupy it.

And the reporting is that Trump said, "No, you're not.

You are not going to take more of Gaza.

Stay where you are.

uh we're just going to sort of sort of just tap this along and act like the break of the ceasefire wasn't the biggest deal in the world so that we can get to the phase two.

Uh whereas Israel might want to might wanted to grab some land uh or or just move the IDF into more occupying of of Gaza than they're occupying right now, which would have just caused a giant problem and maybe derailed the entire thing.

And the reporting is that Trump said, "Nope." And he said, "No, you're not.

You're not going to redeploy and take over that space.

Even though you have a good argument for it, you're not going to do it." Now, here's my question to you.

Did that really happen?

Because, you know, it's the news.

You never know if it really happened.

Did Trump really tell them not to do it?

And is that really the only reason they didn't do it?

Because if the reporting is accurate, uh it's kind of a a blow to the Israel controls the US narrative, isn't it?

Kind of a big blow.

Does it not seem to you that at least with our current president, while it will always be true that Israel does an amazingly good job of influencing the US for their, you know, their own uh national purposes, which is their job.

You know, if you're an Israeli government, well, even if you're just a citizen, it's sort of your job to make sure that your country does well.

Does Israel do a good job of making sure their country does well?

Yeah.

Yeah.

A really good job.

Very good job.

Do we like it all the time?

Not if we think that it included manipulating or pushing the US around.

We don't like that part.

But so far, we've heard several anecdotes that seem to suggest that uh at least Netanyahu is going to I don't want to say bow to Trump, but he's he's definitely going to take very seriously what Trump wants to the point of maybe just doing what he wants.

So are we watching any kind of great reversal where the the power influence structure is changing or has it always been this way but we were maybe less aware of it cuz you know I've described in the past the US and Israel relationship to me it looks less like Israel controlling everything in America and more like a sibling situation which is that you know we have this, you know, love for them as siblings.

You know, you could argue whether we should or should not, but we do.

You know, Israel's kind of special to a lot of people in the US.

Not everybody, obviously.

Um, but I think we influence each other.

When it matters more to the US, then we push.

When it matters more to them, maybe they push harder than we push back.

Sometimes they win, sometimes we win.

But if it's true, and I'll I'll put a big if because if you wanted to argue with the if, I wouldn't I wouldn't have a, you know, response to that.

If it's true that Trump is telling them what to do in some of these situations and they're just doing it, that would look very different, wouldn't it?

That would look very much more sibling like sometimes your brother wins, sometimes your sister wins, but it's not really winning.

It's more like just working with each other.

That's what it looks like.

I'm not close enough to the situation to know what it really is like, but it looks like that.

Um, let's see.

Homeland Security, according to News Nation, is rolling out new rules requiring photographs and in some cases fingerprints of all non- US citizens entering the US.

To which I say, wait, what?

We're only now requiring uh fingerprints and photographs for coming into the country.

We we weren't already doing that.

That's a that's one of those stories where you go, "What?

I thought we always did that." All right.

Um let's see what's happening overseas just for a minute.

over in Germany, the the right-wing party has got now 40% uh um support which is actually more than all the the any of the other individual parties.

So the dominant party only by little 40 to 38% uh is anti-immigration.

So, does that mean that Germany will start deporting people and closing their border if the biggest political entity, only biggest by a little bit, but they're the biggest, um, is against it?

Do you think that Germany has time to roll back their immigration um, standards to save Germany as whatever they want Germany to look like?

Probably not.

Yeah, I'm seeing in the comments too late.

Feels too late, doesn't it?

Feels too late.

But speaking of that, Elon Musk who says uh in his provocative way, uh Elon said that civil war in Britain is inevitable.

I think he said that on Acts, of course.

Uh do you think so?

Do you think that a civil war in Britain is inevitable?

what he's talking about is the uh the nativeborn versus the immigrant population.

I think you maybe he's talking about the Islamic uh immigrant population specifically.

He's not he's not being specific, but do you think there's going to be a civil war in Britain?

I'm going to say no because what would that look like?

They don't have guns.

What what would civil war even look like?

They're completely neutered.

Who Who would they fight?

What are they going to go out with butter knives and butter knives and baseball bats and have a civil war?

I don't think there's going to be a civil war.

I I think that whatever it is they wanted to preserve, they already lost.

And for them, it's probably a major tragedy.

But I don't think they can civil war their way out of it.

I don't I don't see that happening.

Um, and I guess Trump's also going to end uh the the Biden policy of automatically extending work permits.

Breitbart News is reporting on this, John Binder.

Um, and that makes sense.

They're just going to make sure that the people who are working here have been vetted properly.

They won't like it.

Meanwhile, also in Germany, they've developed a 20 kowatt laser for shooting down drones.

Now, this will be like the 20th time I've told you a story that there's a brand new device laser for shooting down drones or other things.

Um, but what I want to add to this is that apparently if this works, and they're already testing it and it does work, uh, so it's a real thing, uh, that it will lower the cost of defending against drones, you know, dramatically.

And when I'm looking at war zones, because I have a, you know, economics background, uh, I tend to look at the economics of it to predict what's happen.

You know, the best economy almost always wins in war.

I don't know if you knew that, but the strongest economy usually can afford the best weapons and over time the best economy usually wins a war.

Uh, but related to that would be the cost of their weapons.

You know, if you're the if you're the smaller economy, but you can figure out how to do your weapons really cheap, you you effectively, you know, can punch above your weight.

So, if it turns out that our adversaries are really good at building drones, um, but we get even better at anti- drone lasers and shooting them out of the sky for 20 cents a drone instead of, you know, a million dollars to take out a drone, uh, we win.

So, it could be that the economic race to have, you know, the cheapest anti- drone defenses and also the cheapest drones, just the economics of that, that might determine who wins everything.

And, you know, Germany's got a nice little device there that might make a difference.

Well, here's something for the Democrats to talk about for the next few weeks.

According to the Guardian, the Pentagon is uh telling the National Guard to organize quick reaction forces for all the major parts of the US.

So there'd be 20,000 National Guard who would be trained, but no more than say 500 for any one location.

So it's not you're not going to see 20,000 people in the same place, but 500 a piece for various places.

and they would be a quick reaction force for uh if there's social unrest.

So if there's something that you quickly need to quell like a riot, there will always be somewhere reasonably close in every state, you'd have 500 well-trained anti-riot people.

Now, what do you think the Democrats are going to say about that?

Th this is weeks of content for the anti- athoritarian people.

Oh, there it is.

Told you.

Told you.

He's organizing his private army now.

If we protest, he's going to come and get us with his 500 National Guard people.

So, they'll have something to talk about for a few weeks.

We don't want them to be bored.

All right, that's all I have for today.

Uh, I'm going to talk to the uh local subscribers, my beloved local subscribers.

Uh, a little special.

By the way, if you were a member of Locals, you've been watching me draw Dilbert live every night.

Um, I can't promise I'll do it every night.

My, you know, actually my ability to draw could be done this week.

This might be the last time I draw uh cuz my hand is increasingly paralyzed from whatever is going on medically with me.

So, at the moment, my two fingers and thumb on my left hand still work.

So, I've been doing live drawing demonstrations.

Uh, so you can see how I use the computer to draw, etc.

I teach you teach you my little tricks as I'm going.

Sometimes we write, sometimes I'll write live.

Um, but so that's on locals.

If you want to, just Google me.

Google my name and locals and you'll find out where to sign up if you want to.

But I can't promise you I can keep doing it the drawing.

So I I I might have to retire from drawing you maybe this week.

I know.

It just depends if my hand keeps working.

If these three fingers keep working, I can actually draw better than I've ever drawn before.

So there there's no degradation whatsoever at the moment, but it's right on the edge.

It's right on the edge where I'm going to lose this ability completely.

I already can't type.

So since the these fingers don't work, I can't type because I can't feel the keyboard.

But today, I'll go in and get a uh get my radiation treatment for at least one part of my body, which won't affect this, by the way.

So there's there's no plan for fixing this at the moment.

So, I might be a quadripollegic pretty soon.

Anyway, um, thanks for joining.

and locals.

I'm coming at you privately in 30 seconds.

Come on in.

We'll give you the show that you deserve

today

for the first time.

All right. Well, I'm lost in the locals

menus and cannot determine any way that

I can see my own show. Let's see.

I'll close locals on that screen.

Reopen.

It should open right up to where I want.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker chalice or ste a canteen jugger

flask of vessel of any kind filled with

your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

Join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.

The thing that makes everything better.

It's called, that's right, the

simultaneous sip. and it happens. Now,

[sighs]

[gasps] if you're wondering why I'm

using two hands for my cup, it's cuz my

hands are semi paralyzed at the moment.

Thanks to something that's going on with

my body. went to the uh I told the local

subscribers before I got on here, I went

to the emergency room yesterday on my

doctor's orders because of the growing

paralysis in my hands.

And the emergency room sent me home

without the MRI cuz they said this is no

emergency.

We're not allowed to use the MRI unless

it's an emergency.

And I said, "My doctor's here." She even

emailed ahead to make sure you knew what

you were going to do so that you would

do it. Yeah, but upper back. It's not an

emergency. I'm getting paralyzed.

I can barely move one hand. Yeah, but

you're not dying.

So, guy with a snake bike came in. He

didn't do much better, but I think he I

think they saved his life. Anyway,

so today is the first day I get my um

radiation treatment. It'll just be a

spot treatment for the the one place

that bothering me in my lower body. It

would not be a treatment for whatever is

happening is my paralysis.

But the plator might help with that if I

ever get it scheduled. So that's the

update. I'd like to start with a reframe

to change your life. As you know, the

reframes in my book, Reframe Your Brain,

change people's lives with one sentence.

Although each person is different, so

the sentence that changes your life will

be different than the one that changes

somebody else's. But maybe maybe today's

your day. Let's see.

Here's a usual frame. Um people tell you

that you should compete against

yourself. Have you ever heard that?

They'll say, you know, no, no, no.

You're not competing against other

people. You're just trying to do better

than you do. Have you ever heard that

advice? Very common advice. Bad advice.

Here's some better advice. I'm going to

reframe it. Instead of competing with

yourself and trying to improve over

time, which sounds like a good idea, you

can do better.

Compete against other people. [laughter]

You'll do better. if you compete against

other people. But here's the trick. Even

if they're unaware that you're competing

with them,

so you don't have to tell them you're

competing with them. Could be a

co-orker,

could be, you know, classmate or

something, but you just tell yourself,

"Okay, I'm going to beat that one. That

one I'm going to beat." And then you've

got a target. You've got something

specific.

And uh you're far more likely to

accomplish something specific than

something generic. Like everybody knows

that, right? So if you say, "I'm going

to beat that person on that chemistry

test." Even if they don't know you're

competing, it's going to help you

compete. So that's your reframe of the

day. Good for young people especially.

All right, let me make sure I got all

your comments.

Yes, I do.

Well, according to somebody named Lara

Weed,

best last name I could ever imagine,

Lara Weed. Uh, anyway, she's a circadian

research lab person from Stanford, so

she knows what she's talking about. And

there's a new study that says you

shouldn't change the time. You know how

we do this standard versus daylight

time. But here's the new wrinkle. Uh so

so changing the time is bad for people's

circadian rhythms and they have health

problems and other problems. Uh but it's

bad no matter how you change it. So if

you stuck with daylight versus standard

time, it would still be better than if

you changed it twice a year. So it's the

change that's the problem. But on top of

that, um, keeping things at standard

time would be the least burden on your

circadian rhythms. So, at least

according to one study,

not that we trust science anymore, but

something to talk about, uh, that

keeping it on standard time would be the

healthiest. So, we don't know.

Well, according to Dr. Peter Diamandis,

who I see on X, I follow on X. Um, I

guess chemo

may be something that we won't need

anymore for skin cancer because there's

a new research. Scientists say they can

kill 92% of skin cancer cells using an

LED light without damaging healthy

cells.

H, that sounds pretty good. Uh, what

will Democrats say about the development

of LED light to fight cancer?

What will they say? Well, we already

know what they'll say. Democrats will

say, "Why would you use household

disinfectants and bleach to kill

cancer?"

And then I would say, "What? Nobody said

anything about bleach."

Yeah, you just said bleach will cure

your cancer. No, nobody even used the

word. Nobody even used the word. No,

we're talking about light. From the

beginning to end, we're talking about

light.

Yeah. Were you? Cuz the news said that

you said bleach would do it.

Do you all remember the the uh drinking

bleach hoax, which was exactly it was

done exactly the same way as the fine

people hoax? In both cases, the the hoax

was because you cut off the clarifier

when Trump said, "But I'm, you know, but

I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis.

They should be condemned totally." You

take that off and it reverses what he

said. with the uh the drinking bleach

thing. If you take off the beginning

where where Trump said he was talking

about light and then you take off the

clarifier at the end where he again

emphasizes he was only talking about

light. If you take those clarifiers off,

it allowed the news to say that he was

talking about household disinfectants or

bleach because the other people had

talked about it before. It's the same

hoax. So, it's funny to see that uh

there's yet another light treats a

disease

will CNN reported as why would you put

bleach on your skin? No, they won't

because Trump didn't say it.

[clears throat and snorts] According to

interesting engineering,

uh now we can make art, we like you and

I can do it. Somebody can make uh

artificial neurons that replicate real

brain chemistry. And you would do that

because it might be another way to get

to AI. How many times have I told you

that our current big AI models, the

large language models, will never get

you to general intelligence. They'll

just sort of be able to do what they can

do now, but maybe a little bit better.

They're they're not really going to get

over the hump to be like a thinking

conscious anything. It doesn't have that

potential in my opinion. But there are a

whole bunch of other AI approaches that

are being uh rapidly

prototyped at least because I think

people know that there's a limit to the

large language models. And so the this

neuron replicator was specifically so

they can build a better AI with a

completely different you know completely

different method. I I think I've read

several

now there are several different

approaches that all have that same

quality which is they're not regular

LLMs. They're a completely different

approach because I think that would get

you to advanced general intelligence.

So if I had to bet

I would bet that the LLMs are going to

get leapfrogged by some smaller entity

and then they'll get bought up pretty

quickly. But uh if some smaller entity

could do that, you know, do the whole

large language model without a trillion

dollars, you know, if they could do it

for a $100,

some trillion dollar company's going to

buy them pretty quickly.

So that'll happen. Uh as you know, Elon

Musk has said, and I like repeating it

because every time I hear it, it makes

me happy. The Optimus, the robots that

Tesla is going to make and and it's

making already um will cost less than a

car, 20 to $30,000 eventually. But

here's the fun part. Elon says it will

be able to do anything you want. Well,

anything. I don't know about anything,

but it could teach, babysit your kids,

walk your dog, mow your lawn, get

groceries, serve drinks, or just be your

friend. Whatever you can think of, it

will do. I can think of a lot of things.

It's going to be awesome. And I think

this will be the biggest product of ever

of any kind. Now that's that's the

exciting part that that we could be you

know watching the greatest product

innovation rollout

trend of all time of all history and

we're going to get to watch it I think.

Uh, but this would suggest that Elon

Musk thinks that he has a version of AI

that can get to something like general

intelligence because that's what he's

describing here. The LLMs would never

get you to a robot that could do with

that stuff. It just isn't just the wrong

technology. But he uses uh visual

training. So, he's doing a lot of visual

training and I think some probably some

artificial worlds training, too.

So, it looks like he thinks he has a

path

and if he says he has a path, I would

not doubt him.

Um, did you know that uh in addition to

drugs that are uh uh what do you call

them? Generics. So, you know, we have

generic drugs, but the pharma would wish

we didn't because if if there were no

such thing as generics, then they could

forever have a monopoly on, you know,

their IP, their their property. But over

time, their IP times out and then there

can be a generic for the drug. But did

you know there's a separate category of

drugs

and I'm not smart enough to know what's

in the category, but the biologics?

Biologics.

So that's a category of drugs. But

apparently the uh according to RFK Jr.

who just did a an [clears throat]

announcement about it. Apparently the

pharma was doing a great job of

marketing and persuading

Congress not to allow knockoffs of their

biologics. And the argument was that

nobody would be able to make a proper

copy.

That's sort of like magic and wizardry

and you more like making a fine wine and

you couldn't let anybody knock off the

biologics because it might be dangerous

and ineffective. And somehow they sold

that. Meaning that if you tried to make

a imitation or copy of one of these

biologics that had, you know, had lost

its copyright protection or whatever

protection has um

that you could you couldn't do it

because they had put too many obstacles

in the way. But, uh, apparently there's

going to be a rules change and President

Trump's going to sign something that

would allow, um, companies to compete

for this big category of biologics. And

that would be, in my opinion, a huge win

for RFK Jr. because it's not the sort of

thing that necessarily would have even

come up had he not been, you know,

running the show. So, not only did he

identify a problem that has potentially

enormous economic value to consumers,

um, but it looks like he acted,

identified the problem, acted, solved. I

mean, I'm sure it's nothing's that

easily solved, but looks like a win to

me.

ONN is reporting on that.

Well, meanwhile, NASA is reportedly

building or it's well along the way of

building a quiet supersonic jet. So,

something that doesn't go bam when it

crosses the sound barrier. This one goes

thud. Uh a more a more uh let's say

acceptable noise in the atmosphere.

And they're already they're already

testing. It's already built and they're

doing test flights and it works. And if

it works and if it brings in a new era

of uh air travel, it could reduce the

time that you go across the country to I

don't know maybe half.

So imagine flying from, you know,

California to New York in 3 hours

instead of sixish.

That'd be a pretty big change. Imagine

uh you know, I live in California. Most

of the Californians who have a little

extra money like to go to Hawaii. That's

sort of our the the closest, you know,

tropical looking place.

Imagine instead of 6 hours to Hawaii,

it's three. It completely changes the

experience for me. For me, any kind of

travel, you know, when I could travel,

uh, was all about the time you had to be

in the plane. If you can reduce the time

when you're on the plane, I'm all in.

[laughter]

But if you're gonna tell me I need to be

on a plane for 14 hours to go to, you

know, Bora Bora or something,

I can't do 28 hours of sitting on a

plane there and back. But if you cut it

in half, yeah, suddenly suddenly it

looks kind of practical.

All right, so we'll wait for that.

Supersonic flights

allegedly

according to Dr. Singularity, who's got

some news on X. Um, number of the big AI

companies have built an artificial

simulated fusion reactor situation. So,

allegedly, I'm a little skeptical about

this one, but let me tell you what it

is. That uh, you know, we've been trying

to get fusion energy, but it's really

complicated and hard. We know we can do

it because it's now fusion as a

technology is a proven technology but

not not engineered to economic success

yet. So there's an economic iteration

process has to go through. We don't need

to prove it can work. We're already past

that. We just need to engineer it so it

does work and it's reliable and safe.

Fusion should be safer if you do it

right. should be safer than than Fision,

but uh except for the Gen 4. And uh so

Nvidia and some other big companies have

allegedly gotten together and built an

artificial

fusion situation so that they can

iterate a bunch of different things

within a a virtual world and then that

will tell them what to do in the real

world. Now, do you believe

that they can they do you believe that

they can't build a fusion reactor yet

that's you know meets all the

requirements but that they could build

an accurate AI simulation of it. Does

that sound like something people could

do? I'm going to say no.

Sorry. I'm going to say no. I don't

think people could do that. It might

teach us something or it might you it

might you maybe pop up a possibility

that we had not considered but I don't

think it would accurately simulate it do

you? And how would you know if it

accurately simulated it cuz we can't do

it in the real world. So what would you

compare it to to know that it had

accurately simulated it so you weren't

wasting your time seeing what the

simulation would do? So, let's just say,

call me skeptical.

All right. Uh, have you heard of my

book, Loser Think?

Let Let me grab it off the shelf. Hold

on.

[laughter]

Oh,

there it is.

coming.

>> Sorry, I meant to be more prepared. So,

my book lose or think

uh has many examples of how to poorly

think so that you know not to do it. One

of the one of the more important points

in the book is what I call word

thinking. Have you heard me talk about

that before? Word thinking. So word

thinking is where you're trying to make

an argument

that really just forces the other person

to accept your definition of a word

as opposed to an argument. So word

thinking is is is the opposite of being

rational and the opposite of making an

argument. is just trying to browbe

somebody into accepting that the word

you're using for a thing is the right

word because that carries the argument

with it if you buy the word. For

example, if they can sell you that Gaza

was a genocide,

then they don't need to make an

argument. If if you accept the word,

they're done, right? But it's really,

you know, more complicated than it is or

is not a word. There's a whole

backstory. There's a context, there's

everything. So whenever you see somebody

trying to force you to take their word

as their definition,

that's just propaganda. That's just

power. That has nothing to do with

what's right or wrong or logical. Now,

what do Democrats say about the

government shutdown?

Well, Governor Nuome's press office

says, quote, "If you control all three

branches of government, how are you not

in charge?"

So, they're using the word control as

the word that they want you to accept.

If you accept control,

then you have accidentally accepted that

that the Republicans are the ones that

can open the government all by

themselves, [clears throat] right? It's

there's no argument there. They just

want you to accept control. If you buy

into the definition of who's in control

and they've defined it as, you know,

who's got control of the three po parts

of the government, then you are in

control and therefore logically only you

can open the government. Now, everybody

who pays attention to the news knows

that the Democrats would have to vote

for it also in at least large enough

numbers to get it passed, and they're

not. So the Democrats have complete

control because all they have to do is

say yes and the government opens because

the because the Republicans have already

said yes to a continuing resolution

which is would get it done.

Now you may have seen Jessica Charles

arguing on the five the same the same

point

and what she does is she uses a wording

substitution. Uh, I think the word she

used, if I remember, was incumbent.

She said that if you're the one who owns

all the if you're in control of the

three branches of government, as

Republicans are, that it is incumbent

upon you to negotiate with the minority,

the Democrats, and give them something

in return for them agreeing to open the

government.

Now, do you see the word thinking there?

That's word thinking. There's no

argument there.

>> [laughter]

>> She's trying to replace an argument with

a word incumbent. It's incumbent upon

you. But where is the connecting tissue?

Where's the logic that says that uh

you've got two teams. One team has

already said yes to open the government.

The other team has not yet said yes. Why

would it be incumbent on the ones who

have already said yes to give something

away when they've already agreed to do

the thing that's the thing which is open

the government and pay for it? They've

already agreed. They're not there's no

incumbent to anything. Who wrote that

rule that is there something in the

Constitution about what makes you

incumbent?

Now, I hope I'm using the right word.

Was it incumbent the the word she used

on the five? I I didn't write it down,

but I from memory I think that's what

but if it's not incumbent it's a word

like that. So it's the same point even

if it's a different word. So how many of

you recognize this now? How many of you

recognize that this was always word

thinking

and that's all it ever was?

And and that uh a great deal of the

Democrat uh narratives and approaches

are this.

They just try to get you to buy into a

word. What are some other words the

Democrats are trying to get you accept

insurrection

when they talk about January 6th?

They don't want to give an argument

because the argument would go like this.

What did those people want to

accomplish? Oh, they thought the

election was rigged and they were trying

to pause it to make sure that we had a

fair election.

That's what an actual argument would

look like. But if you can't win the

argument, you try to do it with word

thinking. You say, "It's an

insurrection." Well, no, not really.

Because that was not the intention of

any of the people who had attended. It

was an insurrection.

Yeah, but it really wasn't.

So, so if you get into the arguing over

what the word means, then they have a

chance of at least a tie because people

who don't pay attention to the news will

think, well, half of them say it's an

insurrection and half of them say it's

not sort of a tie, so I'll just go with

my team that says it is. It's not a tie.

It's not even close to a tie. There

probably wasn't one person there who

thought that they could take over the

government by walking around unarmed and

a and trespassing. Not one person

thought that that would take over the

government.

Anyway, so that's what word thinking is

when there's no argument, but they're

trying to get you to accept their words.

Meanwhile, Trump's been over in Asia

trying to making deals. I guess he might

have made a deal for some soybeans. I I

can't tell if this is a good deal or a

bad deal, but 25 million tons

uh and 12 million tons immediately. So,

Bessent was announcing that and also he

rents land to farmers who do soybeans.

So, Bessent went over there and got a

deal that was good for Bentley.

Was it good for anybody else? I have no

context to know whether that would be

good for anybody else, but certainly

would be good for the soy farming

landlords.

Sorry, I just needed that extra sip. All

right, what else did he get? Uh, but

that's not all.

We've got reports of other deals that uh

Trump made. Um, let's see. So, we got

the soybeans. So, that's good for the

farmers.

What I wonder about, and I don't know if

we'll ever find this out, did our

farmers grow a bunch of soybeans and

then have to throw them away because

they didn't have any place to sell them.

Have they already wasted the soybeans

that they grew or do they have a bunch

of stored up soybeans that are just

ready to go and that this is just pure

good news? I don't know. Because if they

already lost the whole season,

which they might have, right? Isn't it

possible that farmers lost the whole

season?

That would put a lot of people out of

business. So, I I don't know how good or

bad this is. Does it save us? By us, I

mean the soy farmers. I don't know. Um,

but I guess they the president and

president Xi, they met, but they did not

talk about Taiwan or the deal for Tik

Tok. And I think that was the right play

because it's not like they were going to

make a decision on Taiwan,

you know, while they were there for an

hour and a half. And it's not like

I don't think the Tik Tok deal needed

any extra approvals, right? He didn't

need she to say yes because they already

said yes. So, doesn't make sense that

they would have talked about those. That

those were lower priority for the

meeting, I think. But they did talk

about other stuff. And Trump says he's

going to drop the tariff by by 10 basis

points, 10%. Um because China promised

to do more on fentinel. Does that sound

like a win for the United States? We

lowered their tariff because the tariff

had been put on because they weren't

doing enough about fentinel. Uh but she

said he would try harder on fentinyl.

That's a nothing.

Unfortunately, that's a nothing. Try

harder. No, he's not going to try

harder.

That's a nothing.

Um, but we did reduce their tariffs, so

they got a something. So, China got a

something, but it was also something

artificial because Trump has simply made

up the tariff.

So, Trump So, she got something that

didn't have any actual value because it

was just something that Trump made up.

I'll give you more, you know, I'll

increase your tariff. And then he took

away the thing he made up. So that's

sort of a break even. Uh we were not

getting enough help with with fentinol.

We're still not going to get enough help

with fentinol. That's a nothing. So

apparently this deal

for of tariffs reduced

or fentinel help to me it looks a little

more like we gave them nothing in return

for nothing. To me, that's just nothing.

Love to be wrong. I would love to be

wrong about that.

And then apparently, uh, China is not

going to bother us on the rare earth

minerals. They're going to be somewhat

unrestricted,

but they can change that on a dime,

right? China can change their mind on

the rare earth minerals five minutes.

So, does it really mean anything when

they say they're not going to try to

restrict our rare earth minerals? To me,

it looks more like they want to make

sure that they can corner that market

and not encourage us to create

alternative sources because I think they

know that they would have more power if

we believe that we had a secure supply

of rare earth from them only or or if it

they're the biggest source. So, I got a

feeling that strategic than being a good

friend. You know, they're like, "We'd

rather we'd rather maintain our total

power over your rare earth. So, for now,

we're going to sell you all you want."

Sort of like a drug dealer.

So, I don't know. It's better that

they're not restricting it at the moment

as long as we don't

pull back from our effort to diversify

our sources. I don't think we are. All

right. What else do they agree on? uh

that China is going to quote discuss

trip the microchip restrictions with

Nvidia. Is that anything? So they agree

that somebody's going to talk to

somebody. So China's going to talk to

Nvidia. But Nvidia doesn't get to

approve or not approve the chip sales.

That's the government. So the people who

can't make the decision are going to

talk about it. That's a nothing.

[laughter]

Again, it's a nothing. But maybe it

looks good on paper. Um, and then

according to the Coobei letter on X, I

didn't see it anywhere else, but uh,

allegedly one of the agreements is that

China and the US will quote collaborate

on Ukraine.

Do you think the US and China are going

to collaborate on Ukraine? No.

[laughter]

No. That's a nothing. That couldn't

possibly be a thing. No, that's not

going to happen.

Um,

and that uh there's there's talk that a

real trade deal, a more comprehensive

trade deal might be coming.

Maybe. I don't see it.

So, it could be that the only real thing

on this list of accomplishments

and and you know, you you've been with

me long enough, you know, I'm totally

pro Trump, right? You know, I'm totally

pro America, pro Trump.

I don't think he got anything.

Is that okay?

Everybody okay with that take? I don't

think he got anything.

But he didn't lose anything. I don't

think he lost anything. Did you see the

body language when they were doing the

extended handshake?

God, that looked awkward, didn't it? We

we've seen Trump shake hands with every

kind of leader in the world and it

always looks like he has some kind of

physical

dominant advantage over them. Well,

President Xi obviously, you know, he's

operating at a high level and he knows

what the handshake means and he knows

what it looks like and he's a big guy.

He's physically a big guy. So, she held

held tight and he just kept his

President Xi face. He didn't he didn't

uh he didn't get pulled in by the

charisma. He was absolutely charisma

resistant.

And I didn't see any other leader who

ever even tried that.

So if you if you were going to um grade

them on their body language, it was a

tie.

and well maybe she won because he was

not affected in any way by the handshake

and you're looking for him to be

affected. So it looked very awkward.

They looked very uncomfortable.

There was no point where they look like

buddies but you know Trump's trying to

sell it as their best friends and they

work can work together which is good by

the way that he he should Trump should

be acting like you're my friend. we're

going to do great. China and the US can

grow together. Those are all the right

messages. So, he's doing the right

messaging. But no, she is very clearly,

you know, holding his cards close to his

chest. He's not giving up anything. And,

you know, Trump did a good job of

complimenting him, saying he was a, you

know, great leader of a great country.

And I think those are both true

statements. He's a strong leader of a

great country. Um, so saying that is

smart and good good politics.

All right. What else? Uh, and also

Secretary Basant says that Trump's

coming back with $2 trillion in added

investments. That's not from China.

That's from the other countries, Japan,

South Korea, etc. Um, that's pretty

good. I don't think any president has

has done as well as Trump in bringing

business to the United States. Nobody's

even close, right? Is it fair to say

that nobody's even tried this hard to

make the US the dominant place you do

business? Well, it's a little out of

order, but I was going to talk about

Trump was giving a speech somewhere over

there and he was talking about making

America the easiest place to do

business.

And

um that is the smartest thing you'll

ever see. for the US because the the

contrast, he didn't have to say it out

loud. The contrast is that it's

dangerous to do business in China,

right? Did did any of you catch that?

When he was giving his speech, it looked

like he was just talking about the US.

We're going to make the US the easiest

place to get a permit, the the easiest

place to get approved,

the, you know, the best systems.

um presumably the best, you know, court

systems, etc. That's important. He

didn't say that, but that's important.

So, he's consciously saying, I'm going

to brand the United States as the best

place to do business. That would be

worth the whole trip.

that that reframe of America is the best

place to do business in the context of

all of us knowing, but we don't even

have to say it out loud anymore, that

China is the worst place to do business

because it's going to be hard to get

permits. If you get things approved, it

might be yanked back. Uh they're going

to spy on you, steal your IP,

um put every obstacle in the way, and

then eventually steal your entire

business if they can.

comparing comparing America. You can be

free, you can get here, you can set up

shop, you can get a permit, you'll get

approved, the the legal system will

treat you right. That's no competition.

That is just no competition. And Trump

knows a winning play. So, by making it a

big deal to brand the US as the best

place to do business, he's sort of

bringing together a bunch of things that

we know to be true or could be true,

which is the easy to get a permit. It's

not true yet. He has to make that true,

but he can do it. Um, this is one of the

strongest, best

plays you'll ever see an American

president do. It It would be hard to top

that as the smartest, best, most capable

thing you could do if you're president.

Really, I'm I'm just I'm blown away by

how smart that is.

It seems like only a simple thing, but

other people could have done it, right?

If you say to yourself, "But Scott,

that's just a simple thing. It's just a

thing he's saying in a speech." Anybody

could have said that before,

right? But they didn't. It's the saying

it that matters. The saying it matters.

Well, are you following the story of

Arctic Frost? That was the the legal

project that uh that Jack Smith was

going after the Republicans, going after

Trump. But what we know now is that part

of that effort, Ted Cruz is telling us

about it, is that the Department of

Justice under Biden issued

197 subpoenas for 430 Republican

entities and individuals.

The Democrats,

once Biden was elected,

were literally hunting Republicans.

Do you remember when Bill Maher mocked

me last week for saying that Republicans

would be hunted if Biden got elected? I

said that back in 2020 on X. He mocked

me for that. He mocked me for saying

they would be hunted while at the same

time one of the biggest stories in the

country is the Republicans were being

hunted.

Now, maybe he thought I meant with a gun

and in some cases that too, but I didn't

mean that necessarily with a gun, just

that they would be hunted, you know,

hunted by people who wanted them harm.

This is hunted by people who wanted them

harm people. I could not have been more

right about this. And that's not even

counting the January 6, you know, just

the civilians. This is the the elected

Republicans. My god. Oh my god. Now,

it's being called, of course, worse than

Watergate.

Uh,

and you know, I'm totally biased on this

topic, but isn't it worse than

Watergate?

It looks like it to me. Watergate was a

tiny little thing when you look at it in

the rearview mirror especially. You know

it seemed bigger then of course because

the news told you it was bigger but in

the rearview mirror this looks a lot

bigger. A lot bigger you like a hundred

times bigger.

So we'll see where this goes. Probably

nowhere.

[clears throat]

Eric Dhy

has a post X. Uh he was noticing on the

view that Whoopi Goldberg was being

especially stupid. I think he called her

ironic. Uh and she was talking about the

Biden auto patent. So this is Whoopi

Goldberg on the view. And she says she

wants she wants the Biden admin I'm

sorry the Trump administration to quote

stop investigating a man who is no

longer in office.

This is Whoopy on the view. Stop

investigating a man who is no longer in

office. meaning Biden.

Now, did I mention that this is the same

time as the Arctic Frost story is one of

the biggest stories in the country?

You know, the part where the Biden

administration couldn't stop

investigating Trump after he was out of

office

at the same time. The same time it's one

of the biggest stories. And she's

saying, "Stop investigating a man who's

no longer in office." Uh,

and here's what Whoopi said that they

should be talking about and worrying

about. Are you ready for her priorities?

All right, so it's 2025

and this are Whoopi's priorities.

Soybeans solved. Epstein files don't

really exist.

and those narco boats. She wants to make

sure that we've identified them as

actual criminals,

not just kill them.

So, those are her three priorities.

Soybeans solved. Epstein probably

imaginary. I doubt there's any files.

And narco boats that probably the

government is doing exactly what they

should be doing. We just don't know the

details. What's missing? Do you see

anything missing from the list?

How about crushing national debt

missing?

How about their biggest concern used to

be say it climate change? Yeah, we'll

talk about climate change a little bit

too. So what happened to climate change?

Suddenly that's not a big deal. It's all

about the soybeans and the epste and the

narco boats. Uh, I would like to make my

own list of the least important things

to me. The least important things.

Soybeans, Epstein files, and narcoats.

I'm kind of interested in all of them.

[laughter] They're interesting in their

own little way, but they're the smallest

problems I have in the world.

But Whoopi, she's got to get those

soybeans and Epstein files solved.

Climate change, not so much.

Let's talk about Thomas Massie and the

and the many dust ups with President

Trump. So JD Vance was asked at uh one

of the Turning Point USA events

recently. He was asked why Trump is

going after Thomas Massie, which he is

trying to primary him. And uh here's

JD's explanation, and I'll give you my

take on this. He says, "It's one thing

to disagree with the party on an issue.

voting against the party on every single

issue. Every time we've needed Thomas

for a vote, he's been completely

unwilling to provide it. That's why

Trump turned his eyeire on Massie. We

could never count on him for some of the

most difficult votes. I say that as

someone who knew Thomas well before I

got into politics. All right, here's my

take on Thomas Massie.

What JD is leaving out of his um

explanation is why he does it.

Why would you leave out why he does it?

Now, I'm not like an expert on every

single thing that Thomas Massiey's ever

done, but can you answer this question

for me?

Is it not true that his resistance to

Republican things is always based on the

Constitution

and always based on an accurate reading

of the Constitution? Am I wrong about

that?

That our problem with him is that he can

accurately read our own Constitution and

then he acts upon it.

There there may be some exceptions where

there's just something he knew more

about than the government. you know,

he's into the allowing farmers to sell

things directly. I think that's one of

his issues. I I don't know if the rest

of the government or the Republicans

disagree with that or not. I mean, he

has some other issues, but I think JD,

if you wanted to be fair about this, and

you know, to be fair, his job is to

support the president. His job is not to

be completely transparent. He's he's a

supporter of the president, and that's

his right role. So within his role as

vice president, this is totally

acceptable the way he framed it. But as

a consumer and as a fan of Massie, I

just need to say I like one person who's

supporting the Constitution, even if

he's a pain in the ass.

I will accept his pain in the assess

because it doesn't seem to affect too

many votes.

How many times has he been the one the

only one

who determined which way the vote went?

Has that ever happened? Or is he just

reliably not in their column?

Because if he'd actually changed the

outcome of things that I cared about,

maybe I'd reassess. But I don't think he

actually changes any outcomes. I think

he's just not reliably under vote. So

anyway, I'm pro Massie. I completely

understand the argument that winning is

more important than maybe some nicities.

Um, but I like my constitution and I

like that there's one person who will

risk everything to remind us what's in

it.

Well, Obama is talking. He was at some

event and said some scary Obama sounding

things uh that I'll criticize in a

moment. He said, quote, "Part of what

we're going to have to do,

who is we, the government, the

Democrats? Part of what we're going to

have to do is to start experimenting

with new forms of journalism." Uh-oh.

Already there's a problem. And how we

use social media. Uh-oh. In ways that

reaffirm facts and separate facts from

opinion.

We want diversity of opinion. No, you

don't, you liar. We don't want diversity

of facts. That, I think, is one of the

big tests of social media, by the way.

It will require some government

regulatory constraints. There it is.

There it is. He wants some government

regulatory constraints. Now, the way I

read this is he wants the government to

be in charge of telling you what's real

and what isn't real. Is it a fact or not

a fact? Well, the government the

government will help you with that.

What's that called? [laughter]

It's called censorship.

It's the dumbest thing. But here's my

take. Doesn't it feel like old thinking

to imagine that we know our facts are

true? Can you tell me which domain we're

confident that we know the facts are

true? What about those employment

numbers?

What about our uh food pyramid?

What about all the pandemic data?

What about our uh GDP?

What about the inflation numbers?

There's not a true number in the

country, people. There is no real

reliable fact that any of us will ever

agree on. So, what makes this seem like

an opinion from the 70s? It just feels

old. It's like Obama hasn't noticed that

everything from climate change

to everything is fake. It's all fake.

Once you realize that all of the all the

facts are fake and always will be.

It's just an idiot idea to follow the

facts.

There was a time when we all thought

that made sense, right? If 10 years ago,

maybe more,

let's say 20 years ago, if 20 years ago

he had said exactly this, we have to

make sure that people are following

facts because if they're not following

the facts, we're all in trouble and the

government will be helpful in helping

you know what the facts are. 20 years

ago, I would have actually thought that

was a thing. And I I would have given

that serious consideration knowing that

there's a censorship, you know, risk

there. But I would have given that

serious consideration because I would

have thought, well, we're definitely

better if we follow the facts, right?

Wouldn't you say that? Following the

facts has got to be better than not

following the facts. And then fast

forward 20 years to 2025 and you learn

the brutal truth of life. There are no

facts.

There are no facts. There are only

narratives. There are claims.

There are lies. There are lucky guesses,

but there are no facts, people. There

are no facts. So, this is all bad. This

is really just Obama saying, "We want to

control what you think is true." That's

what this is. We don't want that.

saw a video yesterday of uh I guess one

of Joe Biden's closest adviserss, a guy

named Mike Donalan

had been uh I guess he was being

interviewed about his Biden experience

and uh they made him admit that he had

millions of dollars on the line for

keeping o keeping Biden in the race.

Now you know what the problem was,

right?

Didn't you know that there had to be

some financial thing going on that

Biden's adviserss were keeping him in

the race? It always seemed to me that

there would be a this big class of

professionals who literally would have

millions of dollars a piece that were on

the line if he got elected,

right? Not only would they get paid for

helping him get elected as this Mike

Donan said he would get up to $4 million

if if Biden became president again. $4

million.

And coincidentally,

Mike Donan did not think that he should

pull out of the race,

right?

So, we all watched Biden looking, you

know, like a vegetable. But the guy

closest to him, who obviously knew what

the situation was, had millions of

dollars on the line if he lied to us and

said he's fine.

Now, I'm not sure that he lied because I

can't read his mind, but I certainly

wouldn't trust the guy who's got

millions of dollars at stake.

There's a video libs of Tik Tok has a

video that I don't know exactly who this

group is, but it's a group of Democrats,

I guess, who are planning to surround

the capital on uh November 5th, which

they call one year since the fascists

got into office. and they're going to

try to increase their number of people

around the capital until the current

administration

resigns.

So, they're literally planning an

insurrection.

No, no exaggeration and no word

thinking. So, it would be word thinking

if it were not an actual insurrection

they were planning, but they even talk

about it as removing the government

uh before the term is over. So, if

you're if you're trying to use um a

protest to remove the government before

the government would normally be done,

that's an insurrection, right? I mean,

what else would you call that? So, I'm

not doing word thinking. That's just

what they say they're doing. Uh I don't

know who this group is. Look like a

small group in room. I don't know if we

have to worry about them yet, but the

fact that they're even talking about

that is just wow.

So,

as you know, Bill Gates made some news

by saying that maybe climate change is

not the crisis that people thought and

maybe we should spend our money on

feeding people and taking care of our

other biggest problems.

And people like me made a lot of noise

about that. Um, what's interesting,

there's a lot interesting about this.

We'll talk about it. What's interesting

is that uh we're all trying to read his

mind and trying to figure out what what

was Bill Gates thinking before and was

he really thinking now and why do he

make this pivot? Well, I don't know. So,

I always I always warn you that you

can't read his mind. I I saw that Mike

Cernovich is going hard at him um

reasonably

and calling people um

was it naive? I think he used the word

naive if you think that all he did was

look at the facts and adjust to the new

facts. [laughter]

And I would I would agree with Mike that

although I can't read Bill Gates mind, I

doubt it had anything to do with facts.

It might have to do with the fact that

he has now got approval for his Gen 4

nuclear power plant that he's invested

in because if that works out, there's

going to be he's going to make more

money from nuclear power

than he's ever made before in any other

thing. I mean, he could be the richest

person in the world just because of Gen

4 nuclear power. I mean, that that would

be enough. Uh so when somebody has a big

financial

uh a financial incentive

to say yeah let's go strong on energy

and don't waste our money so much on

these other things we'll put it all in

this area. It might be just financial

but again I can't read his mind so I

don't know. Um

but uh according to Harry Anon

who did a uh survey on or looked at the

numbers on CNN, he's their data guy on

CNN. Uh he says that the climate change

message has not worked for 36 years. So

back in the year 2000,

40% of the public I guess were alarmed

about climate. 40%. That was in the year

2000. by the year 2020

had gone up to 46%

um were concerned

and then after uh 2020 it dropped. So by

2025 only 40% back to where it was in

2000. So from 25 years

of uh climate alarmism

didn't move the needle at all.

25 years of massive propaganda in one

direction

didn't move it at all. Where was Trump

the whole time? Trump was saying that

climate change was a hoax the whole

time. Not necessarily the warming part,

but the way it was treated as a crisis

was a hoax. And uh he he of course

couldn't help himself. So he posted

today, "We won the war on climate change

hoax.

And he said that uh this is what Trump

said on X. Bill Gates has finally

admitted that he was completely wrong on

the issue. It took courage to do so and

for that we're all grateful. MAGA.

So,

so Trump got one of the biggest wins of

all time.

Imagine how he feels.

Is there anything that Trump has been

more mocked for besides his haircut than

the fact that he called climate change a

hoax?

I think that was always besides the

trivial stuff like hair and you know

girlfriends and stuff. I think that was

like the biggest knock against him,

right? That he was he was anti-science

and he didn't understand what all the

smart people did that we were all going

to die in a climate crisis. Well, people

fast forward. He was right.

He was right. So, what happened between

the years 2020 and 2025

that would have caused

that would have caused people to have,

you know, less belief in climate change.

Is there anybody who got involved in

that conversation around 2015?

Well, you could do the math. All right.

Um, ABC's Jonathan Carl was interviewing

uh Gavin Newsome. This is funny. So, you

would you would think that ABC might be

sort of pro-democrat, especially in

their news division. Uh, but here's what

Jonathan Carl actually did in a in a

recorded podcast with Gavin Newsome.

This is almost hard to believe. This is

a real thing. He held up a picture

[laughter]

of the character from the movie American

Psycho and held it next to a picture of

Gavin Newsome and told him that even his

even his supporters note that he looks

like a uh a comic book villain from

Central Casting. [laughter]

Imagine

being in a uh in an interview with a

legitimate news source and the

legitimate news guy holds up a picture

of you as a character in a movie who's

literally a a psychopath

and it has no news value whatsoever

except to point out that he looks like a

psychopath.

[laughter]

Now that's funny. That's just funny. Um,

however,

uh, you know, I have to support Jonathan

Carl on this. The way people look

totally matters, right? That's something

I can say because I'm just, you know, a

guy on a podcast, but you you can't say

that if you're legitimate news, but he

did. I mean, in his own way, he's saying

it as a legitimate news guy. Uh, the way

you look matters a lot. AOCC's look. Do

you think that makes a difference? Of

course it does. Uh President Trump's

height, does that make a difference? Of

course it does. Of course it does. Yeah.

The the way people look is hugely

influential. And I do believe I agree

that Newsome does look like a uh a movie

or a comic book book villain. He looks

exactly like the Joker, doesn't he? He's

even got the Joker's haircut. He he

could walk into a role as the Joker on a

Batman movie with almost no makeup. I'm

not wrong about that. So, if people

can't notice that, I don't know.

Meanwhile, here's a shock. According to

the National Pulse, uh I guess Elaine

Stefonic,

a uh a Republican,

just pulled the highest for a potential

future

governor of New York.

And they haven't had a Republican

governor in New York in 20 years. So, I

don't know if that's real. That's one

that's just one poll. You can't really

believe one poll, but it's new poll from

the Manhattan Institute shows Elise

Elise Stefonic, Republican, leading both

the current governor Hawl

[snorts]

and uh and Lieutenant Governor of New

York, too, who's also a Democrat.

So, hypothetically, if they ever ran,

she would win.

That would be amazing. Wouldn't expect

that.

Um, meanwhile over in Gaza trying to

figure out how to get that all settled

out. Axios is reporting that

there's there's some lots of

conversations and progress I think has

been made figuring out who's going to

run that place in terms of physical

security. And at the moment it looks

like the idea I don't know if this is

going to work but the idea is that the

US Egypt and Jordan alongside some other

this Axios is reporting on this along

with some uh other Arab and Muslim

countries

that might include Indonesia, Azeran,

Egypt and Turkey

might be all part of this security deal.

But it sounds like if they're talking

about maybe this country, maybe that

country, that sounds a lot like they

don't they're not that close to getting

any kind of a thing um going.

But here's the most interesting thing

that happened. Oh, well, let me let me

just say this. I'm sure they'll get it.

So, I don't think there's any risk that

they won't be able to figure out how to

get some countries that want to do

security there. It's just going to take

some grinding. It just looks like it's

going to be hard, but totally doable.

So, they they'll get there.

But, uh, as you know, there have been

some breaks in the ceasefire, which

everybody expects. You know, there there

always going to be minor breaks in the

ceasefire, but so far it's holding. And,

uh, even though they're breaks, that

gets back on plan when it does. But I

didn't know this, but apparently uh

Israel had planned as sort of a

retaliation for the the ceasefire break

that they say Hamas did, they were going

to retake some part of Gaza and reoccupy

it. And the reporting is that Trump

said, "No, you're not. You are not going

to take more of Gaza. Stay where you

are. uh we're just going to sort of sort

of just tap this along and act like the

break of the ceasefire wasn't the

biggest deal in the world so that we can

get to the phase two. Uh whereas Israel

might want to might wanted to grab some

land

uh or or just move the IDF into more

occupying of of Gaza than they're

occupying right now, which would have

just caused a giant problem and maybe

derailed the entire thing. And the

reporting is that Trump said, "Nope."

And he said, "No, you're not. You're not

going to redeploy and take over that

space. Even though you have a good

argument for it, you're not going to do

it." Now, here's my question to you. Did

that really happen? Because, you know,

it's the news. You never know if it

really happened. Did Trump really tell

them not to do it? And is that really

the only reason they didn't do it?

Because if the reporting is accurate,

uh it's kind of a a blow to the Israel

controls the US narrative, isn't it?

Kind of a big blow. Does it not seem to

you that at least with our current

president, while it will always be true

that Israel does an amazingly good job

of influencing the US for their, you

know, their own uh national purposes,

which is their job. You know, if you're

an Israeli government, well, even if

you're just a citizen, it's sort of your

job to make sure that your country does

well. Does Israel do a good job of

making sure their country does well?

Yeah. Yeah. A really good job. Very good

job. Do we like it all the time?

Not if we think that it included

manipulating or pushing the US around.

We don't like that part. But so far,

we've heard several anecdotes that seem

to suggest that uh at least Netanyahu is

going to I don't want to say bow to

Trump, but he's he's definitely going to

take very seriously what Trump wants to

the point of maybe just doing what he

wants.

So are we watching any kind of great

reversal where the the power influence

structure is changing

or has it always been this way but we

were maybe less aware of it cuz you know

I've described in the past the US and

Israel relationship

to me it looks less like Israel

controlling everything in America and

more like a sibling situation

which is that you know we have this, you

know, love for them as siblings. You

know, you could argue whether we should

or should not, but we do. You know,

Israel's kind of special to a lot of

people in the US. Not everybody,

obviously. Um, but I think we influence

each other.

When it matters more to the US,

then we push. When it matters more to

them, maybe they push harder than we

push back. Sometimes they win, sometimes

we win. But if it's true, and I'll I'll

put a big if because if you wanted to

argue with the if, I wouldn't I wouldn't

have a, you know, response to that. If

it's true that Trump is telling them

what to do in some of these situations

and they're just doing it, that would

look very different, wouldn't it? That

would look very much more sibling like

sometimes your brother wins, sometimes

your sister wins, but it's not really

winning. It's more like just working

with each other.

That's what it looks like. I'm not close

enough to the situation to know what it

really is like, but it looks like that.

Um,

let's see. Homeland Security, according

to News Nation, is rolling out new rules

requiring photographs and in some cases

fingerprints of all non- US citizens

entering the US. To which I say, wait,

what?

We're only now requiring

uh fingerprints and photographs for

coming into the country.

We we weren't already doing that.

[laughter]

That's a that's one of those stories

where you go, "What? I thought we always

did that." All right.

Um let's see what's happening overseas

just for a minute. over in Germany, the

the right-wing party has got now 40% uh

um support which is actually more than

all the the any of the other individual

parties. So the dominant party only by

little 40 to 38%

uh is anti-immigration.

So, does that mean that Germany will

start deporting people and closing their

border if the biggest political entity,

only biggest by a little bit, but

they're the biggest, um, is against it?

Do you think that Germany has time to

roll back their immigration

um, standards to save Germany as

whatever they want Germany to look like?

Probably not. Yeah, I'm seeing in the

comments too late. Feels too late,

doesn't it?

Feels too late. But speaking of that,

Elon Musk who says uh in his provocative

way, uh Elon said that civil war in

Britain is inevitable. I think he said

that on Acts, of course. Uh do you think

so? Do you think that a civil war in

Britain is inevitable? what he's talking

about is the

uh the nativeborn versus the immigrant

population. I think you maybe he's

talking about the Islamic uh immigrant

population specifically. He's not he's

not being specific, but do you think

there's going to be a civil war in

Britain?

I'm going to say no because what would

that look like? They don't have guns.

[laughter]

What what would civil war even look

like? They're completely neutered.

Who Who would they fight? What are they

going to go out with butter knives and

butter knives and baseball bats and have

a civil war?

I don't think there's going to be a

civil war. I I think that whatever it is

they wanted to preserve, they already

lost.

And for them, it's probably a major

tragedy.

But I don't think they can civil war

their way out of it. I don't I don't see

that happening.

Um, and I guess Trump's also going to

end uh the the Biden policy of

automatically extending work permits.

Breitbart News is reporting on this,

John Binder.

Um, and that makes sense. They're just

going to make sure that the people who

are working here have been vetted

properly.

They won't like it. Meanwhile, also in

Germany, they've developed a 20 kowatt

laser for shooting down drones. Now,

this will be like the 20th time I've

told you a story that there's a brand

new device laser for shooting down

drones or other things.

Um,

but what I want to add to this is that

apparently if this works, and they're

already testing it and it does work, uh,

so it's a real thing, uh, that it will

lower the cost of defending against

drones, you know, dramatically. And when

I'm looking at war zones, because I have

a, you know, economics background, uh, I

tend to look at the economics of it to

predict what's happen. You know, the

best economy almost always wins in war.

I don't know if you knew that, but the

strongest economy usually can afford the

best weapons and over time the best

economy usually wins a war. Uh, but

related to that would be the cost of

their weapons.

You know, if you're the if you're the

smaller economy, but you can figure out

how to do your weapons really cheap, you

you effectively, you know, can punch

above your weight. So, if it turns out

that our adversaries are really good at

building drones,

um, but we get even better at anti-

drone lasers and shooting them out of

the sky for 20 cents a drone instead of,

you know, a million dollars to take out

a drone, uh, we win.

So, it could be that the economic race

to have, you know, the cheapest anti-

drone defenses and also the cheapest

drones, just the economics of that, that

might determine who wins everything.

And, you know, Germany's got a nice

little device there that might make a

difference.

Well, here's something for the Democrats

to talk about for the next few weeks.

According to the Guardian, the Pentagon

is uh telling the National Guard to

organize quick reaction forces for all

the major parts of the US. So there'd be

20,000 National Guard who would be

trained, but no more than say 500 for

any one location. So it's not you're not

going to see 20,000 people in the same

place, but 500 a piece for various

places. and they would be a quick

reaction force for uh if there's social

unrest.

So if there's something that you quickly

need to quell

like a riot, there will always be

somewhere reasonably close in every

state, you'd have 500 well-trained

anti-riot people. Now, what do you think

the Democrats are going to say about

that? [laughter]

Th this is weeks of content for the

anti- athoritarian people. Oh, there it

is. Told you. Told you. He's organizing

his private army now. If we protest,

he's going to come and get us with his

500 National Guard people.

[snorts] So, they'll have something to

talk about for a few weeks. We don't

want them to be bored. All right, that's

all I have for today. Uh, I'm going to

talk to the uh local subscribers, my

beloved local subscribers. Uh, a little

special. By the way, if you were a

member of Locals, you've been watching

me draw Dilbert live every night. Um, I

can't promise I'll do it every night.

My, you know, actually my ability to

draw

could be done this week. This might be

the last time I draw uh cuz my hand is

increasingly

paralyzed from whatever is going on

medically with me. So, at the moment, my

two fingers and thumb on my left hand

still work.

So, I've been doing live drawing

demonstrations. Uh, so you can see how I

use the computer to draw, etc. I teach

you teach you my little tricks as I'm

going. Sometimes we write, sometimes

I'll write live. Um, but so that's on

locals. If you want to, just Google me.

Google my name and locals and you'll

find out where to sign up if you want

to. But I can't promise you I can keep

doing it the drawing. So I I I might

have to retire from drawing

you maybe this week. I know. It just

depends if my hand keeps working. If

these three fingers keep working, I can

actually draw better

than I've ever drawn before. So there

there's no degradation whatsoever at the

moment, but it's right on the edge. It's

right on the edge where I'm going to

lose this ability completely. I already

can't type. So since the these fingers

don't work, I can't type because I can't

feel the keyboard.

But today, I'll go in and get a uh get

my radiation treatment for at least one

part of my body, which won't affect

this, by the way. So there's there's no

plan for fixing this at the moment.

So, I might be a quadripollegic pretty

soon. Anyway, um, thanks for joining.

and locals. I'm coming at you privately

in 30 seconds.