Episode 3008 CWSA 11/04/25

Good to see all of you.

Oh, darn it.

My computer decided that now is the time it's going to ask me for a password.

Why now?

All right, come on in here.

This is the garage man cave.

And if I can get my computer, my second computer to come on, then I will be able to see you.

Little refresh there and see all of your comments.

Everybody, everybody good today?

Feeling good?

Come on in.

Comments.

There we go.

There's your comments.

I've already printed my notes because I'm a prepared guy.

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

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to experience an elevation of your mood that your tiny shiny brain can't even imagine, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, chelstein, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

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

It's called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

Go.

You're out of coffee.

Emergency.

Emergency.

Well, I know you like to start the day with a reframe from my book, Reframe Your Brain.

The most important book in the United States, possibly the world.

All right, let's see.

Uh, we're all the way up to the mental health reframes from the book.

I'll do at least one a day if I remember.

We did we did a bunch of them yesterday, but let me get to the one I haven't got to yet.

Um, this one.

Yeah.

How about this one?

The usual frame.

If somebody insults you, you think to yourself, "Ah, that insult is damaging my brain.

That insult hurts me.

It's causing me damage." Right?

We act like we act like an insult hurts us.

Well, it does actually.

You know, any anything that you perceive becomes a part of your memory, part of your brain.

So, yeah, somebody insults you, it might hang around and cause a problem.

So the old way is that an insult is damaging to your mental health.

Here's a reframe that you might take advantage of.

The reframe is that an insult is a confession from the other person.

An insult is a confession that your accuser can't refute your opinion or has personal problems of some sort.

T typically when somebody's uh criticizing you, they're not the best people and they're not in the best place in life.

And when once you realize, wait a minute, these are not the best people and they're not having a great life.

If if the thing that was the best thing they could do today was criticize me, that's not very good.

I feel sorry for my accuser.

Anyway, so an insult is a confession that they don't have a good argument.

Do you know what people do when they have a good argument?

I I say this all the time, but the more often you hear it, the better.

When people have a good argument, you know what they do?

They use it.

They use a good argument.

When people don't have an argument, what do they do?

They call you a communist or they call you a fascist or something.

No, an insult.

An insult is just a confession.

So once you see it that way, the insults don't bother you anymore.

Anyway, how about some science?

There's a new study that says helping other people can slow your cognitive decline by up to 20%.

University of Texas said, "Awesome." Now, how many of you knew that this this refers to helping or volunteering outside the home?

I don't know why they said outside the home.

seems like helping anywhere would be good.

But does that make sense to you that if you become a helpful person that it would be good for your own brain?

Here's why that makes sense to me.

I have to admit I didn't know that.

So if you'd asked me, I'd say it feels reasonable to expect it, but I didn't know it.

And the reason I would have expected it is you've heard me talk about how people are healthiest when they're pursuing whatever is closest to their biological evolutionary reality.

So I believe that people stay healthier.

This is just a hypothesis, but I I think it's true that if the closer you are to the mating process, the single most important thing that a human can do, because mating is sort of it's organized our entire evolutionary path from, you know, a million years ago.

So, if you're if you're any part of the mating, producing children, taking care of children process, it probably your body probably stays healthier.

I'll bet if you did a study of that, you'd you'd find that to be true.

So, it doesn't surprise me that if you're being helpful, which is really another way to protect the tribe, which is really another way to protect the mating instinct or or the mating process of the tribe because you're just helping other people and maybe they're having the babies, maybe you are, but it's uh it's got to be built into your DNA, right?

So, something tells me that when you orient your mind toward helping the tribe, I think you stay healthier.

That doesn't surprise me a bit.

Did you know that eating cheese once a week is linked to a 24% lower dementia risks?

Okay.

So, what I'd recommend, and this is from uh Natural News, Cassie B is writing about it.

I recommend helping other people while eating cheese.

Because Jesus saves.

Jesus saves.

No.

Jesus saves.

Nothing.

All right.

Well, according to a um I think this is is it Rasmusen or somebody else?

I don't think there was a source on this, but there's a new um there's a new poll that said that 71% of uh the US people surveyed were in support of Trump's admin the Trump administration destroying the narco drug boats.

So, it turns out it's a 7030 issue in favor of destroying the drug boats.

Now, given that it's a 7030 issue, of course Trump is doing it, you don't have to wonder if it's 7030.

If it's 7030, yeah, he's totally doing that because why wouldn't you?

Sometimes he does it while he's eating cheese.

So, he's actually protecting his brain while protecting the country.

Yeah, that's how it works.

Um, even 56% of Democrats are in support of blowing up those drug boats.

All right, I'll make my per here.

Here's my confession.

I'm not claiming to be such a good person.

I'm going to confess.

As you know, in 2018, most of you know this, uh, I lost my stepson to fentinyl, fentinyl overdose.

And I can watch narco drug boats get blown up all day long and still want to see another one.

Now I know I'm in the extreme because you know of my personal experience, but finding out that 70% of the public sort of agrees with me that watching these blow up is more good than bad.

I don't feel so bad.

So thank you.

Well, it's election day for some special case situations such as New York City's mayor and uh what is it?

New Jersey governor and somebody else I don't care about.

Um so the Wall Street Journal says that today will be a day that you will test Trump's low economics rating and see if that helps the Democrats get elected.

Why in the world does Trump have a low economic rating?

that does does it make sense with the data that we have?

You know, all all data is questionable, of course, but does it make sense with the data that we do have that he would have a low economic rating?

Because it seems to me that almost everything he's tried has worked.

you know, may maybe he and the the uh the Democrats are they're trying to hold him uh responsible to his hyperbole, as in he'll get rid of inflation on day one.

And the Democrats are actually criticizing him because he didn't get rid of he didn't lower prices.

He didn't lower prices on day one.

Really, you really expected him to lower prices on day one?

Now, he did lower sub prices.

He got your eggs down.

He got your gas down.

Beef's too high.

He has a plan, but I don't know if that's going to work.

But really, you you're you're going to compare him to the hyperbole, not to anything in the real world.

Do you know what hyperbole is?

It's imaginary, right?

Hyperbole is by definition the thing that doesn't match reality.

It's some extended imaginary version of reality.

What is the most consistent thing that Democrats do?

I think you know the answer.

They lean into the imaginary.

So their entire economic everything is literally based on imaginary stuff.

And they do it right in front of us and we even call it imaginary and we see it as imaginary.

It still works.

They're still convinces their base.

So, the base thinks there was some way that a human being could have lowered prices on day one of the presidency.

Okay.

All right.

It's pretty imaginary.

Um, and have you noticed that the Democrats have uh words about how they want to lower prices, such as mom Donnie in New York?

Assuming he wins, he wants to uh give away a bunch of stuff which he wants to pay for with taxes on rich people, many of whom want to leave if mom gets elected.

Now, do you think that the math works?

Of course not.

Of course, the math doesn't work.

Which means that his plan for lowering costs, and by the way, how much control does he have over a lot of this stuff?

The mayor doesn't have a lot of control over much of that stuff.

So, is their economic plan imaginary?

Yes, it is.

Now, is Trump's plan imaginary?

Well, so far whatever he wants to do with beef is unstated, but I doubt it would be imaginary.

I mean, I'm sure he's looking into real things.

So, imaginary versus not.

Anyway, um Mike is pointing out how the the latest New York City poll shows how looney voters are.

Crime is crime is listed as the residents of New York City's greatest uh issue.

it's their biggest issue.

Um, and they they want to and while crime is the biggest issue, the person that they want to elect is the one who would be softest on crime.

Now, can you explain that?

How can it be that crime is the biggest issue, but by a by a big factor, they're still willing to elect the guy who's the softest on crime, their biggest issue?

Well, there is a reason.

It's called follow the money.

Because if they believe that they can get free stuff from mom, Donnie and they don't have another mechanism for getting stuff.

I mean, if you were poor, you'd think, well, I'm poor and it's not going to change.

Might as well get some free stuff.

And then I would say, but what about crime?

And then you would say, what about eating?

What about eating?

So eating is a little bigger than crime.

So, uh, while it looks crazy that the people who say their biggest issue is crime are going to vote for exactly the opposite of a solution, if you imagine that their real problem is always affording to eat, maybe they don't say it or maybe they don't list it because maybe they just think crime is the right answer to the question.

But people will follow their money.

They're not going to they they won't even follow danger because the danger seems a little theoretical like if you stay away from this part of town it won't be much of a problem but what are you going to do about eating?

So it's probably about affordability.

Um or they're they're experiencing suicidal empathy or there's a bubble where they just don't see the world the same as you.

All right.

There's allegedly New York Post says, "I don't believe any of this, but nearly a million New Yorkers are ready to flee New York City if Mum Dami is mayor.

Really?

Do you believe that uh 765,000 people must have been a poll?" Uh- which is, you know, you could argue that's a million.

765.

That's a lot of rounding.

It's a little too much rounding to go from 765,000 to a million.

It's almost a million.

It's close to threequarters of a million.

Let's say uh that would be 9% of New Yorkers.

And apparently these are people who say they would definitely leave.

I This is a sort of poll where people are answering in the way they think they can influence reality.

It's not exactly necessarily their opinion.

or what they're going to do.

It might be the message they want to send and they want you to know if you elect this overt taxing under criminal fighting guy that they'd rather live somewhere else in here.

But would they actually move when they look at all the pain in the ass of moving and where they work and where their family is and all that?

A million 9%.

That seems a little high, but maybe it's just to influence the uh the election.

Well, today is a big day for me.

Right after this show, I'm gonna uh go over to a medical facility at Kaiser and get the blue plcto, which is a promising cancer drug.

About onethird of the people get uh a really good response, as in their tumors just sort of melt away, which is remarkable.

It's not a cure, but you can really make a difference in your your life.

about one-third get some kind of improvement, but it's not, you know, melting the tumors away.

So, I'd still be happy with, you know, some amount of improvement.

Uh, but a one-third of the people might end up worse off, you know.

So, two out of three chance I'll be happier, one out of three chance I'll be less happy.

We'll see.

I like the odds.

On top of that, uh, I've connected with, uh, Dr.

Patrick Sununio, if I'm pronouncing it right.

I'm always so worried I'm pronouncing his last name wrong.

And you might have seen him on uh, Dr.

Drew's show.

You may have seen him on Tucker's show.

He's been on a few podcasts.

Um, and I didn't know too much about him until recently when he when he when I was connected with him through the Trump administration.

And um, he yeah, he has a product called Bioshield.

Uh, he has 850 patents.

Let me say that again.

He has 850 patents and his resume is so impressive that I was going to tell you a little bit about, you know, where he's worked and what he's accomplished.

It's so impressive that you can't even start.

It's like the most impressive resume you've ever heard in your life.

And I and I got to talk to some people who know some people who know him and by reputation, etc.

So, he has the highest the highest credibility, best reputation you'll have ever seen in your life.

Uh, but he's impossible to summarize.

So, he owns, you know, he owns the LA Times, but he's not a newspaper guy.

uh he's a doctor but he's specializing in creating uh creating drugs and he's created a a pro well how would I say this he's come up with a process which so far seems to be very promising very promising as in you know every single day people send me stories of somebody who thinks they can cure cancer with I don't know pumpkin seeds or some damn thing uh but This is the first time that I've looked into it and thought, whoa, this is actually credible.

So, in my opinion, not as a doctor, right?

Remember, this is not medical advice.

So, there's no medical advice that's going to follow.

But in my opinion, as a patient, I am now about to embark on the two most promising uh ways to treat my specific situation.

Uh, some people complained and they said, "Wait a minute, why is this rich guy getting this special special Trump administration treatment and would regular people get this treatment?" And the answer is I'm doing this for everyone.

Now obviously it's mostly to keep myself alive but you don't think if I fix this problem the problem being you know fixing the distribution of this promising drug you don't think if I fix at least the communication with the patients and and raise the raise the awareness of this drug you don't think that helps other people that the whole theory here is that if I can fix it for myself then it gets fixed it's not just fakes for me.

It would be primarily for anybody who had the same problem and didn't have the, you know, didn't have the good fortune to have apparently some of the best friends in the world.

Some of them I didn't even know about.

But boy am I appreciative.

Uh and and I promise you that if I get a good result, everybody's going to know.

That's part of the play.

Part of the play is that first I escape from the jail, but then I go back and I free the other prisoners.

In this case, the prisoners would be people who have cancer, the kind I have.

And if I can, I'll burn down the prison and take the warden as a hostage.

So, this is always a bigger play.

It's not about me specifically, but but I understand the criticism.

I could understand why people would see that.

Uh yesterday even Elon Musk weighed in, used Grock to show me that there were some cancer treatment alternatives if the ones I'm trying don't work.

Uh so yes, my medical treatment involved Trump, the administration, Elon Musk, Kaiser, and by the way, Kaiser is doing a great job uh at the moment.

They're doing a great job of communicating and getting me in where I need to get.

So, A+ for Kaiser for making the adjustment.

You You know how I judge people, right?

I've told you my this is a reframe as well.

The The best reframe for judging people or processes is not what they did, although it seems obvious that that should be the way, right?

It's how they respond to what they did.

How they're responding is excellent.

And that that's how I will evaluate them.

I'll evaluate them based on the response.

So A+ um you might remember I brag about this too often that I am the only nonAI expert I think.

No that's not true.

There must be lots of others.

But I'm one of the public figures who's been saying since the early days of AI that, hey, I don't think this large language model thing that keeps hallucinating could possibly be useful for anything except, you know, fun little chats.

Like, you'd never be able to use it for anything.

Cuz when AI was new, you knew that I tried to use it for something.

And what I tried to use it for was what I thought was literally the easiest thing it could do, which is look at a file I'd created and tell me what's in the file.

Like, what could be easier than that?

If you're AI, it can't do that.

And if it can't look at a file and accurately tell you what's in it, and and I know you think it can, and you think, "Oh, I build this special file.

It's called a rag.

Then it does." No, it can't.

No.

But here's what the New Yorker says that there's an MIT study that found that 95% of the companies that invested in AI uh tools, these are not the companies producing AI, but the ones using them, we're seeing seeing zero returns.

And it's they say it jives with the emerging idea that generative AI quote in its current AR incarnation simply isn't all it's cracked up to be.

John Cassidy is writing about that in the New Yorker.

Now, does that sound like meat two years ago?

It does, right?

Was I not two years ahead of that?

If you used it for five minutes, you could see that it could it just didn't didn't have the right tool.

Just wasn't wasn't ready.

And it didn't look like it could possibly be ready, which is what I think is different in my case.

A lot of people said it's not ready, but other people said if you just keep feeding it words, it'll become smarter.

No, I said if you keep feeding it words, it'll become more like people.

It won't get smarter, if you know what I mean.

So, Axios is writing also that the layoffs the layoffs might be going up and that companies are only using AI as an excuse for their public explanation of why they're laying off people.

Who was the first one to tell you that the companies would lie that AI was the reason they were laying off people?

Because then they could get a twofer.

The twofer is, oh, you reduced expenses by laying off people.

Yay.

Oh, you're also a pioneer in AI and you've made it work so quickly that you could lay off people.

God, you're amazing.

I I told you that the the most likely Gilbert future was that companies would lie and say the AI is why they were laying off people.

And here it is.

Axios is reporting companies are lying.

They're calling it the layoff boomerang.

meaning that you they lay them off, but you're going to have to hire them back eventually when the AI doesn't work.

So, that's a pretty big deal.

And uh one last thing on that same point, actually two last things.

Chat GPT has announced that Chat GPT will no longer give health or legal advice.

What do you use AI for?

Mostly health and legal advice.

Those are the two categories I use it the most.

Now I was aware that I would still have to check my work, but it is what I use it the most for.

I mean there are all kinds of legal if if you count tax and insurance and all that within the legal domain all the time.

Now let me ask you this for those of you who've been watching me.

Did I or did I not tell you at the birth of this AI bubble?

Did I not tell you that AI would be limited by these special interest human groups who didn't want to be replaced?

Is that what's happening?

Or is Chat GPT just independently thinking they're going to get in trouble if they accidentally give bad legal advice or accidentally give bad health advice?

Both of which are guaranteed if you have a hallucinating AI.

right now.

How did anybody else tell you that humans will block AI from doing what AI does?

Even if it even if it could do perfect legal advice, even if it could do perfect health advice, I told you that humans would block it because they don't want to lose the power of being the gatekeeper to what is true about your health or what is true about your your legal situation.

Now, that was a pretty damn good prediction, wasn't it?

I mean, I I feel like I can take credit for that.

Uh, and then it gets better.

Uh, there's a new study according to Medium, Lewis Call, is writing about this that finds that AI models write code.

Oh, okay.

Well, here's the one thing that AI can do well, right?

The one thing that people say, well, AI can help you write code faster.

And you know, that that that did the filibuster just end.

I just saw something in the notes.

Let me get back to that.

Um, but apparently there was a study that said that AI models write code and that's good.

But, uh, 18 to 50% of the time it writes code with security flaws.

Do you think the human is going to catch all the security flaws by looking carefully at every line of code written by the AI?

Or do you think that a normal human being would say, "Oh, AI, write this part bit of code, slap it in their program, and then write the part that they write, and then slap in some more AI code." Which do you think sounds more reasonable that the human would, you know, in great detail check every line of code the AI wrote just to make sure it didn't have these security flaws?

No, no, no.

Well, they're just going to put them in the the program unless they're like gaping and obvious, I guess.

So, let's see.

It can't do coding.

It can't do legal.

It can't do health.

And it can't help you in any productivity way by doing tasks.

It's called AI people.

It might be a bubble.

Um, but I will let me give some uh comfort to those of you who are complaining in your head right now.

I do understand that we're at the beginning of AI, not the end.

Can you give me that?

I do understand that somebody might figure out how to solve all these problems.

I understand.

But at the moment, it's right on my prediction.

Uh, which doesn't mean it will always be so.

So I I do I do accept the inevitability of a superior AI intellect, but we're just not close.

It would be some entirely different technology.

And there are people working on entirely different technologies.

So it's not like it's not going to happen.

It just isn't happening yet.

That's my only point.

All right.

Um apparently there's some new news about Comey.

So, you know, Comey is in trouble.

You know, I hate all these legal stories, but as best I remember, Comey had his friend leak some stuff and then did he lie to Congress about leaking stuff and now the lie is the is the issue that he might be jailed for the lie?

Well, apparently some more documents were discovered from Comey and that time.

and uh he said among other things, "Well done, my friend.

Who knew this would be so much fun?" Talking about uh an email after his uh his special government employee, this guy named Dan Richmond um had leaked to the New York Times allegedly.

So, this is all alleged, but uh apparently there's some pretty clear paper trail now that he did exactly what he's accused of.

And uh I saw some writing on this and uh um yeah, John Solomon, let's say John Solomon and Jerry Dunle for who write for Just the News.

So Just the News is the one seems to be carrying the details of this if you want to catch up on that.

John Solomon is doing a great job.

You know, every time I listen to John Sullivan on Fox News, I say to myself, my god, he's, you know, he and others totally have the goods now, and there's there's no way this isn't going to result in jail time.

Oh, god damn it.

My Sorry, I just had a computer problem because why Why?

All right.

Solved.

Solved.

So I can see your comments again.

All right.

All good.

Anyway, uh this is also a Mike Cernovich post.

He said that uh the court exhibits filed in the Kobe case are damning.

Usually you don't see such evidence until trial.

remember he's uh CERN knows also went to law school.

I don't know what his status is, but he's he's speaking as somebody who knows what he's talking about.

Um but since there was a pending motion to dismiss, they're made public and uh Mike says this is an open and shut case, although the judge will try to rig it uh and the jury nullification risk too.

Man, that feels like what's going to happen, doesn't it?

Doesn't it feel like it's a real thing?

and there's a real crime and we have absolute proof that the crime happened.

It would be easy to prove and still and still there will be no no justice, if you will.

I I think I agree with that.

The the odds of no justice are higher than the odds of justice.

One way or the other, that's what it feels like.

I think I skipped something I was going to talk about.

So, have you noticed that there's uh what's been called some kind of internal fight among uh Republicans and MAGA people?

So, here here are the names.

You you'll recognize this.

A lot of this is over Israel, but on one side, and that's really the wrong phrase.

They're not really on a side, but but people are trying to make this into sides.

And they would say that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes and they'd throw in Marjorie Taylor Green and even uh Charlie Kirk at this point and they would say they're anti-Israel.

Maybe some of them or all of them were anti-Semitic.

So that's the that's the internal battle that's going on.

And then the other side, those people would be not too happy with Mark Levvin and Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin and Ted Cruz and Laura Loomer and I'm forgetting some names.

So roughly speaking, the press I think more the press more than anything and also maybe some board podcasters uh are trying to make it that there's some you know uh there's some split in the mega or Republican world or conservative world now because I think in reframes and I I think differently.

I think when I see that the Republicans are fighting each other, do you know what that means?

The the first thing I think about that the first thing I think is you only fight with each other when you've won everything else.

The Republicans have so won against Democrats and the Democrats are no fun to fight against anymore, but everybody's everybody's always up for a fight.

I mean, it's sort of a a fighty kind of a you know, domain that it's such a luxury to be able to turn on your own your own team.

It's just a luxury.

It's like, hey, we took care of the enemy.

Let's fight with each other now.

It's like my cats fighting.

You know, if my if my cats saw some wild animal come in the garage, you know, they might gang up and say, "All right, it's cats against squirrel.

You take him on the left, I'll take him on the right." But if you take the squirrel out of the garage, then the cats fight with each other because that's who's around.

So when I watch this, I I just I'm having trouble getting fully engaged because the bigger picture is that you won.

The bigger picture is you won.

You don't get to even have this conversation unless you've taken care of the important stuff and then you get to fight about, you know, this.

But I'll give you my overall opinion of who's an anti-semite and who's just uh America first because it's terribly important that you know my opinion on this completely unimportant topic.

And it goes like this.

If I were Jewish, I would think half the people I named are anti-Semitic.

That's it.

That's my opinion.

If I were Jewish, then I would have a different filter on life, right?

Of course, you'd have a different filter.

You'd be a little more sensitive to, "Wait a minute, you didn't say directly, but you sure walked up to that line." And then if somebody walks up to that line more than once, then I change my view and I go, "You went up to that line a lot of times.

Why are you so interested in walking up to that line?

Why why is it important to you that you going to talk about this topic like I am right now so much?

Huh?

A little suspicious.

So, in just the way if you're a meal loving person and Democrats say something, you automatically think they're lying, right?

And vice versa.

When I when I got cancelled, uh, pretty much all of black America, at least the ones that lean left, thought, "My god, that's so racist." Do you know how many MAGA people thought it was racist as opposed to a common statement about protecting yourself?

Almost none.

So, was it racist or not racist?

It depended who you were.

It just depended who you were.

So, let me say clearly, if I were if I were Jewish, I'd be pretty worried about some of these cats.

I don't need to name names.

You know what I'm talking about.

But if you're not Jewish, you would hear exactly the same messages if you're paying attention, if you cared, and you'd say to yourself, "Huh, that's close to being anti-semitic, but really, it's just free speech and it's just America first." Which one of those is true?

Well, if I've taught you anything, it's two movies on one screen.

Truth, I don't know if we have access to that.

But prediction, we do.

So, I would say that if you can make a prediction that holds based on your view of these people and their opinions, then you might have something.

You might have something.

But if it doesn't predict, as in, you know, let I'll give you an example.

If the next thing that Tucker Carlson does is unambiguously, I don't know, pro-Jewish or pro-American or pro- Israel, would you say to yourself, "Oh, okay, that looks different." Now, I don't think he's going to do that necessarily, but I'm saying that if you can't predict, you have to check your, you know, check your worldview.

I've got more on that coming.

Well, uh, Speaker Johnson said he's trying to reframe the government shutdown as, uh, uh, as as the Democrats want to cut 50 billion from the rural hospital fund.

So, that basically they're ransoming the government.

Um, here's what I think about this whole who's to blame for closing the uh or not opening.

Even CNN is going hard at the Democrats.

Have you noticed that the the CNN hosts are doing an absolutely completely respectable job and I I have to I just have to call that out.

So, everybody from Jake Tapper to um I don't know the other hosts, they say directly to their Democrat friends, how is this the Republicans's fault if you can just vote it to be open?

Which is, you know, the ideal question.

How is it their fault if you could open it anytime you want?

Then they're like, "Whoa, whoa, well, well, so we're only a leverage, but we're trying to feed the They don't want to feed the Okay, but everybody would get everything if you just voted yes.

Oh, yeah.

The word salad.

So, I don't think there's any question um that the Democrats are acting like turds.

That they're acting like such turds.

I think it's even embarrassing to CNN.

like actually embarrassing, you know, because they're they feel associated.

I would guess I would guess if you work for CNN, people assume you're a Democrat and then they see even CNN saying, "Okay, this is just This is total All you have to do is vote and you can have everything you wanted for seven weeks and then negotiate the rest." Exactly what the Republicans are telling you.

So, but I noticed that when Trump was on 60 Minutes and the topic came up, did you notice that before the question was finished, he said it was the Democrat's fault.

Did anybody catch that?

So, it was Norah O'Donnell in 60 Minutes and she starts to ceue up the question.

Before she was done asking the question, he goes, "This is the Democrat's fault.

Now, what have I taught you about the primary tool of persuasion?" The primary tool of persuasion is repetition.

Whoever repeats the most wins.

So he makes sure that he said it before she even he even finished the question.

Now that's good technique because that gets in your head first.

He needed to get that in the head first so that she would respond to him instead of he was responding to her.

Do you see how clever that was?

That was super clever that he that he uh talked over her and gave her the answer before she asked the question.

If she had been able to ask the question, it would have been framed as why do you rep why won't you Republicans open up the government, but because he front ran her he front he front ran her while she was still talking all the way to it's it's the Democrat's fault that he framed it before she got to it.

Now, you don't sometimes you don't notice the little things that he does.

They're just perfect that you would have to be so experienced in public life to know that getting there before she finished the sentence was going to give you an advantage.

I mean, it's just brilliant persuasion wise.

This is what I noticed in him, you know, on day one of his running in 2015.

I was like, wow, he's different.

He he seems to understand things like other people don't understand them.

This this would be one.

Now, um, apparently the, uh, te did you know the Texas Texas Texas Governor Abbott said that he's going to, this can't possibly be true, but he says that if any New Yorkers try to flee New York after Mammy's win, they'll be slapped with 100% tariff.

That couldn't be true, could it?

How how would you even do that?

You're going to slap a million people a tariff on a million people who came from New York.

Okay.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Stefan Leapor.

All right.

I'm going to put that in the category of Well, I doubt it.

Uh let's see what else we got going on here.

There's a claim from whistleblower.

I saw this on Breaking 911, which is on X, uh, that the BBC completely doctorred some Trump quotes to make it look like he had uh, you know, sort of organized the January 6 quote insurrection, as they would call it.

Uh, but so I I saw a video on it and uh, so I'll wait for more credibility on this story, but what it looked like is the worst edit I've ever seen.

meaning totally illegal.

You know, I'm not talking about, you remember when CBS did their little edit of uh uh of uh what's her name?

Um I've already forgotten her, Kla Harris.

I believe she was vice president.

Yeah.

So when when 60 Minutes did their edit of her, I actually semi-defended her and them but by saying that it's not unusual for a big media thing to edit for clarity.

And it wasn't too far off from clarity, but it was enough that they, you know, settled in a court and they didn't admit any wrongdoing, but they needed to settle.

Um, so that so I don't mind editing for clarity, but whatever the BBC is accused of, according to at least one video I saw, was not clarity.

It was literally just changing what he said to what they wanted him to say because they could piece two unrelated sentences together that were 54 minutes apart or seconds or something, but they were pretty far apart.

So, if this is true, the BBC is going to owe Trump a lot of money.

So, wait for if you if you're looking for whether this is credible.

Uh, I'd look for the lawsuit if the lawsuit drops today.

Yes, the BBC edited him.

Um Rasmusen poll according to Newsmax says that the majority of of uh voters 52% they want anybody who used the auto pen under Biden and they did it without proper authorization wants them prosecuted.

So only if they used it without authorization which seems reasonable but wouldn't everybody agree with that?

It's hard to imagine there's anybody who disagrees with the question, if they use the autopen inappropriately, should they be punished?

Yes.

Yeah.

If they use it inappropriately, of course.

Anyway, uh there's always a new Bill Maher quote.

He was in his club random talking to somebody I didn't care about.

And uh what he said was uh this is just a pure compliment to Trump.

It's one of the best compliments I've ever seen Trump get and it's coming from Bill Maher.

Now to his credit once Bill met Trump in person.

He did drop all of his uh criticisms about his crazy personality because that wasn't wasn't demonstrated at all in person.

But he still maintained, you know, a strong preference for the other side.

Still thinks that Trump was tried to do an insurrection on January 6, which is Bill's personal tenpole hoax.

He can't get past that hoax.

But uh so he has complimented Trump just for being willing to talk to the other side and getting some stuff done like the border, but never this much.

This is a new level of compliment and I don't know if it means anything.

I don't expect Bill Maher to become a Republican too far.

But look at the look at the evolution of his thinking from these little compliments to now this one.

So he said a club random quote about Trump.

He didn't play the silly game that the other presidents do like well we have to be even Steven.

He's talking about the Middle East now.

He says who knows who is right.

the people who treasure life are the people who treasure death, Bill says rhetorically.

And then he goes, uh, he said, "No, I'm with Israel.

Let's see how this works out.

I'm with Western values.

I think democracy is better than theocracy." And so then Bill closes with the the keeper.

He goes, "The Jews love him more than any president ever, and the Arabs do, too.

That's quite a hat-tick.

You got to give it up for that one.

Yeah, I got to give it up for that one.

Who else could make the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East both think he was the best president?

I mean, maybe Hamas has a problem, but not Saudi Arabia.

Is that the Is that one of the best compliments you've ever heard of any politician of any time?

That that's got to be right at the top of the the best thing you could ever say about a president that he made the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East think he was the best president.

And I I think he did that.

That's actually real.

I think he actually did that.

I'd never thought of it that way.

So here's what I mean by the evolution of Bill's thinking.

He's clearly now embraced that Trump is not crazy.

And and by this I would say he's clearly embraced that Trump brings tools to the game that other people just didn't have.

They just didn't have those tools.

Now, he still he still prefers other policies.

Perfectly reasonable thing.

But uh this is one hell of an evolution uh into the light because he's 100% right about this.

Right?

This lefty's 100% right.

And if I can get him to break the tenpole hoax about somehow all those Republicans thought they could take over the country by wandering around in one building without weapons, which is what he believes.

If we can make that tenpole hoax go away, it's going to look really different.

His world will look really different.

Anyway, so remember I told you that if your worldview does not predict, you should look at it again, right?

So, Bill Maher is now squarely moved into a worldview that will predict because now that he understands that Trump just has powers that other pe other politicians just don't have, they just can't do some things like, you know, maybe get the hostages back, maybe only him, like uh solve eight military conflicts in 8 months or whatever it was.

Maybe that's only him.

I mean, there's close the border.

Maybe he's the only one who could be enough of a bastard and take enough of the heat that he could actually close the border.

Um, I've told you before that if you were to summarize why it was that I supported Trump from earlier days, here's my reasoning.

I don't know if I've ever said this explicitly, but when I looked at him, I said, uh, we've never seen that toolbox before.

He could solve problems that a president can't solve.

A normal president, you know, a modern president might.

But, uh, it was just obvious to me from almost day one that he was a solver with a set of tools that was unlike anything we'd ever seen.

And every now and then, you don't want a normie president.

You You can't have a normal president throughout all time because they won't get it done.

There'll always be these little pockets of things such as the border that that they act like they can't solve.

Sometimes you need to bring in the the big wizard to solve the things that nobody can solve.

Trump is taking on all the hardest problems, like the really hard ones, like the super hard problems, and he's just checking them off.

Check, check, check.

Middle East peace, check, check.

I mean, it's crazy.

So, when I watch him when I watch him solve the unsolvable, I say that's that's it.

That's the thing.

That's the reason I support him.

Is it because he says uh insults to people?

I I kind of enjoy that.

But no, that's not why I support him.

Yeah, I don't support him because the insults.

So, when I say that if your world worldview predicts it might be accurate.

So, I'm gonna I'm gonna give you Do you remember a prediction I made?

I made a prediction that Trump will always take the strongest position on every policy, even if he knows that the strongest position could never get done.

Maybe because it's too hard, too expensive, Democrats hate it too much, unconstitutional, the courts will stop it.

And I told you that he'll always take the strongest position and that in the long run that's a winning strategy.

No matter how many times he gets shot down from being able to do the strongest thing, it's still smart to say the strongest thing.

And here's the best example.

And that 60 Minutes interview with uh um with O'Donnell, uh he was asked, "Do you think do you think all these anecdotal situations with ICE allegedly doing rough tactics with individuals?" She goes, "Do you think, you know, I forget the exact question, but uh do you think it went too far?" Now when she Nora uh so when Norah asked that it was about individual cases which she mentioned you know this case this case this case she goes do you think it went too far ICE what do you think Trump said what would my prediction be my prediction would be if he always takes the strongest stance that he's not only going to say it didn't go too far but that it should go farther and that's what he did But he changed the context and then CBS of course and the pundits will pretend he didn't.

But he changed the context away from these individual cases which nobody could really defend because you don't know what happened really.

Uh he he changed it to the question of immigration.

So he was saying we haven't done enough for immigration but she was asking about these specific cases.

So he found a way to make it yes, we should even do more.

It was it was the way to do it.

It was exactly right from a persuasion point of view.

Again, only Trump.

Don't you think that a normal politician would have said something like, "Oh, we we need to look into those cases.

Those specific cases sound very bad.

We better look into those right away." Thank you very much for bringing that up to my attention.

Nope.

Trump says, "No, we shouldn't go harder." But he changes it to, you know, the general topic, not to the individuals.

What about uh what about Trump saying that he wants to resume nuclear detonation testing, which by the way, um Secretary Wright says that's not what we're talking about.

According to Secretary Wright, uh we're talking about testing the non-critical explosions.

So all all of the process up to but not including the actual nuclear bang.

So there is some question whether Trump ever meant that they would test the bang or whether he meant we would do what other countries do which is test everything that goes up to the bang but stops there.

Now he also said that China and Russia have been testing with actual detonations for years.

Have they?

I don't know.

It would be top secret if somebody knew that.

But he he teased it like our our intel people know that China and Russia have been, you know, continuously testing up to now.

I don't know that that's true.

But what would be the strongest thing, remember, we're talking about prediction.

What would be the strongest thing that Trump could say in this domain?

the strongest thing he could say is we're going to test we're going to test net detonations.

Now, it doesn't have to be true because it's also part of a negotiation which he's queuing up.

So, he would he would like both Russia and China to think, oh, there's something that we need to get them to stop doing.

And then he can he's invented an asset.

So, he's invented an asset as he always does before a big negotiation.

And the asset is, hey, we're going to do this blast testing of nuclear.

You surely don't want us to be doing this, so why don't we negotiate way negotiate all of our nuclear dangers at the same time?

So, it makes sense that he would go for the strongest position right before negotiation.

But do you see how well my my prediction holds?

If you simply said, what's the domain?

what's the what's the strongest thing a president could say and then you predicted that he would say that you'd be right most of the time.

So I believe that that my theory about him always taking the strongest position seems like reality because it predicts and it's it predicted twice yesterday.

I mean it worked twice yesterday.

That's a pretty good prediction.

So there was a question also on 60 minutes and other places.

Trump was asked about his pardon for the one of the founders of Binance I guess crypto site and he said weirdly that he doesn't even know who that is but maybe he was trying to say he doesn't know him personally or hasn't hasn't done business with him personally but he obviously u at one point I don't think he said it yesterday but maybe or Sunday but maybe he did uh he thought that the reason for pardoning him was that somebody told him it was that Biden was going after him.

So, it's because Biden was going after him.

Oh, I gota I got to run in one minute.

All right, we got one minute here.

Um, so yeah, there's a question about the two sons are in crypto, but I don't think anybody said anything illegal is happening.

Uh, forget about that one.

Trump is reportedly planning to send US troops and intelligence officers into Mexico to combat the drug cartels.

What would you call that?

That would be the strongest position.

Again, predictable three times in a row.

All right.

Uh the rest is some scientific stuff about bacteria that eats battery waste.

That's cool.

Atlantis may have been discovered.

That's cool.

And Ukraine may or may not have been responsible for some Hungarian explosions.

And that's all I've got for today.

And I'm not going to have time to talk to locals.

I got to run.

Going to get some medical treatment.

I'll give you an update tomorrow.

Thanks for joining.

Bye for now.

Oh, it doesn't work.

Can't end my stream.

Good to see all of you.

Oh, darn it. My computer decided that

now is the time it's going to ask me for

a password.

Why now?

All right, come on in here. This is the

garage man cave.

And if I can get my computer, my second

computer to come on, then I will be able

to see you.

Little refresh there and see all of your

comments.

Everybody, everybody good today? Feeling

good?

Come on in.

Comments.

There we go.

There's your comments.

I've already printed my notes because

I'm a prepared guy.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

You've never had a better time. But

if you'd like to experience an elevation

of your mood that your tiny shiny brain

can't even imagine, all you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass, a

tanker, chelstein, a canteen jugger

flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of

the day, the thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous

sip. It happens now. Go.

You're out of coffee.

Emergency. Emergency.

Well, I know you like to start the day

with a reframe

from my book, Reframe Your Brain.

The most important book in the United

States, possibly the world. All right,

let's see. Uh, we're all the way up to

the mental health reframes from the

book. I'll do at least one a day if I

remember. We did we did a bunch of them

yesterday, but let me get to the one I

haven't got to yet.

Um,

this one.

Yeah.

How about this one? The usual frame.

If somebody insults you, you think to

yourself, "Ah, that insult is damaging

my brain. That insult hurts me. It's

causing me damage." Right? We act like

we act like an insult hurts us. Well, it

does actually. You know, any anything

that you perceive becomes a part of your

memory, part of your brain. So, yeah,

somebody insults you, it might hang

around and cause a problem. So the old

way is that an insult is damaging to

your mental health. Here's a reframe

that you might take advantage of. The

reframe is that an insult is a

confession

from the other person. An insult is a

confession that your accuser can't

refute your opinion or has personal

problems of some sort.

T typically when somebody's uh

criticizing you, they're not the best

people and they're not in the best place

in life. And when once you realize, wait

a minute, these are not the best people

and they're not having a great life. If

if the thing that was the best thing

they could do today was criticize me,

that's not very good. I feel sorry for

my accuser.

Anyway, so an insult is a confession

that they don't have a good argument. Do

you know what people do when they have a

good argument? I I say this all the

time, but the more often you hear it,

the better. When people have a good

argument, you know what they do? They

use it. [laughter] They use a good

argument. When people don't have an

argument, what do they do? They call you

a communist

or they call you a fascist or something.

No, an insult. An insult is just a

confession.

So once you see it that way, the insults

don't bother you anymore.

Anyway,

how about some science? There's a new

study that says helping other people can

slow your cognitive decline by up to

20%. University of Texas said,

"Awesome." Now, how many of you knew

that this this refers to helping or

volunteering outside the home? I don't

know why they said outside the home.

seems like helping anywhere would be

good. But does that make sense to you

that if you become a helpful person

that it would be good for your own

brain?

Here's why that makes sense to me. I

have to admit I didn't know that. So if

you'd asked me, I'd say it feels

reasonable to expect it, but I didn't

know it. And the reason I would have

expected it is you've heard me talk

about how people are healthiest when

they're pursuing whatever is closest to

their biological evolutionary reality.

So I believe that people stay healthier.

This is just a hypothesis, but I I think

it's true that if the closer you are to

the mating process, the single most

important thing that a human can do,

because mating is sort of it's organized

our entire evolutionary path from, you

know, a million years ago. So, if you're

if you're any part

of the mating, producing children,

taking care of children process, it

probably your body probably stays

healthier. I'll bet if you did a study

of that, you'd you'd find that to be

true. So, it doesn't surprise me that if

you're being helpful, which is really

another way to protect the tribe, which

is really another way to protect the

mating instinct or or the mating process

of the tribe because you're just helping

other people and maybe they're having

the babies, maybe you are, but it's uh

it's got to be built into your DNA,

right?

So, something tells me that when you

orient your mind toward helping the

tribe,

I think you stay healthier. That doesn't

surprise me a bit.

Did you know that eating cheese once a

week is linked to a 24% lower dementia

risks?

Okay. So, what I'd recommend, and this

is from uh Natural News, Cassie B is

writing about it. I recommend helping

other people while eating cheese.

Because Jesus saves. Jesus saves.

No. Jesus saves.

Nothing. All right.

Well, according to a

um I think this is is it Rasmusen or

somebody else? I don't think there was a

source on this, but there's a new um

there's a new poll that said that 71% of

uh the US people surveyed were in

support of Trump's admin the Trump

administration destroying the narco drug

boats. So, it turns out it's a 7030

issue in favor of destroying the drug

boats. Now, given that it's a 7030

issue,

of course Trump is doing it, [laughter]

you don't have [clears throat] to wonder

if it's 7030. If it's 7030, yeah, he's

totally doing that because why wouldn't

you? Sometimes he does it while he's

eating cheese.

So, he's actually protecting his brain

while protecting the country. Yeah,

that's how it works. Um, even 56% of

Democrats are in support of blowing up

those drug boats.

All right, I'll make my per here. Here's

my confession.

I'm not claiming to be such a good

person.

I'm going to confess.

As you know, in 2018, most of you know

this, uh, I lost my stepson to fentinyl,

fentinyl overdose.

And

I can watch narco drug boats get blown

up all day long and still want to see

another one.

Now I know I'm in the extreme because

you know of my personal experience, but

finding out that 70% of the public sort

of agrees with me that watching these

blow up is more good than bad. I don't

feel so bad. So thank you. Well, it's

election day for some special case

situations such as New York City's mayor

and uh what is it? New Jersey governor

and somebody else I don't care about. Um

so the Wall Street Journal says that

today will be a day that you will test

Trump's low economics rating and see if

that helps the Democrats get elected.

Why in the world does Trump have a low

economic rating?

that does does it make sense with the

data that we have? You know, all all

data is questionable, of course, but

does it make sense with the data that we

do have that he would have a low

economic rating?

Because it seems to me that

almost everything he's tried has worked.

you know, may maybe he and the the uh

the Democrats are they're trying to hold

him uh responsible to his hyperbole,

as in he'll get rid of inflation on day

one. And the Democrats are actually

criticizing him because he didn't get

rid of he didn't lower prices. He didn't

lower prices on day one.

Really, you really expected him to lower

prices on day one?

Now, he did lower sub prices. He got

your eggs down. He got your gas down.

Beef's too high. He has a plan, but I

don't know if that's going to work. But

really,

you you're you're going to compare him

to the hyperbole, not to anything in the

real world. Do you know what hyperbole

is? It's imaginary,

right? Hyperbole is by definition the

thing that doesn't match reality. It's

some extended imaginary version of

reality.

What is the most consistent thing that

Democrats do?

I think you know the answer. They lean

into the imaginary.

So their entire economic

everything is literally based on

imaginary stuff. And they do it right in

front of us and we even call it

imaginary and we see it as imaginary. It

still works. They're still convinces

their base. So, the base thinks there

was some way that a human being could

have lowered prices on day one of the

presidency.

Okay. All right. It's pretty imaginary.

Um,

and have you noticed that the Democrats

have uh words about how they want to

lower prices, such as mom Donnie in New

York? Assuming he wins, he wants to uh

give away a bunch of stuff which he

wants to pay for with taxes on rich

people, many of whom want to leave if

mom gets elected. Now, do you think that

the math works? Of course not. Of

course, the math doesn't work. Which

means that his plan for lowering costs,

and by the way, how much control does he

have over a lot of this stuff? The mayor

doesn't have a lot of control over much

of that stuff. So,

is their economic plan imaginary? Yes,

it is. [laughter]

Now, is Trump's plan imaginary? Well, so

far whatever he wants to do with beef is

unstated, but I doubt it would be

imaginary.

I mean, I'm sure he's looking into real

things. So, imaginary versus not.

Anyway, um Mike is pointing out how the

the latest New York City poll

shows how looney voters are. Crime is

crime is listed as the residents of New

York City's greatest uh issue. it's

their biggest issue. Um, and they they

want to and while crime is the biggest

issue, the person that they want to

elect is the one who would be softest on

crime. Now, can you explain that? How

can it be that crime is the biggest

issue,

but by a by a big factor, they're still

willing to elect the guy who's the

softest on crime, their biggest issue?

Well, there is a reason. It's called

follow the money.

Because if they believe that they can

get free stuff from mom, Donnie and they

don't have another mechanism for getting

stuff. I mean, if you were poor,

you'd think, well, I'm poor and it's not

going to change. Might as well get some

free stuff. And then I would say, but

what about crime? And then you would

say, what about eating? What about

eating? So eating is a little bigger

than crime.

So, uh, while it looks crazy that the

people who say their biggest issue is

crime are going to vote for exactly the

opposite of a solution,

if you imagine that their real problem

is always affording to eat, maybe they

don't say it or maybe they don't list it

because maybe they just think crime is

the right answer to the question.

But people will follow their money.

They're not going to they they won't

even follow danger because the danger

seems a little theoretical like if you

stay away from this part of town it

won't be much of a problem but what are

you going to do about eating? So it's

probably about affordability.

Um or they're they're experiencing

suicidal empathy or there's a bubble

where they just don't see the world the

same as you.

All right.

There's allegedly New York Post says, "I

don't believe any of this, but nearly a

million New Yorkers are ready to flee

New York City if Mum Dami is mayor.

Really? Do you believe that uh 765,000

people must have been a poll?" Uh- which

is, you know, you could argue that's a

million. 765.

That's a lot of rounding.

It's a little too much rounding to go

from 765,000 to a million. It's almost a

million.

It's close to threequarters of a

million. Let's say

uh that would be 9% of New Yorkers.

[laughter]

And apparently these are people who say

they would definitely leave. I This is a

sort of poll where people are answering

in the way they think they can influence

reality. It's not exactly necessarily

their opinion.

or what they're going to do. It might be

the message they want to send and they

want you to know if you elect this overt

taxing under criminal fighting guy that

they'd rather live somewhere else in

here. But would they actually move when

they look at all the pain in the ass of

moving and where they work and where

their family is and all that? A million

9%.

That seems a little high, but maybe it's

just to influence the uh the election.

Well, today is a big day for me. Right

after this show, I'm gonna uh go over to

a medical facility at Kaiser and get the

blue plcto, which is a promising cancer

drug. About onethird of the people get

uh a really good response, as in their

tumors just sort of melt away, which is

remarkable. It's not a cure, but you can

really make a difference in your your

life. about one-third get some kind of

improvement, but it's not, you know,

melting the tumors away. So, I'd still

be happy with, you know, some amount of

improvement.

Uh, but a one-third of the people might

end up worse off, you know. So, two out

of three chance I'll be happier, one out

of three chance I'll be less happy.

We'll see. I like the odds. On top of

that, uh, I've connected with, uh, Dr.

Patrick Sununio, if I'm pronouncing it

right. I'm always so worried I'm

pronouncing his last name wrong. And you

might have seen him on

uh, Dr. Drew's show. You may have seen

him on Tucker's show. He's been on a few

podcasts. Um, and I didn't know too much

about him until recently when he when he

when I was connected with him through

the Trump administration.

And um, he yeah, he has a product called

Bioshield. Uh, he has 850 patents.

Let me say that again. He has 850

patents

and his resume is so impressive that I

was going to tell you a little bit

about, you know, where he's worked and

what he's accomplished. It's so

impressive that you can't even start.

It's like the most impressive resume

you've ever heard in your life. And I

and I got to talk to some people who

know some people who know him and by

reputation, etc. So, he has the highest

the highest credibility, best reputation

you'll have ever seen in your life. Uh,

but he's impossible to summarize. So, he

owns, you know, he owns the LA Times,

but he's not a newspaper guy.

uh he's a doctor but he's specializing

in creating uh creating drugs and he's

created a a pro well how would I say

this he's come up with a process which

so far seems to be very promising very

promising as in you know every single

day people send me stories of somebody

who thinks they can cure cancer with I

don't know pumpkin seeds or some damn

thing uh but This is the first time that

I've looked into it and thought, whoa,

this is actually credible. So, in my

opinion,

not as a doctor, right? Remember, this

is not medical advice. So, there's no

medical advice that's going to follow.

But in my opinion, as a patient, I am

now about to embark on the two most

promising

uh ways to treat my specific situation.

Uh, some people complained and they

said, "Wait a minute, why is this rich

guy getting this special special Trump

administration treatment and would

regular people get this treatment?" And

the answer is I'm doing this for

everyone. [laughter]

Now obviously it's mostly to keep myself

alive but you don't think if I fix this

problem the problem being you know

fixing the distribution of this

promising drug you don't think if I fix

at least the communication with the

patients and and raise the raise the

awareness of this drug you don't think

that helps other people

that the whole theory here is that if I

can fix it for myself then it gets fixed

it's not just fakes for me. It would be

primarily for anybody who had the same

problem and didn't have the, you know,

didn't have the good fortune to have

apparently some of the best friends in

the world. Some of them I didn't even

know about.

But boy am I appreciative.

Uh and and I promise you that if I get a

good result, everybody's going to know.

That's part of the play. Part of the

play is that first I escape from the

jail, but then I go back and I free the

other prisoners. In this case, the

prisoners would be people who have

cancer, the kind I have. And if I can,

I'll burn down the prison and take the

warden [laughter]

as a hostage. So, this is always a

bigger play. It's not about me

specifically, but but I understand the

criticism. I could understand why people

would see that. Uh yesterday even Elon

Musk weighed in, used Grock to show me

that there were some

cancer treatment alternatives if the

ones I'm trying don't work. Uh

so yes, my medical treatment involved

Trump, the administration, Elon Musk,

Kaiser,

and by the way, Kaiser is doing a great

job uh at the moment. They're doing a

great job of communicating and getting

me in where I need to get. So, A+ for

Kaiser for making the adjustment. You

You know how I judge people, right? I've

told you my this is a reframe as well.

The The best reframe for judging people

or processes is not what they did,

although it seems obvious that that

should be the way, right? It's how they

respond to what they did.

How they're responding is excellent. And

that that's how I will evaluate them.

I'll evaluate them based on the

response. So A+

um

you might remember I brag about this too

often that I am the only nonAI expert I

think. No that's not true. There must be

lots of others. But I'm one of the

public figures who's been saying since

the early days of AI that, hey, I don't

think this large language model thing

that keeps hallucinating could possibly

be useful for anything except,

you know, fun little chats. Like, you'd

never be able to use it for anything.

Cuz when AI was new, you knew that I

tried to use it for something. And what

I tried to use it for was what I thought

was literally the easiest thing it could

do, which is look at a file I'd created

and tell me what's in the file. Like,

what could be easier than that? If

you're AI, it can't do that. And if it

can't look at a file and accurately tell

you what's in it, and and I know you

think it can, and you think, "Oh, I

build this special file. It's called a

rag. Then it does." No, it can't. No.

But here's what the New Yorker says that

there's an MIT study that found that 95%

of the companies that invested in AI

uh tools, these are not the companies

producing AI, but the ones using them,

we're seeing seeing zero returns.

And it's they say it jives with the

emerging idea that generative AI quote

in its current AR incarnation simply

isn't all it's cracked up to be. John

Cassidy is writing about that in the New

Yorker. Now, does that sound like meat

two years ago? It does, right? Was I not

two years ahead of that?

If you used it for five minutes, you

could see that it could it just didn't

didn't have the right tool. Just wasn't

wasn't ready. And it didn't look like it

could possibly be ready, which is what I

think is different in my case. A lot of

people said it's not ready, but other

people said if you just keep feeding it

words, it'll become smarter. No, I said

if you keep feeding it words, it'll

become more like people. It won't get

smarter, if you know what I mean.

So, Axios is writing also that the

layoffs the layoffs might be going up

and that companies are only using AI as

an excuse for their public explanation

of why they're laying off people. Who

was the first one to tell you that the

companies would lie that AI was the

reason they were laying off people?

Because then they could get a twofer.

The twofer is, oh, you reduced expenses

by laying off people. Yay. Oh, you're

also a pioneer in AI and you've made it

work so quickly that you could lay off

people. God, you're amazing.

I I told you that the the most likely

Gilbert future

was that companies would lie and say the

AI is why they were laying off people.

And here it is. Axios is reporting

companies are lying. They're calling it

the layoff boomerang.

meaning that you they lay them off, but

you're going to have to hire them back

eventually when the AI doesn't work.

So, that's a pretty big deal. And uh one

last thing on that same point, actually

two last things. Chat GPT has announced

that Chat GPT will no longer give health

or legal advice.

What do you use AI for?

Mostly health and legal advice.

[laughter]

Those are the two categories I use it

the most.

Now I was aware that I would still have

to check my work, but it is what I use

it the most for. I mean there are all

kinds of legal if if you count tax and

insurance and all that within the legal

domain

all the time. Now let me ask you this

for those of you who've been watching

me. Did I or did I not tell you at the

birth of this AI bubble? Did I not tell

you that AI would be limited by these

special interest human groups who didn't

want to be replaced? Is that what's

happening? Or is Chat GPT just

independently thinking they're going to

get in trouble if they accidentally give

bad legal advice or accidentally give

bad health advice? Both of which are

guaranteed if you have a hallucinating

AI.

right now. How did anybody else tell you

that humans will block AI from doing

what AI does? Even if it even if it

could do perfect

legal advice, even if it could do

perfect health advice, I told you that

humans would block it because they don't

want to lose the power of being the

gatekeeper to what is true about your

health or what is true about your your

legal situation. Now, that was a pretty

damn good prediction, wasn't it?

I mean, I I feel like I can take credit

for that.

Uh, and then it gets better. Uh, there's

a new study according to Medium, Lewis

Call, is writing about this that finds

that AI models write code. Oh, okay.

Well, here's the one thing that AI can

do well, right? The one thing that

people say, well, AI can help you write

code faster. And you know, that that

that did the filibuster just end. I just

saw something in the notes. Let me get

back to that. Um, but apparently there

was a study that said that AI models

write code and that's good. But, uh, 18

to 50% of the time it writes code with

security flaws.

Do you think the human is going to catch

all the security flaws by looking

carefully at every line of code written

by the AI? Or do you think that a normal

human being would say, "Oh, AI, write

this part bit of code, slap it in their

program, and then write the part that

they write, and then slap in some more

AI code." Which do you think sounds more

reasonable that the human would, you

know, in great detail check every line

of code the AI wrote just to make sure

it didn't have these security flaws? No,

[laughter]

no, no. Well, they're just going to put

them in the the program unless they're

like gaping and obvious, I guess. So,

let's see. It can't do coding. It can't

do legal. It can't do health. And it

can't help you in any productivity way

by doing tasks.

It's called AI people. It might be a

bubble. Um, but I will let me give some

uh comfort to those of you who are

complaining in your head right now. I do

understand that we're at the beginning

of AI, not the end.

Can you give me that? I do understand

that somebody might figure out how to

solve all these problems. I understand.

But at the moment, it's right on my

prediction. Uh, which doesn't mean it

will always be so. So I I do I do accept

the inevitability of a superior

AI intellect, but we're just not close.

It would be some entirely different

technology. And there are people working

on entirely different technologies. So

it's not like it's not going to happen.

It just isn't happening yet. That's my

only point.

All right. Um apparently there's some

new news about Comey. So, you know,

Comey is in trouble. You know, I hate

all these legal stories, but as best I

remember,

Comey had his friend leak some stuff and

then did he lie to Congress about

leaking stuff and now the lie is the is

the issue that he might be jailed for

the lie? Well, apparently some more

documents were discovered from Comey and

that time. and uh he said among other

things, "Well done, my friend. Who knew

this would be so much fun?" Talking

about uh an email after his uh his

special government employee, this guy

named Dan Richmond

um had leaked to the New York Times

allegedly. So, this is all alleged, but

uh apparently there's some pretty clear

paper trail now that he did exactly what

he's accused of. And uh

I saw some writing on this and uh

um yeah, John Solomon, let's say John

Solomon and Jerry Dunle for who write

for Just the News. So Just the News is

the one seems to be carrying the details

of this if you want to catch up on that.

John Solomon is doing a great job. You

know, every time I listen to John

Sullivan on Fox News, I say to myself,

my god, he's, you know, he and others

totally have the goods now, and there's

there's no way this isn't going to

result in jail time. Oh, god damn it.

My

Sorry,

I just had a computer

problem because why

Why? All right. Solved.

Solved. So I can see your comments

again.

All right. All good.

Anyway, uh

this is also a Mike Cernovich post. He

said that uh the court exhibits filed in

the Kobe case are damning. Usually you

don't see such evidence until trial.

remember he's uh CERN knows also went to

law school. I don't know what his status

is, but he's he's speaking as somebody

who knows what he's talking about. Um

but since there was a pending motion to

dismiss, they're made public

and uh Mike says this is an open and

shut case, although the judge will try

to rig it uh and the jury nullification

risk too. Man, that feels like what's

going to happen, doesn't it? Doesn't it

feel like it's a real thing?

and there's a real crime and we have

absolute proof that the crime happened.

It would be easy to prove and still and

still there will be no no justice, if

you will.

I I think I agree with that. The the

odds of no justice are higher than the

odds of justice. One way or the other,

that's what it feels like.

I think I skipped something I was going

to talk about. So, have you noticed that

there's uh what's been called some kind

of internal fight among uh Republicans

and MAGA people? So, here here are the

names. You you'll recognize this. A lot

of this is over Israel, but on one side,

and that's really the wrong phrase.

They're not really on a side, but but

people are trying to make this into

sides. And they would say that Tucker

Carlson and Candace Owens and Nick

Fuentes and they'd throw in Marjorie

Taylor Green and even uh Charlie Kirk at

this point and they would say they're

anti-Israel.

Maybe some of them or all of them were

anti-Semitic.

So that's the that's the internal battle

that's going on. And then the other

side, those people would be not too

happy with Mark Levvin and Ben Shapiro

and Dave Rubin and Ted Cruz and Laura

Loomer and I'm forgetting some names. So

roughly speaking, the press I think more

the press more than anything and also

maybe some board podcasters uh are

trying to make it that there's some you

know uh there's some split in the mega

or Republican world or conservative

world now because I think in reframes

and I I think differently. I think when

I see that the Republicans are fighting

each other, do you know what that means?

The the first thing I think about that

the first thing I think is you only

fight with each other when you've won

everything else.

The Republicans have so won against

Democrats and the Democrats are no fun

to fight against anymore, but

everybody's everybody's always up for a

fight. I mean, it's sort of a a fighty

kind of a you know, domain that it's

such a luxury to be able to turn on your

own your own team. It's just a luxury.

It's like, hey, we took care of the

enemy. Let's fight with each other now.

It's like my cats fighting. You know, if

my if my cats saw some wild animal come

in the garage, you know, they might gang

up and say, "All right, it's cats

against squirrel.

You take him on the left, I'll take him

on the right."

But if you take the squirrel out of the

garage, then the cats fight with each

other because that's who's around.

[laughter]

So when I watch this, I I just I'm

having trouble getting fully engaged

because the bigger picture is that you

won. The bigger picture is you won. You

don't get to even have this conversation

unless you've taken care of the

important stuff and then you get to

fight about, you know, this. But I'll

give you my overall opinion of who's an

anti-semite

and who's just uh America first

because it's terribly important that you

know my opinion on this completely

unimportant topic.

And it goes like this. If I were Jewish,

I would think half the people I named

are anti-Semitic.

That's it. That's my opinion. If I were

Jewish,

then I would have a different filter on

life, right?

Of course, you'd have a different

filter. You'd be a little more sensitive

to, "Wait a minute, you didn't say

directly,

but you sure walked up to that line."

And then if somebody walks up to that

line more than once,

then I change my view and I go, "You

went up to that line a lot of times. Why

are you so interested in walking up to

that line? Why why is it important to

you that you going to talk about this

topic like I am right now so much? Huh?

A little suspicious.

So, in just the way if you're a meal

loving person and Democrats say

something, you automatically think

they're lying, right? And vice versa.

When I when I got cancelled, uh, pretty

much all of black America, at least the

ones that lean left, thought, "My god,

that's so racist." Do you know how many

MAGA people thought it was racist as

opposed to a common statement about

protecting yourself? Almost none. So,

was it racist or not racist? It depended

who you were. It just depended who you

were. So, let me say clearly, if I were

if I were Jewish, I'd be pretty worried

about some of these cats. I don't need

to name names. You know what I'm talking

about. But if you're not Jewish, you

would hear exactly the same messages if

you're paying attention, if you cared,

and you'd say to yourself, "Huh, that's

close to being anti-semitic, but really,

it's just free speech and it's just

America first." Which one of those is

true?

Well, if I've taught you anything, it's

two movies on one screen. Truth, I don't

know if we have access to that.

But prediction, we do.

So, I would say that if you can make a

prediction that holds based on your view

of these people and their opinions, then

you might have something. You might have

something. But if it doesn't predict,

as in, you know, let I'll give you an

example. If the next thing that Tucker

Carlson does is

unambiguously,

I don't know, pro-Jewish or pro-American

or pro- Israel, would you say to

yourself, "Oh, okay, that looks

different." Now, I don't think he's

going to do that necessarily, but I'm

saying that if you can't predict, you

have to check your, you know, check your

worldview. I've got more on that coming.

Well, uh, Speaker Johnson said he's

trying to reframe the government

shutdown as, uh,

uh, as as the Democrats want to cut 50

billion from the rural hospital fund.

So, that basically they're ransoming the

government.

Um, here's what I think about this whole

who's to blame for closing the uh or not

opening. Even CNN is going hard at the

Democrats. Have you noticed that the the

CNN hosts are doing an absolutely

completely respectable job and I I have

to I just have to call that out. So,

everybody from Jake Tapper to um I don't

know the other hosts, they say directly

to their Democrat friends, how is this

the Republicans's fault if you can just

vote it to be open?

Which is, you know, the ideal question.

How is it their fault if you could open

it anytime you want? Then they're like,

"Whoa, whoa, well, well, so we're only a

leverage, but we're trying to feed the

They don't want to feed the Okay, but

everybody would get everything if you

just voted yes. Oh, yeah. The word

salad.

So, I don't think there's any question

um that the Democrats are acting like

turds. That they're acting like such

turds. I think it's even embarrassing to

CNN. like actually embarrassing, you

know, because they're they feel

associated. I would guess I would guess

if you work for CNN, people assume

you're a Democrat and then they see even

CNN saying, "Okay, this is just

This is total All

you have to do is vote and you can have

everything you wanted for seven weeks

and then negotiate the rest." Exactly

what the Republicans are telling you.

So, but I noticed that when Trump was on

60 Minutes and the topic came up, did

you notice that before the question was

finished, he said it was the Democrat's

fault.

Did anybody [clears throat] catch that?

So, it was Norah O'Donnell in 60 Minutes

and she starts to ceue up the question.

Before she was done asking the question,

he goes, "This is the Democrat's fault.

Now, what have I taught you about the

primary tool of persuasion?"

The primary tool of persuasion is

repetition.

Whoever repeats the most wins. So he

makes sure that he said it before she

even he even finished the question. Now

that's good technique because that gets

in your head first. He needed to get

that in the head first so that she would

respond to him instead of he was

responding to her. Do you see how clever

that was?

That was super clever that he that he uh

talked over her and gave her the answer

before she asked the question. If she

had been able to ask the question, it

would have been framed as why do you rep

why won't you Republicans open up the

government, but because he front ran her

he front he front ran her while she was

still talking all the way to it's it's

the Democrat's fault that he framed it

before she got to it. Now, you don't

sometimes you don't notice the little

things that he does. They're just

perfect that you would have to be so

experienced in public life to know that

getting there before she finished the

sentence was going to give you an

advantage. I mean, it's just brilliant

persuasion wise. This is what I noticed

in him, you know, on day one of his

running in 2015. I was like, wow, he's

different. [laughter] He he seems to

understand things like other people

don't understand them. This this would

be one. Now,

um,

apparently

the, uh, te did you know the Texas Texas

Texas Governor Abbott said that he's

going to, [laughter]

this can't possibly be true, but he says

that if any New Yorkers try to flee New

York after Mammy's win, they'll be

slapped with 100% tariff. [laughter]

That couldn't be true, could it? How how

would you even do that?

[snorts] You're going to slap a million

people a tariff on a million people who

came from New York. Okay. The Daily Mail

is reporting that Stefan Leapor. All

right. I'm going to put that in the

category of Well, I doubt it.

Uh

let's see what else we got going on

here.

There's a claim from whistleblower. I

saw this on Breaking 911, which is on X,

uh, that the BBC completely doctorred

some Trump quotes to make it look like

he had uh, you know, sort of organized

the January 6 quote insurrection, as

they would call it. Uh, but so I I saw a

video on it and uh,

so I'll wait for more credibility on

this story, but what it looked like is

the worst edit I've ever seen. meaning

totally illegal. You know, I'm not

talking about, you remember when CBS did

their little edit of uh uh of uh what's

her name? Um I've already forgotten her,

Kla Harris. I believe she was vice

president. Yeah. So when when 60 Minutes

did their edit of her, I actually

semi-defended her and them but by saying

that it's not unusual for a big media

thing to edit for clarity.

And it wasn't too far off from clarity,

but it was enough that they, you know,

settled in a court and they didn't admit

any wrongdoing, but they needed to

settle. Um,

so that so I don't mind editing for

clarity, but whatever the BBC is accused

of, according to at least one video I

saw, was not clarity. It was literally

just changing what he said to what they

wanted him to say because they could

piece two unrelated sentences together

that were 54 minutes apart or seconds or

something, but they were pretty far

apart.

So, if this is true, the BBC is going to

owe Trump a lot of money. So, wait for

if you if you're looking for whether

this is credible. Uh, I'd look for the

lawsuit [laughter]

if the lawsuit drops today.

Yes, the BBC edited him.

Um Rasmusen poll according to Newsmax

says that the majority of of uh voters

52% they want anybody who used the auto

pen under Biden and they did it without

proper authorization wants them

prosecuted. So only if they used it

without authorization which seems

reasonable but wouldn't everybody agree

with that? It's hard to imagine there's

anybody who disagrees with the question,

if they use the autopen inappropriately,

should they be punished? Yes. Yeah. If

they use it inappropriately, of course.

Anyway, uh there's always a new Bill

Maher quote. He was in his club random

talking to somebody I didn't care about.

And uh what he said was uh this is just

a pure compliment to Trump. It's one of

the best compliments I've ever seen

Trump get and it's coming from Bill

Maher.

Now to his credit once Bill met Trump in

person. He did drop all of his uh

criticisms about his crazy personality

because that wasn't wasn't demonstrated

at all in person. But he still

maintained, you know, a strong

preference for the other side. Still

thinks that Trump was tried to do an

insurrection on January 6, which is

Bill's personal tenpole hoax. He can't

get past that hoax. But uh

so he has complimented Trump

just for being willing to talk to the

other side and getting some stuff done

like the border, but never this much.

This is a new level of compliment and I

don't know if it means anything. I don't

expect Bill Maher to become a Republican

too far. But look at the look at the

evolution of his thinking

from these little compliments to now

this one. So he said a club random quote

about Trump. He didn't play the silly

game that the other presidents do like

well we have to be even Steven. He's

talking about the Middle East now. He

says who knows who is right. the people

who treasure life are the people who

treasure death, Bill says rhetorically.

And then he goes, uh, he said, "No, I'm

with Israel. Let's see how this works

out. I'm with Western values. I think

democracy is better than theocracy."

And so then Bill closes with the the

keeper. He goes, "The Jews love him more

than any president ever, and the Arabs

do, too. That's quite a hat-tick. You

got to give it up for that one.

Yeah, I got to give it up for that one.

Who else could make the Jews and the

Arabs in the Middle East both think he

was the best president? I mean, maybe

Hamas has a problem, but not Saudi

Arabia.

Is that the Is that one of the best

compliments you've ever heard of any

politician of any time? That that's got

to be right at the top of the the best

thing you could ever say about a

president that he made the Jews and the

Arabs in the Middle East think he was

the best president.

And I I think he did that. That's

actually real. I think he actually did

that. I'd never thought of it that way.

[snorts] So here's what I mean by the

evolution of Bill's thinking.

He's clearly now embraced that Trump is

not crazy.

And and by this I would say he's clearly

embraced that Trump brings tools to the

game that other people just didn't have.

They just didn't have those tools. Now,

he still he [clears throat] still

prefers other policies. Perfectly

reasonable thing.

But uh this is one hell of an evolution

uh into the light because he's 100%

right about this. Right? This lefty's

100% right. And if I can get him to

break the tenpole [clears throat] hoax

about somehow all those Republicans

thought they could take over the country

by wandering around in one building

without weapons, which is what he

believes. [laughter]

If we can make that tenpole hoax go

away, it's going to look really

different. His world will look really

different.

Anyway, so remember I told you that if

your worldview does not predict,

you should look at it again, right? So,

Bill Maher is now squarely moved into a

worldview that will predict because now

that he understands that Trump just has

powers that other pe other politicians

just don't have, they just can't do some

things like, you know, maybe get the

hostages back, maybe only him, like uh

solve eight military conflicts in 8

months or whatever it was. Maybe that's

only him. I mean, there's close the

border. Maybe he's the only one who

could be enough of a bastard and take

enough of the heat that he could

actually close the border.

Um, I've told you before that if you

were to summarize why it was that I

supported Trump from earlier days,

here's my reasoning. I don't know if

I've ever said this explicitly, but when

I looked at him, I said, uh, we've never

seen that toolbox before. He could solve

problems that a president can't solve. A

normal president, you know, a modern

president might. But, uh, it was just

obvious to me from almost day one that

he was a solver with a set of tools that

was unlike anything we'd ever seen. And

every now and then, you don't want a

normie president. You You can't have a

normal president throughout all time

because they won't get it done. There'll

always be these little pockets of things

such as the border that that they act

like they can't solve. Sometimes you

need to bring in the the big wizard to

solve the things that nobody can solve.

Trump is taking on all the hardest

problems, like the really hard ones,

like the super hard problems, and he's

just checking them off. Check, check,

check. Middle East peace, check, check.

I mean, it's crazy. So, when I watch him

when I watch him solve the unsolvable,

I say that's that's it. That's the

thing. That's the reason I support him.

Is it because he says uh insults to

people? I I kind of enjoy that. But no,

that's not why I support him. Yeah, I

don't support him because the insults.

So,

when I say that if your world worldview

predicts it might be accurate. So, I'm

gonna I'm gonna give you Do you remember

a prediction I made? I made a prediction

that Trump will always take the

strongest position on every policy, even

if he knows that the strongest position

could never get done. Maybe because it's

too hard, too expensive, Democrats hate

it too much, unconstitutional, the

courts will stop it. And I told you that

he'll always take the strongest position

and that in the long run that's a

winning strategy. No matter how many

times he gets shot down from being able

to do the strongest thing,

it's still smart to say the strongest

thing. And here's the best example. And

that 60 Minutes interview with uh um

with O'Donnell,

uh he was asked, "Do you think do you

think all these anecdotal situations

with ICE

allegedly doing rough tactics with

individuals?" She goes, "Do you think,

you know, I forget the exact question,

but uh do you think it went too far?"

Now when she Nora uh so when Norah asked

that it was about individual cases which

she mentioned you know this case this

case this case she goes do you think it

went too far ICE

what do you think Trump said

what would my prediction be

my prediction would be if he always

takes the strongest stance that he's not

only going to say it didn't go too far

but that it should go farther and that's

what he did [laughter]

[gasps] But he changed the context and

then CBS of course and the pundits will

pretend he didn't. But he changed the

context away from these individual cases

which nobody could really defend because

you don't know what happened really. Uh

he he changed it to the question of

immigration.

So he was saying we haven't done enough

for immigration

but she was asking about these specific

cases. So he found a way to make it yes,

we should even do more. It was it was

the way to do it. It was exactly right

from a persuasion point of view. Again,

only Trump. Don't you think that a

normal politician would have said

something like, "Oh, we we need to look

into those cases. Those specific cases

sound very bad. We better look into

those right away." Thank you very much

for bringing that up to my attention.

Nope. Trump says, "No, we shouldn't go

harder." But he changes it to, you know,

the general topic, not to the

individuals.

What about uh what about Trump saying

that he wants to resume nuclear

detonation testing, which by the way, um

Secretary Wright says that's not what

we're talking about. According to

Secretary Wright, uh we're talking about

testing the non-critical explosions. So

all all of the process up to but not

including the actual nuclear bang. So

there is some question whether Trump

ever meant

that they would test the bang or whether

he meant we would do what other

countries do which is test everything

that goes up to the bang but stops

there.

Now he also said that China and Russia

have been testing with actual

detonations for years. Have they? I

don't know. [clears throat] It would be

top secret if somebody knew that. But he

he teased it like our our intel people

know that China and Russia have been,

you know, continuously testing up to

now. I don't know that that's true.

But what would be the strongest thing,

remember, we're talking about

prediction. What would be the strongest

thing that Trump could say in this

domain?

the strongest thing he could say is

we're going to test we're going to test

net detonations. Now, it doesn't have to

be true

because it's also part of a negotiation

which he's queuing up. So, he would he

would like both Russia and China to

think, oh, there's something that we

need to get them to stop doing. And then

he can he's invented an asset. So, he's

invented an asset as he always does

before a big negotiation. And the asset

is, hey, we're going to do this blast

testing of nuclear. You surely don't

want us to be doing this, so why don't

we negotiate way negotiate all of our

nuclear dangers at the same time? So, it

makes sense that he would go for the

strongest position right before

negotiation. But do you see how well my

my prediction holds? If you simply said,

what's the domain?

what's the what's the strongest thing a

president could say and then you

predicted that he would say that you'd

be right most of the time. So I believe

that that

my theory about him always taking the

strongest position

seems like reality because it predicts

and it's it predicted twice yesterday. I

mean it worked twice yesterday. That's a

pretty good prediction.

So there was a question also on 60

minutes and other places. Trump was

asked about his pardon for the one of

the founders of Binance I guess crypto

site and he said weirdly that he doesn't

even know who that is but maybe he was

trying to say he doesn't know him

personally or hasn't hasn't done

business with him personally but he

obviously u at one point I don't think

he said it yesterday but maybe or Sunday

but maybe he did uh he thought that the

reason for pardoning him was that

somebody told him it was

that Biden was going after him. So, it's

because Biden was going after him.

Oh, I gota I got to run in one minute.

All right, we got one minute here.

Um,

so yeah, there's a question about the

two sons are in crypto, but I don't

think anybody said anything illegal is

happening.

Uh,

forget about that one.

Trump is reportedly planning to send US

troops and intelligence officers into

Mexico to combat the drug cartels. What

would you call that? That would be the

strongest position.

Again, predictable three times in a row.

All right. Uh the rest is some

scientific stuff about bacteria that

eats battery waste. That's cool.

Atlantis may have been discovered.

That's cool. And Ukraine may or may not

have been responsible for some Hungarian

explosions. And that's all I've got for

today. And I'm not going to have time to

talk to locals. I got to run. Going to

get some medical treatment. I'll give

you an update tomorrow. Thanks for

joining. Bye for now.

Oh, it doesn't work. Can't end my

stream.