think is that the Democrats convinced themselves that Trump supporters were a cult and that we agreed on everything no matter what it was. And then when they see quite obviously that that's not the case, instead of going back to their own assumption and saying, oh, I guess we've been wrong for years, they were never a cult. It's just that they were on the same page that the followers and Trump were in favor of strong borders. We weren't in favor of it because Trump told us to be in favor of it and we were part of a cult. No, we just have the same opinion. So when it got to Epstein and the opinions legitimately were different, well then everybody can see, oh, it's not a cult.

So the way this story should have been written is, you thought MAGA was a cult, you're totally wrong. Here's why. But instead it turned into Epstein civil war as if I couldn't have a conversation with Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, or Steve Bannon and somehow it wouldn't go well. Of course it would. We probably wouldn't even disagree on much if we're really hammering it down.

In other news, OMG, the O'Keefe Media Group got a hidden video camera conversation with a Johnson and Johnson lead scientist. Now let me give some advice to the other lead scientists involved in COVID vaccinations. If you go on a date, don't talk about the things you got away with in your day job. Don't do it because there's a good chance your date works for James O'Keefe. But apparently this lead scientist for J&J COVID vaccine area said that the vaccine was quote not safe and effective and it lacked research and it was rushed and he said people wanted it so we gave it to them and he said quote do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products? He was talking about the vaccines. That's a lead scientist who basically threw his company completely under the bus. So there's that.

He said, I mean we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best, meaning the various companies trying to make a vaccine. He goes, at one point we just canned it, meaning we canned the appropriate process. So then James O'Keefe shows up like he does in these situations and he says are you so and so and the guy tried to say that he had the identity wrong. So that didn't work out according to Breitbart.

The Make America Healthy Again thing is working a little bit because 35% of the US food industry is committed to removing artificial dyes from the food. You know, I have the following question. Were artificial dyes like right at the top of the list of things that were maybe killing us? Because the artificial dyes, you know, I'd always heard the issue, but I never really thought that was a top three, top five health concern. But maybe it was. Maybe it was much worse than I imagined. So 35% is a good start, but it makes me wonder, is there something we should have been focusing on a little bit more, like just processed foods in general? Yeah. Anyway, and I'm a skeptic on the seed oil stuff. I've seen arguments on both sides. I don't know how to create a winner from that.

Trump is also going after Adam Schiff for his alleged mortgage fraud, which involved having a house in Maryland. So that would be close to DC. So that's where he would stay most of the time. But also having a condo in California, which allows him to say he's a resident of California, so that's how he can be our senator. But the problem is that he told the banks or the IRS or both that they were both primary residences, but legally you can only have one primary residence. So Trump is calling him out for claiming that he had two primary residences, which is not legal. And I guess the documentation is pretty clear. So there's not much question on the factual part. I believe we have the documents that show that he claimed they were both primary residences. Now that would be a problem.

Schiff responded to Trump and he said this. So the president today is accusing me of fraud and the basis of his accusation is that I own a home in Maryland and I own my home in California. Big surprise. Members of Congress, almost all of them, own more than one home or rent more than one home because we're required to be on both coasts. So he is using my ownership of two homes to make a false claim of mortgage fraud.

So do you see what Schiff did there? He acted as though the complaint is that he has two homes. That's not the complaint. That was never even an issue. Of course Trump knows, as I know, and probably most of you know, that if you're an elected official from some state that's far away from Washington DC, you almost certainly have to have a place to stay where you live and a place to stay where you work because you're going to be there most of the year. So no, it's not about having two homes. It's about specifying that both of them are your primary residences because that allows you to save money. So it's a tax savings thing. So the designated liar, as I call him, Adam Schiff does it again.

According to the Daily Caller News Foundation, Marianne Angela is writing that according to one pollster, GOP pollster, if you throw in Elon Musk's America party, which we think will be formed because Musk says he's going to form it, the Republicans would lose the midterms. So if Elon Musk does not create a third party, Republicans have a narrow advantage in the midterms. I think other pollsters have it the other way, but whatever it is, it's going to be close. Narrow advantage one way or the other. But if you throw in the third party, the America party, it looks like that gives the Democrats a closer to something like a clean win in the midterms.

So do you believe that Elon Musk would finalize that party knowing that it would cost the control of Congress? Would he do that? Would there be a principle involved or some bigger risk-reward benefit that I'm not aware of? I have some trouble believing that he would really do that because I don't think he could recover from that reputationally. If Elon Musk personally through his own efforts created that third party and what the public came to believe is that that's the only reason that the Democrats had a great midterm. Even if it's not true, that would be very bad for Elon Musk's brand going forward because everybody can see it coming. If it were a surprise and nobody could have seen it coming, then you say to yourself, all right, well he gambled. He got that one wrong. We wish it hadn't happened. But if you know what the impact is, you're going to have to own that impact. Do you think he wants to do that? I'm going to bet against it. You know, anything's possible, but I'm going to say 65% chance that he decides it would be too much of a cost to the country as well to him and his colleagues.

If you were a stockholder, well I am a stockholder in Tesla and you knew that the head of Tesla was going to do something that would permanently piss off at least half of the country, would you be okay with that as a stockholder? I'm not okay with it. I'm not okay with it. I mean he's got free speech and he has the right to do it, but I'm not okay with it. Not even a little bit.

I saw an article by Daniel Greenfield who talked about some polling in Gaza. And let me see if you can guess what the answer is before I tell you. You ready for this? How many residents of Gaza, and I guess resident means that you had lived there or you are living there, I don't know how many people are still there, but how many residents of Gaza, the Gazans, believe that Hamas is winning the war so far. Believe that Hamas is winning the war right now. 23%. 23% of the residents of Gaza believe that Hamas is winning the war with the IDF.

You know we always joke, if you're new to the podcast here, there's a running joke that doesn't matter what the topic of the poll is, roughly one in four people will have the wrong answer no matter what. Now how in the world could you be a resident of Gaza that's completely leveled and Hamas is hiding underground and getting wiped out a little bit every day. How in the world do you conclude that they're winning? Amazing.

But apparently 58% of people in or from Gaza acknowledged that October 7th was a mistake. And that's way down. After October 7th when it was fresh, 72% of the residents thought that the Hamas attack was a good idea. What? You would think at this point it would be obvious that was a bad idea, but no.

Zelensky has said that Biden couldn't end the war with Ukraine and Russia, but he says, I'm confident President Trump can. To which I say, oh, Zelensky finally figuring out how to play this. Zelensky, you don't go to the Oval Office and try to embarrass our president. That's not going to work out. And it didn't. Here's what you need to be doing. Biden couldn't get it done, but I'm confident President Trump can. All right, now we're talking. You should be flattering him. You should be complimenting his successes so far. You should be saying that nobody in the world but Donald Trump would be the right person to end this war. Why? Because that's what gets you some cooperation. You know, show some respect, you're going to get some back. And at the moment he's going to get a bunch of weapons that the US is sending him.

And he also uses the Trump idea. Remember when Trump would threaten Xi and threaten Putin and say, well they only have to believe there's a 10% chance I'll go through with it. And Zelensky is borrowing that technique talking about the offensive weapons that Trump is going to give him. He says any offensive weapons provided by the US could force Putin to come to the negotiating table. Here's the important part. Even if those weapons are never used. That's a Trumpism. Trump is the one who says I don't have to do the threat. You just have to think there's a 10% chance I might. And then you're going to get real serious about negotiating. Zelensky is borrowing his technique. We don't have to use the weapons. It might be enough that Putin knows we could. There you go. Yeah, he's pacing Trump in just the right way. At least that day.

Trump was asked about the report that he seemed to be in favor of Zelensky bombing Moscow using not bombing but sending missiles into Moscow using the better weapons that Trump and America are planning to provide. But Trump says no, that Zelensky should not bomb Moscow. Despite the fact that Trump did say he wanted Putin to feel some pain. So the Daily Mail, Emily Goulden, is writing about this. But there was a conversation in which Trump may have asked Zelensky if he could bomb, if he could attack Moscow with the American weapons. And I think that Zelensky said yes, but it was more of a what's possible, you know, what's doable. It wasn't a suggestion to do it. So Trump does not support attacking Moscow. But if Zelensky did attack Moscow, I don't know if Trump would be unhappy, would he? He's just saying he's not in favor of it. But if somebody did it anyway, could it put enough pressure on Putin that he'd want to end the war? I don't think so. I don't think that Zelensky could destroy enough of Moscow that would do anything except increase Putin's support because once you attack somebody's capital, well people are going to back whoever is in charge of their country. So it's not going to, I don't think it's going to hurt Putin even if Zelensky took part of Moscow. So probably a bad idea.

Putin responded to Trump's threats that they would put 100% tariffs on anybody who was doing business with Russia. Putin's response to that was that a Kremlin official says Trump's threats of tariffs are serious and Putin will comment if necessary. He'll comment if necessary. Isn't that really Putin just dismissing the whole risk of tariffs? I'll comment if necessary, but honestly he doesn't look like it's going to be necessary. So he's sort of brushing that off.

And then we're looking at my own notes here. Apparently the Department of Defense has contracts with some big AI companies, at least three of them. So Google, OpenAI, and xAI, and I think Anthropic. So they have these gigantic contracts for AI that I believe is tied to their JADC2 plans or something. So remember I told you that within three years the Ukraine front line with Russia will be an all-robot war. There won't be people because the people will be killed instantly by all the drones that have AI and are making their own decisions about who to attack and when.

So apparently the US is trying to sort of leapfrog the other drone makers where you need a person to control each one. And if we could build a whole bunch of drones in the US and provide them to Ukraine and those drones had AI built in so you didn't need a human operator for every moment of its flight, that could change the war. Now what I don't know is if Russia with the help of China presumably could match all the uncrewed AI drones that the US is likely to provide. They could probably beat us in quantity, but could they beat us in AI plus drones? And that's where I think we might have an advantage. And that's why I think it'll turn into just a drone war. So that's my prediction. Within three years, no humans on the front lines. It'll be the first robot war in the history of humanity.

All right, people. That's all I had to say today. I'm going to talk to the beloved subscribers on Locals because they're the best. You're pretty awesome too. But the Locals subscribers, oh man, they're the best. Don't be jealous. All right, the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. Thanks for joining. I hope you got something out of it. And Locals, I will see you privately in 30 seconds.