Co-host or Guest (9:37)

Ceasefire, yes or no Ceasefire.

Scott Adams (9:40)

Well, you're not going to know anything. You have to look at all of the moving parts and say to yourself, all right, is that enough moving parts? Where there's stuff we can give without costing anything, there's stuff they can give us without costing anything. And probably there's going to be a whole bunch of variables that allow us to do that. So yeah, the more variables that Trump puts into the deal, the more successful it'll be, I think anyway. And we're not going to stop our defensive stuff. So it's not like we're unprotected.

Advertisement Voice (10:17)

If you've heard that sound from Babbel before, I bet you do. Babbel is the science backed language learning app that actually works with quick 10 minute lessons. Handcrafted by over 200 language experts. Babbel gets you on your way to speaking a new language in just a few weeks with over 16 million subscriptions sold and a 20 day money back guarantee. Just start speaking another language with Babbel right now. Up to 55 off your Babel subscription at babbel.com Spotify podcast spelled B-A B-B-E-L.com Spotify podcast rules and restrictions may apply.

Scott Adams (10:44)

So Scott Jennings continues to entertain on the panel with Abby Phillip on cnn. And he said to his to his table mates he goes, you mentioned the Europeans. It's interesting to me, they spend more money on Russian oil and gas last year than they sent to Ukraine collectively. And then Scott Jennings said that the proposed mineral deal that got turned down by Zelensky or never got signed, he says the mineral deal is effectively a security guarantee. And what did Abby Phillips say? I have to do the Democrat idiot face because it doesn't make sense.

Co-host or Guest (11:31)

Oh, that's not a security guarantee. That's not a security guarantee.

Scott Adams (11:36)

You have to do it with stupid face. And then Scott Jennings would say, well actually it's the best kind of. Because it puts our own interests tied to the welfare of the country. So it's actually a really good security thing. But it's not a security guarantee.

Co-host or Guest (11:52)

It's not a security guarantee.

Scott Adams (11:56)

You know my book Loser Think there's a chapter in there which I talk about people who argue by definition you can't win an argument with a definition that's like not even playing. And that'd Be. Philip is one of the definition people.

Co-host or Guest (12:12)

Oh, but, but that's not called a. No, that would. That.

Scott Adams (12:15)

That would not be called a security guarantee. So let me ask you this. Remember when Kamala Harris and the US And Europe, they were all promising Ukraine that, you know, NATO would. Would be helping them. And they were meaning that they would let Ukraine into NATO if certain conditions were met. And those were kind of like security guarantees, weren't they? And what did that cause to happen? Russia invaded the country. So how about the time when Clinton promised. Was it Clinton who promised Putin that we wouldn't be adding NATO countries on the border of Russia? And then we did. So how about those security guarantees? Now, I would agree that if you're a NATO country, you're safer than if you're not. But to imagine that we wouldn't sell out with somebody for our own best interest or anybody, really, any country would. Countries only operate in their best interest. So Scott Jennings is completely correct that having a big financial interest in the country probably keeps them a lot safer than if we didn't. But if the only thing we did is said, hey, I promise you, if they attack, we will be there tomorrow, can you trust that? Is that enough of a guarantee? What does it take to be a guarantee? It's not like there's some court that could make us do it. What if we say, well, that is a special case. We cannot get involved in that. So I think the definition. This is also a very democrat thing to do, to insist that there's only one definition of a thing and just act like it. We don't think that biological men should compete with women in sports. They're called women.

Co-host or Guest (14:20)

The definition of them are called women. They're women.

Scott Adams (14:23)

Yeah, but we're not arguing the definition of words. We're just saying that biological men are stronger. And so there's a risk and sort of an unfairness to the women.

Co-host or Guest (14:35)

But they're women. They're women. It's a definition by definition. Say it, say it, say it. They're women.

Scott Adams (14:42)

And then they do the same thing with January 6th. They start with, first, let's agree that this is an insurrection. Well, actually, almost nobody was there, or maybe some tiny percentage would have thought of it that way. Almost everybody who protested on January 6 thought that they might be stopping an insurrection. So really it would be closer to the opposite of an insurrection. A protest, perhaps.

Co-host or Guest (15:09)

Well, it's an insurrection. It's an insurrection. They're called women. They're called women. Security guarantees.

Scott Adams (15:17)

So once you see the pattern that Republicans argue about what works, you know, what, what are the motivations, what are the incentives? What does the system look like? That's how Republicans argue. And then the Democrats argue definitions, which is not even an argument. It's literally what a child would do. What?

Co-host or Guest (15:40)

What, what you said. You said, you take me to ice cream.

Scott Adams (15:44)

I know, but it's raining and the car is broken.

Co-host or Guest (15:47)

But you said, you said I. I.

Scott Adams (15:50)

Know, it's just I can't because the car is broken. But we'll go tomorrow.

Co-host or Guest (15:54)

But you said, you said it's just a.

Scott Adams (15:58)

It's just a child argument over and over again. So Reddit co founder Alexis Ohanian is joining a group trying to see if they can put together a purchase deal for TikTok. I don't know how many groups there are looking at it now, but. But they're pretty serious people. So if the most serious people can't make a deal to buy TikTok, who can? I saw a post by John Stossel, and if you didn't know this, I knew this, but it kind of fits into the stories today. So this is an old, old story, but he mentions John Stossel, that, that the New York Times covered up Stalin's famine when he was starving people. Stalin was. While millions starved. Now why did the New York Times cover up, you know, the. One of the crimes of the century starving millions of people? Why would they cover that? Well, it turns out that their star reporter, Walter Durante, but also his colleagues, they. They liked communism's utopian promises. This is John Stossel writing and the status he got when his exclusive interviews. He could do exclusive interviews with Stalin. So literally, the New York Times was ignoring the biggest story happening, the most horrible, incredible bad thing. And it was because the reporter sort of thought, maybe communism is a good deal and, you know, if you get past this, maybe it'll all work out. Now, isn't it great that the media used to be completely fake and that's all fixed now? You know, I always think that if you don't, if you don't know anything about history, everything looks different. If you knew that for sure, no doubt about it that our major media platforms historically had all been fake. They were either controlled by the CIA, or in this case, probably wasn't the CIA, but just somebody wanted to lie because it was good for him or it worked into his philosophy. Can you even imagine what changed enough that this wouldn't still be the case? Was there magic? Was there some magic after this happened? And then the magic would Catch it every time it tried to happen again? No, the Russia collusion hoax was just a made up whole thing. What about the fine people hoax, which by the way, and was. Yeah, I think NPR actually pushed the fine people hoax again, I think yesterday. Now, the media has never been real and if you don't know that it's never been real historically, it's really hard to understand that like it suddenly turned bad. But most people think, well, it was pretty good in the old days, you know, maybe it got a little worse, but it's basically okay. No, it has always been completely fake and there are reasons for it, there are structural reasons that guarantee it will be fake because people have interests and those interests have money and sometimes the writers. But nobody's really interested in the truth. They're interested in what works out for them. Well, meanwhile, the tsmc, the big gigantic chip company that operates mostly in Taiwan, says they're going to put $100 billion into the US to build and support semiconductor manufacturing here. Now that sounds familiar, right? Because we've had a few rounds of. This company is going to do that. This company. So I saw Daniel Baldwin, who works for OANN, and he put together a list. So it's 100 billion from TSMC, the chip company Apple promised 500 billion for domestic manufacturing, something called Zepbound. 27 billion. 100 billion from SoftBank, 20 billion from Da Mac. I don't know what that is. 500 billion from Stargate, 600 billion from Saudi Arabia. Now those numbers start adding up, don't they? The other thing that's important that Trump understands better than anybody's ever understood it, is that sometimes you have to BS a little bit about how things are going. And then everybody's like, really? Everything's going in that direction. Everybody's everybody. There's a big list of people putting a lot of money in there. I better get on board. It's how I get attention. It's how I make the government like me. It's how I get the public to like me. It looks like it's trend. So these type of deals are being really well promoted and the promotion is probably as important as the dollar amounts, at least in the early stages because you need a lot more. But you want everybody to think everybody's doing it. Like you need people to just think, oh, this is the thing now, this is what we do and we're there. I think he's actually achieved that. Eric Doherty on X says that HP is looking to move a lot of their operations from China to the US in response to Trump's tariffs. So there's another story. The tariffs are working, at least in that limited sense. And meanwhile, Trump's telling farmers to get ready to produce more food to sell inside the US because he's putting tariffs on, on external food coming in starting April 2nd. Now, the tariffs for Canada and Mexico kicked in today 25% on most things, but energy is a little cheaper, 10%. And I think Canada has already matched it with 25%. I haven't heard from Mexico yet, but one assumes they'll match it. So the trade war is on. But at the same time, we'll talk more about that. OPEC announced that it's going to increase oil production, according to the Hill. Now, if you increase oil production, that should drive the price of oil down because it increases supply. And I don't know if that's net good or bad for the United States because if prices are high, then we drill a lot more in the United States because everything you do would make money. It's like, whoa, oil so high, if it goes down, then even some of the wells we already drilled, somebody's going to say, oh, this was a good idea before, but now the price went down. So they might, you know, just cap it. So it certainly should help with the price of your eggs and certainly should help with inflation eventually. And I don't think there's anything bigger. So OPEC producing more is just about the best thing that could ever happen for Trump. It's the one thing that everybody agrees lowers inflation or at least today. So that's good news.

Co-host or Guest (23:42)

Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn more@discover.com credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report.

Scott Adams (24:12)

Meanwhile, X, the X platform is doing more great work for free speech. So California was introduced this censorship law for social media. And the essence of it is they require, they want to require the social media platforms to have their own censorship standards. But it's all kind of squishy stuff like do you have a definition of hate speech? What is your definition of racism? And all these things have that oh thing to them. It's like, okay, we don't want hate speech, we don't want any Racism. But as soon as you say it's somebody's job to decide when it happened, then everything looks like hate speech and everything looks like racism, because you could sort of racial meadow it to make anything sound like one of those two things. So it would be just a gross attack on free speech. But it looks like X hired some lawyers and looks like it's going to be blocked at the moment. The court struck down the key censorship provision according to Reclaim the Net DD Rankovich. So this is, this is really huge. And if you only think of X in terms of the more obvious stuff it's doing, you would miss. One of its biggest values to the country is this. Musk will lawyer up whatever it costs, and he will go after every attack on free speech that affects X. And this is huge that you could get a win like that. Speaking of which, you know that the Europeans are trying to do the same thing that California was doing, which is create these censorship standards so that they can control American companies by controlling what they can do in Europe, which would, you know, trickle into the United States. So if they said, for example, you can't post a message like this, whatever this is in Europe, well, what are the platforms going to do? If you're Facebook, you're going to say, all right, well, I guess we have to ban it everywhere, because if it's banned in Europe and they're going to completely kick us out of that market if we don't do this, we're going to have to censor. So FCC chairman was over at the Mobile World Congress. This is a Brendan Carr. Brandon Carr is one of the good guys. He is very active and chasing down the bad behavior and addressing it. So he's giving speeches, basically, and he's mentioning the EU's Digital Services act, which is the, the one that would be sort of a backdoor way of censoring Americans. And basically he's, he's warning them that the United States is going to respond, you know, because Trump has already said he wants a directive to figure out how to tariff them or do something to make sure that they can't extort us that way. So I love the fact that Trump and his head of the FCC basically are saying, this is war. You can try to censor us, but we're not giving up the First Amendment. So you tell us how expensive you want to make this, because there's nothing we're not going to do to make sure that we're not censored. You can censor yourself, put yourself out of business as A real country, but you're not going to do it to us. And I think that Trump, again, one of the magic parts of Trump is that he doesn't bluff. So when Trump says, we're coming for you, if you don't change this, they know he's coming. And Brendan Carr is like, you know, chief gladiator. So if he's coming for you, he's fully supported by Trump. So we'll see where this goes. But I love the fact that Trump is completely at war and isn't going to take this. It's just completely unacceptable. We're going to do whatever it takes. Meanwhile, update on the DEI dominoes. So DEI has been falling everywhere. Even BlackRock decided to get out of it. The big banks are getting out of it. Now. Today, Arizona universities are quietly deleting their DEI language, according to Cronkite News. Now, I don't know if that means they're just hiding it, but it means that they understand there's a risk, and so they're operating based on risk, which is what we want. Also, the University of Southern California is going to scrub their DEI stuff out of their documents and stuff. And again, I don't know if that's just hiding it. It might be hiding it, but still step in the right direction if they have to hide it. That feels like a little bit of a win. It's a half win. And then apparently there were, there were some CIA officers who were fired because they were part of the DEI programs for, for the CIA. And according to Natural News, but a judge just upheld Trump and Doge's ability to fire them for just being part of the dei. They didn't need a better reason. So that was the reason. And so that's going to stick. One of my big questions is, how will history treat dei? Because, you know, if you went back in history and let's say it was right in the middle of slavery, what do you think the news said about slavery in the South? The news in the south, it was probably like, yeah, things are working really good. Of course, we got a lot of slaves, so production is up. We had a good ball. Don't you think that while it was happening, it was treated like a positive because otherwise it wouldn't have been there. But then, you know, a few hundred years later, we quite rightly call it like one of the worst things we've ever done, and we've done some bad things, but we all understand, okay, that's just, that's right near the top of the worst things we've ever done. What do you think DEI will do in the future? I have a dream. I have a dream that it will be treated by historians as a just evil. Now, it's not going to be full, you know, slavery evil or Jim Crow evil, but it's, it's right up there with Jim Crow. So it's like 40 years, roughly 40 years, I think, of absolute over discrimination against one category of people. And lives were ruined, careers were ruined, the economy was suffering. I think it's just one of the darkest, worst, messed up parts of American history. And I just wonder if history will ever record it that way or if they'll say, well, all the good people tried for decades to make things better, but the evil Republicans shut it down after 40 years of being terribly successful. Now, it wasn't called DEI for 40 years, but it was, you know, affirmative action, same thing. So I'm hoping history will get it right and say that this is one of the worst things that the country's ever done. We've done worse, but it's, it's one of the bad ones. All right, this is funny and also predictable. Do you remember when uk, UK and France were meeting to figure out what they could do about Ukraine? And then they came out to that meeting and it sounded like, oh, looks like there's a little bit of unity there. So the UK and France were talking about maybe putting boots on the ground. And I thought, well, it starts with two of the more important countries and then they'll slowly collect in their allies and maybe they've got this, maybe they figured it out. But instead, apparently what we just learned is that Germany walked out of the meeting, according to Javier Villmore, European Conservative. So Germany just said, you know, I'm paraphrasing because I wasn't there, but it was something like, wait, what did you just say? Well, our idea is we're going to put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Wait, whose boots? You know, European. So we're going to put some UK boots, we're going to put a little France boots. We, we hope we can get some German boots over there filled with people. Course not, just the boots. And then Germany was like, we're done, that's crazy. And they just walked out. Now, if Europe can't get Germany on board, and it's not because it's expensive, it's because Germany just said, ah, how about no? How about hard, hard no. So, and then we're not even sure if France and the UK agree on what a ceasefire would look like. So The European Union, or let's just call it the European countries, decide that they're going to go it alone. And the best they could come up with is two countries that almost agreed and the rest of them just said, are you crazy? We're out. So it looks like they got nothing. But then on top of that, the EU head of the EU says that they're, they're going to unveil a 800 billion dollar plan to rearm Europe. $800 billion. And I say to myself, okay, what would have been the most predictable outcome? Not the most entertaining. The most predictable outcome. See if you can figure this out. There's the possibility of conflict. People are trying to prevent conflict, but there's a real possibility of the conflict. If you were going to predict what was going to happen, the most obvious prediction it would have been, oh, so what will happen is that the military industrial complex will get billions of dollars and, and we'll get screwed. It was completely predictable. The military industrial complex, they just keep winning. I've actually thought, huh, how could I get in on this military industrial complex? Because you know, I like to be in the winning team. And I swear to God they win every, they win every round. What's your problem, Russia? You're going to need to buy some weapons. What's your problem, China? Well, I got an idea. You better spend a trillion dollars on weapons. It's like no matter what we do, the answer is always give money to the military industrial complex. So that's why we like Trump, because I don't think he automatically falls for that.

Ryan Reynolds (35:42)

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com.

Advertisement Voice (35:59)

Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com.

Scott Adams (36:14)

It'S also weird that Europe has nukes and those are not a deterrent to being invaded. Like what, what are they actually buying weapons to do? Are they buying weapons so that they don't have to use their nukes? If Russia tries to roll over Europe and take over the uk Has Russia ever shown. Give me a history lesson. Has Russia ever shown interest in Conquering any country that wasn't really either Russian speaking or had some, you know, obvious strategic value. They're not good guys. So I'm not saying Russia is the good guys, don't get me wrong. But do you think Russia has ever wanted to conquer France? Have they ever wanted to conquer the UK or at least let's say in the last hundred years? I don't think so. So it seems like if you just said, here's the deal, we're going to get rid of all of our weapons, but if you put one Russian boot on our territory, we're going to nuke Poland. Not Poland, we're going to nuke Moscow. Sorry, don't aim the nukes at an ally. Why doesn't that work? The more traditional weapons you have, the more likely you're going to get into a traditional fight. But if you just said, we're going to get rid of all of them because you'd be insane to attack us because we only have this one defense, so we use it, we'll just take out Moscow with a nuclear weapon. Would you? If you were Russia and somebody said, our entire defense is written up in this document, you're free to read it. And the document says if Russia attacks even one inch of our territory, we're going to nuke them. Would you attack if it was actually in writing, we're going to put a nuke right up your ass. I don't think so. Now, like I said, there's no such thing as a real security guarantee. There's no guarantees, but it would have to be at least as Safe as spending $800 billion for the military industrial complex. Some of it in our country, I assume, but a lot of in Europe. Well, Trump's giving a big speech to Congress tonight. Somebody, some people were speculating that he might float the idea of leaving NATO. I don't think so because I don't think he would announce that in the speech. But, hey, he's full of surprises. Anything could happen. He might tease it. I could imagine him teasing it just to see what reaction he got, but I don't think he's going to announce it. Apparently. According to Election wizard on X, the Congressional Democrats are planning to disrupt his speech. And their plan allegedly involves using a variety of tactics, including noisemakers, hand clappers, signs, eggs and walkouts. Now, how do the eggs fit into this? And why are eggs suddenly such a big part of every story? Can we do. Can we do any story that doesn't involve eggs? Why did eggs become the biggest thing to Talk about. Anyway, I assume the eggs would be to what, throw? If somebody threw an egg at the president, wouldn't they be arrested? Would that not be assault or attempted. Attempted injury of some kind of a sitting president? Wouldn't it be a disruption of. Of an official business? I don't know if his speech is official business or not, but we'll see. I'm kind of, kind of doubtful that eggs will be thrown. Maybe they'll just bring him to show off. It's like, look, I got an egg. Anybody else have an egg? Can't afford it, can you? I got an egg because I did insider trading. I did enough insider trading to have an egg. Well, according to Laura Loomer and some others, apparently the left is also going to organize or has organized some kind of a massive protest in the Black Lives Matter plaza before Trump does his speech to Congress. Now, do you remember when we were more innocent? And if you heard that the left had an organized protest, you'd think, wow, there must be a lot of people, like regular people who are just mad. Otherwise you couldn't pull together that many people. But then you learn that these are all fake. All these protests are just probably Soros funded or, you know, Hoffman or something, and that some people might be sincere. But this doesn't happen unless it's just a big fake thing driven by people at the top with money. So to me, it's just funny because once you realize it's just theater and it's fake, it doesn't even look the same anymore. I can't even get mad at it because, like, oh, that's kind of funny. How's your fake protest going? Well, if you haven't seen economist Jeffrey Sachs talking about Russia and Ukraine, you really should. Now, he does have what I would consider a. I don't want to say it. It's hard to describe him. Other people would say he's pro Russian, other people would. So I'm not going to say that, but it lets you know how he's received. So one of the things that, when I say pro Russian, I don't mean more than the United States. It's just that he doesn't want to be at war with Russia. Doesn't make any sense. So I guess other people think that's pro Russian because he doesn't want to be at war with Russia, but he says the war is over because Trump doesn't want to back a loser. And that's all you have to know, that Zelensky is a loser. And backing him would, Wouldn't make sense. And it certainly wouldn't make sense for somebody like Trump who doesn't want to back a loser. And I thought to myself, that is really cleverly summarized. You know, if you could imagine that Trump thought Zelensky was actually, you know, Winston Churchill and an amazing figure, maybe he would treat him that way. But it's pretty clear that Trump thinks Zelensky is a loser and he doesn't want to hitch his wagon to somebody who's unpredictable and not going along with the game and wants. And Zelensky predicted that the war would last a long time. Now, isn't that kind of up to Zelensky? I mean, it's only going to last as long as he wants it to. So, yeah, I think I agree with Jeffrey Sachs on this. If the only thing you knew is that Trump isn't the kind of guy who wants to back a loser, an obvious loser, it's kind of all you need to know. So, meanwhile, Russia has allegedly agreed. I think I mentioned us. To help with negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program, Iran's nuclear program, and also maybe talk to them about Iran's support of proxies in the region. Bloomberg AI was reporting this. Now, what I like about this, like I said, is when Trump expands the negotiations, which he's doing, instead of saying, hey, which part of Ukraine do you keep and what day do you want to do the ceasefire? Total losing approach, not enough variables. But if Trump goes and says, according to unusual whales, Ukraine's President Zelensky just said, quote, I am ready to work under Trump's strong leadership to bring peace. Interesting, because that's exactly what Trump demanded. He said, we can work with you, but we need a strong statement that says you want peace. Because the last thing you said was, I think the war is going to last a long time. We need security guarantees, we need weapons. That's the opposite of working toward peace. So it looks like Zelensky's reading the room a little bit better. Obviously, he's getting a lot of advice. But you see the bigger picture, right? It's a really big world. Russia has a lot of energy. They get a big military. They've got connections with countries we want to influence, you know, Syria and Iran. And we have things that they want, such as maybe not doing cyber attacks. Maybe we're better at it than they are. So I think the conversation is going to go to. I'm just going to guess. I'll bet you we had 20 variables, which would be genius, because if you got 20 variables, everybody's got something to get out of it. It's like, okay, well, you're going to help us with Iran, but also, this will settle Ukraine, but, well, maybe we can do a mineral deal with Russia separately from anything that we do with Ukraine. And so suddenly you've got 20 different things that just make sense, just common sense. You help us, we can help you. There's no reason that we should be enemies. Now, those of you who've been with me a long time, how long have I been saying that the arc of history is bending toward Russia and the United States being allies? We're natural allies now. What I mean by that is that we have more interests in common if we think about it, right? If we stop pecking at each other and trying to get an advantage and put the other one out of business, which is what we've both been doing for decades. If we just stopped doing it and said, how about instead of trying to destroy each other and putting all of our efforts into it, what if we tried to make money? What if we tried to make the world safer? What if we said, if you stay out of, you know, our part of the world, there are parts of your world that we'll stay out of. And I just think we have the most natural possibility of being allies now. Part of it is we don't share a border. As soon as you share a border, everything, everything becomes complicated, but we don't. We've got that wonderful ocean between us and more. We got Europe and an ocean. So I really think my optimism of getting sort of a giant 20 variable Russia deal, very high. Very high. And the reason is both sides want it and it's doable. Both sides have really good, really good negotiators. And Trump said in one of his announcements that, that Putin even used his own campaign phrase, common sense, which of course was very smart for Putin to do because he's good at sucking up, you know, when he's negotiated. So, yeah, I think something good could come out. I'm 100% positive on this at the moment. 100% positive. It won't be right away because 20 variables. I mean, think about how long it would take to figure out 20 variables, but we can do it.

Advertisement Voice (48:17)

Running a business comes with a lot of what ifs, but luckily, there's a simple answer to them. Shopify, it's the commerce platform behind millions of businesses including Thrive Cosmetics and Momofuku. And it'll help you with everything you need, from website design and marketing to boosting sales and expanding operations. Shopify can get the job done and make your dream a reality. Turn those what ifs into sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com specialoffer.

Scott Adams (48:47)

So JD Vance was explaining how the mineral deal would have been better than a security guarantee. And he said, he said, the President knows that. Look, if you want real security guarantees, if you want to actually ensure that Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine. That is a way better security guarantee than Here comes his dis. I love how JD just slaps down other entities because this is way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years. Wow. That's how he talks with about our allies. Well, okay, I like it and I agree. The, the only thing that protects you is that the country that has the big guns has a personal interest. So if we've got a lot of money on the line, I mean this could be a trillion dollars, you know, in these mining deals. Yeah, that would be a good way to guarantee that we're interested. And by the way, if you're Russia and we said to you, don't attack Ukraine because you know, we'll go in and protect them. We gave them a security guarantee. Would that be stronger than saying you better not go into Ukraine because we've got a trillion dollars riding there and we're not going to let that just be taken over. So if you go in, we're going to protect our interests. Doesn't that sound the same? The one where you say we're going to protect our own economic interest, that sounds like the more real one because everybody protects their own economic interest. If you said, oh, we're going to go protect this country on the other side of the world, that doesn't have a direct impact on us. Even if we meant it, it's not terribly persuasive. But if you say we're not going to give up a trillion dollars in mining operations which are critical to our most important industries like AI and self driving cars and robots, we're not going to give that up. So if you move your armies in, we have to stop you. And you wouldn't even have to put it in writing because Putin would know that these are critical mineral rights. They're not. These are not ordinary things. It's not, it's not mining for fun. It's critical. Survival depends on it. We need to nail down some sources that we can mine, preferably in Other countries. Anyway, Elon Musk was saying this about Zelensky. He says, as distasteful as it is, Zelensky should be offered some kind of amnesty in a neutral country in exchange for a peaceful transition back to democracy in Ukraine. Now, how many years have I been talking about dictator retirement island? We always have the same problem, that if there's a dictator we want to depose, there's not really any path for the dictator. They kind of have to fight to the death, including killing all of their own, their own country people by sending them against your machine guns. So I don't think there's a practical way to solve this. But if we had just one good island, and we said, here's the deal, if you decide to retire at this island, we'll give you an American passport and you can live there. You'll have a mansion. You can keep the billion dollars you stole. You can live in luxury, and we'll guarantee then nobody comes over and tries to kill you from anything you did before. You'll just live with your neighbors who are also retired dictators. Be kind of cool. It's not my best idea, but I agree with Musk. There needs to be some way that the alleged dictator can make a clean escape in a way that would just be good for them because we don't need to punish them so much as we just need them gone sometimes. All right, here's my idea for what to do to negotiate the. Who owns what land on the eastern part of what used to be Ukraine, but now seems to be totally occupied by Russia? Just the eastern part. I saw a map of where Russia was the main language. I didn't realize that something like, is it over half of Ukraine? Russia is the dominant language, and people might even call themselves Russian. Not all of them, but a lot of them would call themselves Russian, even though they're technically Ukrainians. And so I thought, well, if. Let's say you did a vote and you said, all right, all these little regions that are disputed that Russia controls right now, Russia, would you agree with to do a vote? Well, nobody's going to trust the vote. We would just assume that would be rigged, so you can't really have a vote, but could you do a survey? I'm guessing that most of the people over there still have cell phones. Right. Could you do a scientific Enough. And I would get at least three separate pollsters to do it and then compare them. So they would do their work blind. Then the three would compare to see if there's any major differences. In what they got. And they would just call people, they'd say, all right, do you want to be owned by Russia or owned by Ukraine? And then you just figure out what they want. Now, what if Ukraine said, we don't agree with that? Then you have to wonder, what is their motivation? If what the people who live there want isn't the main thing, then what are you? Are you a dictatorship? Shouldn't the people who live there be the primary ones who decide? Now, we also have the problem that some of that area is depopulated. So I don't even know what's left. So you might not even be able to get any kind of representative sample because it might be just people who haven't died yet, you know, old people and children and stuff. So it may be impossible. But I would at least look at the idea of polling them, and you'd have to have at least three polls operating independently to, to feel like, you know, one of them wasn't totally biased. Meanwhile, Governor Newsom of California, according to Joel Pollack and Breitbart, is ordering state employees back to the office. So Newsom's plan to act more like a Republican seems to be right on point. So he's copying Doge and making the Californians come back to work. Now, he says only four days a week, which would be a lot. But it does remind you that the Democrats just painted themselves into the corner of all corners by being opposed to common sense. So when, whenever they embrace a little bit of common sense, it just looks like they're copying. And then you say, well, why do we need them if they're just copying? You know, just Republicans already do it, and you don't have to wonder if they mean it because Republicans tend to only do things they mean. So the, the Democratic strategy of saying, let's, let's do more common sense things and emphasize patriotism and get rid of the identity politics, how does that work from an election strategy perspective? So follow me on this. If somebody likes what Republicans do and they like what Trump does, and they like especially that Trump is emphasizing common sense solutions, is there any scenario in which they vote Democrat? Because, oh, it's all the same now. Now they're both doing common sense, so I guess I'll abandon my love of MAGA and I'll vote for a Democrat. Not many people are going to do that because it looks like one side means it and the other side is just doing fast copying. And you couldn't even be sure that if you looked away, they would still do on A common sense stuff because it's not really in their genes, but meaning the party's genes, not any individual's genes. And wouldn't it just make the, the, the extreme people in their own party, the Democrats, wouldn't it just make them not show up to vote? So if they copy Republicans and try to be the common sense ones, wouldn't the only net effect be to reduce their own base? Because it's not going to make any difference to a Trump voter. No Trump voter is going to say, oh, look, those Democrats look good today. I'll go over there for a day. I don't think so. So it makes me wonder if they've thought anything out. Like, even on paper it doesn't look like it can work, even though obviously backing common sense makes sense. But how can that work? Now, the other thing I've noticed is that when Republicans talk, have you noticed the Republicans have a vibe? Like you could probably tell who's a Republican if they're talking on TV. Takes you about 10 seconds to say probably a Republican, because they have a, let's say, a buttoned up kind of Republican conservative way of talking about things. And I would say that that's authentic because it's the lifestyle that they've adopted. They are influenced by the people that they like and people that are around. So, you know, nobody is completely natural. But Republicans talk and act and think like Republicans. But Democrats have this weird thing where the most prominent part of their party are just theater kids and they try to sell their ideas with their faces. Have you noticed that if you listen to a Republican trying to sell a policy, they'll say, well, if we do this and that, we'll get this impact. So that's why we want to do it. Just policy. But if you get any one of these cats, Adam Schiff, Chris Murphy, Jamie Raskin, AOC Swalwell, Elizabeth Warren or Schumer, they do face persuasion where they, they just crunch up their face to show how terrible something is that Trump is doing. It's like.

Co-host or Guest (60:00)

It'S so bad. Oh, it's so bad. He's Hitler, he's Hitler.

Scott Adams (60:07)

And none of it makes sense. And they do, you know, definition thinking and analogy thinking, literally analogy, because they say, oh, he's acting like Hitler now, an analogy which is not anything, or, oh, the definition of an insurrection. These are not even attempts to be part of the rational conversation because none of that's rational. So instead they send actors. Now, it doesn't mean that every Democrat is an actor because they have, you know, normal ones, but the normal ones are not on tv. The ones that get on TV are the. Are the ones who do the faces. Oh.

Co-host or Guest (60:52)

Oh, it's so bad. I've got so much empathy. Oh, look.

Scott Adams (60:56)

Look at the little things in my forehead. Look at those lines on my forehead. That's. That's how serious I am about how bad it is. It. They're so beyond pathetic at this point that it just seems funny. And my new favorite is Chris Murphy, because that guy doesn't look genuine even a little bit. He literally just looks like a theater kid who's just so happy he can do his, you know, he could do his act on tv. Grandpa's here.

Advertisement Voice (61:28)

Hank's always helping out, grandpa style. Now he's treating his prostate cancer with help from extreme xtandi. Enzalutamide. Xtandi, 40mg tablets, treats men with prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body and responds to a medical or surgical treatment to lower testosterone. Xtandi may cause serious side seizure, a brain condition called press allergic reactions, heart disease that can lead to death, falls and bone fractures, swallowing problems or choking that can lead to death. Stop Xtandi and get medical help at once. If your face, tongue, lip or throat start swelling, tell your doctor at once. If you faint, have a seizure, quickly worsening headache, decreased alertness, confusion, vision problems, chest pain or discomfort, or shortness of breath, Xtandy can cause harm to an unborn baby or miscarriage. Use birth control during and three months after Xtandi. Common side effects include muscle and joint pain, feeling unusually tired, hot flashes, constipation, less appetite, diarrhea, high blood pressure, bleeding, falls, fractures and headache. Talk to your doctor and visit xtandi.com.

Scott Adams (62:27)

Anyway. Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs. Trump is doubling his tariffs on China over the fentanyl crisis. I'm in favor of that. I'm in favor of pressing China in every way we can. I don't think that a tariff will end their fentanyl practice because I think their benefit is too big. It's a huge burden on the United States. They don't care about our deaths. And so clearly, strategically, they're going to keep doing it. But there is one thing that they do care about, which is being shamed on the public stage. And by putting gigantic tariffs on them because they're sending sentinel to us and we know they can stop it, that is a way to shame them without just getting in Xi's face. We just say, this is going to stop. We're going to press every button and we're going to make a lot of noise forever, and it's going to be one of the biggest things that anybody thinks about when they think about China. So, China, if you want your reputation to be that your drug dealers, you win, because we're going to make sure that your reputation is drug dealers. So if you want that to be your brand, Trump will be happy to make that come true for you. Now, that might have some power, not by itself. So again, you'd have to add 20 variables to get any kind of a deal that really stopped fentanyl, but I don't know if fentanyl can be stopped. But I do like the level of effort that Trump's putting into it. Meanwhile, China is halting imports of U S logs and it's suspending imports of our soybeans. No, what will happen to our logs and our soybeans? Now, of course, these are tragedies for the industries involved. I don't want to minimize it. But the thing you should probably expect is that prices will go up in the short term, and the short term could be a year, but it might be more than a year. But everything he's doing collectively makes sense in the long term. And it's a hard sell if you say to people, hey, I've got an idea. We're going to raise your prices for the next year or two in the worst possible way. But when we're done, we're going to be in a solid ground and prices will drift down. And we need to do this. It's the only way to survive. You can't really sell that because all the public would hear is, what about the price of my eggs? Okay, I just said they'd go up. What about the price of my gas? Well, it might go up, but the only way we can get to a point where it's domestic manufacturing and all the things we need to reduce costs, like creating more energy. The only way we get there is through this hard road. So we got to do it. Well, you can't really sell that. So I expect it to get a little worse before it gets better. So that would be the most natural outcome. Trump said he's considering a free trade agreement with Argentina. I guess that means no tariffs and no duties and no VAT taxes, so that would be a big deal. I can't imagine that Milei of Argentina would say no to that because he's a free market guy. So is Trump. So I like the fact that Trump is saying this part of the world, no tariffs. I like that a lot. That's a really good way to run a continent. Well, here's a seriously disturbing note. So Representative Nancy Mace, who's talked about this in public before, so I don't know the details, but my understanding is she was a victim of a horrific sex related crime with multiple people and maybe the suggestion that there was a videotape. So drugged, raped and videotaped. Now that's what people are saying. I don't know the details, but she said this in a post on X. I understand video or videos may have been released via media outlet tonight. I hope this warrants the state to search for certain devices and certain tapes at a certain location. What is she suggesting? That the crime against her might be on video and that somebody may be releasing it today. Now, I assume it'd be censored at least a little bit. But I gotta say I certainly admire her guts. The fact that she's taking ownership of what had to be the most horrific thing that ever happened to her. I'm guessing the fact that instead of just avoiding it or not talking about it, she's going right at it. She wants you to know what happened and it looks like she wants you to know who it was. And I feel like she knows who it was, but I don't know if she's for any reason decided not to talk about it yet. But if this video comes out, there will be faces on the screen and they won't all be hers. If it's, if it is her at all. We're speculating that's what it looks like. Well, this is funny. According to Retro coast, when Doge tried to remove the credit cards from government employees, I guess it was the Department of Defense who was running up all kinds of entertainment and bar tabs and travel under their government credit cards. Like a lot. Like just totally out of control because nothing's audited. Seems like. So they tried to just remove the credit cards from government employees, but some kind of federal judge blocked it. So instead of removing the credit cards, they just reset the limit to $1 so they can keep their credit cards. But it's only a $1 limit per month. Well, maybe just $1. According to Rasmussen, 61% believe that an audit of the Social Security system would reveal widespread fraud in the program. 61%. That means there are 39% who don't expect widespread fraud in our Social Security. They are very optimistic. In many ways. That's the best Doge endorsement you could get. There's 61% think in order to the Social Security is going to find massive fraud. That is quite an endorsement of the why don't you look at everything and find that fraud for us? So I like that. Meanwhile, NASA scientists, according to Brighter side of News, and Joseph Shavet reporting on a propellantless propulsion for rockets, space rockets. And propellantless means it's not based on stuff exploding in the rocket's ass to drive it forward. Rather, it generates thrust using electric fields rather than expelling mass. So the thinking is if they can perfect this, it would be just this enormous leap forward in space travel because you wouldn't need to have fuel that you're burning. It probably would be easier to generate electricity, which in turn would manipulate these electric fields. So I think they surprised themselves how well it worked. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is what I have for today. Thank you for joining. Another tight hour of fun. I'm going to say hi to the people on locals privately, but the rest of you, thanks for joining on rumble and YouTube and X and locals coming at you in 30 seconds.