Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
Scott Adams
Or it's about time. Let's check out your stocks. Oh, no. Your stocks are not doing well. Well, forget that. We'll get back to that. All right, let's call up your comments. So we've got it all. There we go. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams. And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that no one could even understand with their tiny, shiny human human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of a kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now. Go. Oh, yeah, that was good. I must say, your sipping was excellent today.
- [01:31]
Sponsor/Advertiser
Yep.
- [01:32]
Scott Adams
So I don't know if you've heard, but Israel attacked Iran. Has anybody heard that? Well, I'll talk about that first, because that's the big news overshadowing everything else. And the first thing I need to say before I talk about Israel versus Iran is that I am an observer. My interest is in America. So it's not for me to approve of anything that Israel does or to condemn it. I will simply observe it and maybe rate it in terms of effectiveness. But I'm not making judgment calls. You don't need my morality or my ethics or my military opinions. So the bombs are flying, and I guess Israel attacked the nuclear sites in Iran and the military sites and the missile storage sites, and also took out about six generals. Well, no, several generals, some say 20 people in leadership in the military and a bunch of nuclear scientists. Now, how many of you knew that Israel was going to attack yesterday? Now, I didn't know it'd be yesterday, but when Trump announced he was drawing down the excess embassy staff, there wasn't another reason for doing that unless he knew an attack was coming. And you have to think he would know, and he did. So he had some advance warning. Now, some people say that Trump was only negotiating because it would keep Iran thinking, oh, you know, the attack is not coming today because they're still negotiating. But I think when Trump drew down the embassy staff and tried to make sure that there were fewer targets over there that were American, I've got a feeling that the Iranians said to themselves, oh, that would suggest that Trump, you know, maybe is, you know, already been warned about something. And sure enough, the bombs came pretty soon. Now, that was Also, after the, I told you yesterday, the IAEA found a violation in what Iran was doing with its nuclear program and Iran was being defiant about it as opposed to trying to rectify that problem. So that was another sort of indication that something might be coming. And then Israel has said, as Trump has said, that they'd love to have a negotiated agreement, but Iran can't have a nuke. And they were very close. We don't know how close, some people disagree, but they were definitely closer. And as, as Iran says, quote, death to Israel and death to America are not just slogans, they're policy. Now what the hell was the supreme leader of Iran actually thinking? Was he thinking that Israel wasn't serious when they said you can't have a nuke? Did he think that if Israel and the United States, because he wouldn't know at that point, both tried to deny Iran a nuclear program by bombing them, did he think that wouldn't work? Or did he think that if the U.S. and, or Israel bombed Iran and bombed their nuclear sites, do you think that that would somehow work out? Well, you have to wonder what was he thinking? Because I was over here thinking, oh, obviously Israel is going to take action. If we don't help them, they'll do it themselves. Now doing it themselves is sort of a relative statement. Yeah, we've been saying for years that they're close to a nuke, but they're probably closer. And it was sort of obvious that Israel was going to attack because they basically said so. They said if you can't find other way to do it, I mean, it was obvious that an attack was coming. So I'm very curious, what the hell did Iran and their supreme leader, what were they thinking? You know, in what way were they going to win this contest? Did they really think, you know, I don't know, God was going to step in or did they think maybe they had bad intelligence? But at the moment it looks like Iran's military was no match because Israel took out all of their, basically all of their defenses. And so Israel owns the sky over Iran and they've got plenty of sky based vehicles. And it looks like Iran shooting back a hundred drones, which in today's day and age doesn't seem like much. So we'll really see if there's something coming. You know, maybe there's a big surprise coming. I don't know, I don't know what it would be. But one of the things that always happens when there's a military action by Israel, there's always a phase where we're amazed at how clever it was. And it's just automatic. It would be like, no matter who Israel attacked the next day, we'd be talking about how clever it was. It's like, oh, they made the pagers explode. Oh, they did this or that. So this is no exception. So apparently Israel claims to have built a drone base to manufacture drones within Iran. So that when the, just before the, the bombing started, they, they used their local drones to blow up a bunch of, you know, defensive Iran's air defenses. Do you believe that? You know, remember that during the war, the information that comes out about the war is not really that believable because both sides are going to be exaggerating and, you know, trying to get you to believe their side. So I think you can believe the big obvious stuff. For example, you could believe that Israel really attacked Iran. But when it gets to any of this, any of this detailed stuff, such as Israel had their own drone base in Iran that was a secret base. Maybe, maybe. And if it's true, it'd be impressive and quite clever. But remember, it's just military reporting. So we don't really know. We only know the big stuff, small stuff might be a bunch of look how brilliant we are kind of stuff. And it does look like the attack was successful.
- [10:20]
Sponsor/Advertiser
Imagine this. The best pasta sauce you have ever tasted sits abandoned on a plate. Wasted sauce. That is a tragedy. If only you had used barilla al bronzo pasta. Its bronze cut texture holds your sauce and scoops up every last drop. The Italians call that scarpetta capture sauce, the Italian way. Barilla albronzo. Click or tap the banner to find out more.
- [10:51]
Scott Adams
Now they allegedly Israel has killed Hossein Salameh. Now, you might call him Salami because you don't respect them, but he was until yesterday, the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard. So that would be the head of the whole military. And according to cnn, there's evidence that all of Iran's general staff, including the head of the military, were eliminated. So all of the Iran's general staff means all the staff of the generals, I guess. Reuters says two Iranian officials are saying that at least 20 senior commanders were killed in Israeli strikes. 20 senior commanders. So it might take them a little while to reorganize and decide how they're going to respond. Now, Trump, the way Trump was playing it was to try to keep the United States out of it so that when Iran responds, which of course they will, that they would respond only against Israel. But it seems that Israel is You know, lumping. Well, Iran is lumping Israel and the United States together as the two devils that must be defeated. So my question is this. Israel doesn't seem to have bunker buster bombs. And if they had them, they couldn't use them because they don't have the kind of bombers that are required to carry them. They have only fighters. So if Israel, if Israel wanted bunker busters, the US Would have to deliver them. You know, not just deliver them to Israel, but deliver them to the bomb site and drop them with our own bombers. And doesn't look like that's going to happen unless Iran attacks United States interests. If Iran decides, okay, we're not going to buy this. Israel is doing it by itself. It's always with the help of America. If they decide to treat it as one thing and they go after Israel, but they also go after American assets, I don't think it would be long before Trump would say, all right, here come the bunker busters. And it would take out the nuclear fortresses that are extra deep. I'm not even sure if the bunker busters could get the main one. There's one of them that's like 50 miles underground or something. So it's just crazy. I don't know how you get to that one, but maybe if you collapse the entrances, that gets you something. I don't know. Makes me wonder if there's a cyber attack coming, because Iran would presumably have hackers, and they would presumably be able to do a cyber attack on Israel and the US But I haven't heard of one yet. And it makes me wonder, does that mean that we're really going to defense, or does that mean that Iran never had any hackers, or does that mean that they wouldn't use them against the United States because they think the response would be too brutal? I don't know. But it's kind of curious if we don't get a cyber attack, isn't it? And would it be curious if nothing happens on our home, on the homeland? I think Israel. I'm sorry, I think Iran's biggest problem is if they attack anything that the United States says it owns, then the escalation will be very unpredictable. Now, Trump might decide it's not worth it, but he might decide to go all in. And given that Iran won't know in advance which way that would go, that would be the famous Trump unpredictability definitely working in our favor right now. I feel like Iran will probably hold off and not attack U.S. interests because that would just be the. It would Seem like the risks would be too high. And so Trump is playing this very interesting game where he's pretending we have nothing to do with it while we were informed, but were not part of the attack. At the same time, he's telling Iran that Israel is using US weapons and they have no idea how much trouble they're in because his weapons are really good. So he's kind of having it both ways. On one hand he's saying we're not involved, and on the other hand he's saying they're using our weapons. So you're basically going to get wiped out. Now, given that Israel successfully took out the generals, do you think that the non military leadership, you know, the Supreme Leader and his minions, do you think that Israel has no way to get to them? I would assume that Israel could get to them as easily as they got to the generals. So, so one possibility is that Israel is making sure to keep alive the current, current leadership so they have somebody to make peace with. I guess that would make sense. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Israel has decided that they're going to go for a total victory. Total victory would be replacing, you know, replacing the leadership. But the ideal way to do it would be if the local population decided to stage an uprising because they didn't like the war that their leaders got them into. However, now that we've all been Mike Benzized, we understand how color revolutions work and we understand when the CIA is involved and USAID used to be, if you heard that there was a internal local Iranian uprising against the leadership, would you believe that Was organic in 2025? Are, are we not well informed at this point that whenever there seems to be some kind of grassroots organic protest, that's never real, that's always fake. So I don't really see the local population rising up against the leadership. Maybe that's a pipe dream. And if it, if it looked like it happened, I'm not sure I would believe it was organic. So could be something inorganic is being planned, but no way to know. Trump is actually, he said that he had given Iran 60 days to come up with an agreement and that Israel attacked on day 61. So he's basically said, yeah, I told you. Now one thing I like about that is that when Trump makes a threat, at least in most cases, he's willing to go through the threat. So if you are the Iranians and you knew that he gave you a 60 day deadline, well, now you know what happens on day 61. It's not so good so that might be something that works in our favor in the future. But Trump is actually inviting Iran back to negotiations even while the bombs are flying. So he really is trying to have it both ways, which is that he's the badass. You better not cross me and go more than 60 days. At the same time, he's the one saying, no, no, we don't need any war. Just come negotiate. Come on, come on, come on over here and negotiate. We'll take care of this. But since. Since we know that Iran will not give up their nuclear program, even at the cost of losing everything, why? I don't know. It just seems they're not being rational, or they maybe they've underestimated the will and military might of Israel. At least it's a little bit puzzling why they would act the way they are, because it doesn't look like they have a good hand, and they would have to know that. Could they look at the current situation and say, well, it looks like we have some strategic advantage over Israel. Not really. They're probably weaker than they've ever been. So it's hard to explain, unless it's just, you know, messianic religious irrationality or something. Whatever it is. Anyway.
- [21:36]
Sponsor/Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected, but many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.
- [22:07]
Scott Adams
So Fetterman, Senator Fetterman is all in on this attack. Why is Fetterman so wildly pro Israel? I mean, it's not unusual that someone in the Senate would be pro Israel, but he's sort of almost humorously laughably pro Israel. What is up with that? We don't know. So Israel says that the remission will take two weeks to complete. Does anybody believe that will take two weeks? No. They couldn't possibly get what they want in two weeks. How in the world. Like, why would they even think that's possible in two weeks? I would say maybe a month or two. But they're not going to, you know, hostilities are not going to stop in two weeks. How are they going to get all of their. All of their, you know, nuclear assets in two weeks? I don't know. There are probably thousands of targets, if you count the military plus the nuclear, plus whatever else they need to bomb. I don't know. Two weeks seems a little fast, but it does make sense to say two weeks because then you're giving people a sense of a target. Certainly if they could get it done in two weeks, they would be happy with that. But what does it mean to be done in this case? Do you think that we'd be. Not we, but do you think Israel would be satisfied with just destroying the current assets of the regime and then pulling back and letting them reconstitute? I don't know. If you look at Gaza, it looks like the Israeli leadership has more of a let's, let's settle this once and for all attitude. You know, I told you early on that Gaza was not going to go back to the old way. Whatever it was going to be, it was going to be under Israel's control and there wouldn't be any going back to Hamas. So with Iran, is Israel just going to give it a black eye and destroy its toys and then let it reconstitute? Does that sound like what the leadership of the current leadership of Israel would do? It doesn't to me. To me, it feels like they're going all the way, and all the way would mean a leadership change. Now, how they do that might be kind of subtle. In other words, I don't expect them just to blow up a building where the grand leader is, because then it just gets replaced with the next radical guy. So I don't know how they do that, but my guess is that they're not going to stop attacking until they have a new government in Iran that's friendlier. So we'll see how long that takes. Netanyahu has made a video in which he compared Iran's threat to that of Nazi Germany, and he says that never again. Is now, you know, one of the advantages, and it's weird to say this, but it is an advantage. If you have the narrative of the Holocaust behind you, in other words, it's part of your national story, then when something new happens, people will pretty much automatically go to that model because we all know what the Holocaust is. So as soon as you see somebody attacking Israel and saying Israel must be wiped off the map and, you know, death to Israel, you. You don't have to wonder, like, you don't spend a lot of time thinking, well, how bad is this? You know, scale of 1 to 10, you go immediately to the Holocaust. Now, in this case, is that appropriate? Is this, is this the size of a risk of the Holocaust. And I would say it looks like it because they're building up the weapons that could destroy an entire country. Iran is. And they're saying out loud, and they've said for years, and they say it clearly, we want to basically wipe out your whole country. Now, sometimes they try to put some nuance on that and make it sound like, no, no, it's not about killing the people. Oh, no, we would never do that. It's more about the government. So we'd want them to have a more compatible government. Well, nobody believes that. So I don't know it's true, but nobody would believe that. So this is one of those cases where the Holocaust narrative works in favor of Israel because it gives them more options. If you put us, let's say, the United States in this situation where your enemy was developing nuclear weapons and telling you that their plan is to kill all of you, would you act in a military way before that was possible to stop them? Well, yeah, wouldn't you? It's hard to imagine it would be any country that would not do some version of what Israel is doing right now, which is saying, all right, we can't live in the same neighborhood as you when you're developing nukes and telling us you're going to kill us all, even if you're lying about the killing us all apart. So there was only one way this was going to go, Right? How many of you thought there was some other way this would go? To me, it seemed obvious that Israel was going to have to attack. Now, remember, I started off by telling you I'm not the one who approves of what other countries do or disapprove. I'm observing, and my observation is there was only one way this was going to go. It was a matter of when, but it wasn't really a matter of what way is it going to go. And I thought Trump had signaled clearly enough that he was going to make sure America had a little bit of distance, but at the same time making sure Israel had all the assets that needed to get the job done. So, anyway, so most of the military assets that Israel is using appear to be their air force and missiles. So the good news is for Israel that whatever fatigue their, their military has from Gaza, and I would imagine it's quite a bit that's not exactly the same military force that they're going to use against Iran, because Gaza is mostly, at least at this point, a ground war, and Iran is almost entirely an air war. So, you know, they, they probably do have enough assets to do both at the moment because Gaza is reasonably under control. From a military perspective, oil prices have surged 11%. That should be temporary. And here's another one of those Israel or a bunch of military geniuses things. This might be true and it might not be, but it's very predictable. So I saw this on the X account by Cremu Raquel. I'm saying that wrong, but imagine I had good French. Anyway, the post was that former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadjad had said that, quote, we created a unit to counter Israel and the person who headed it turned out to be a Mossad agent. Now that perfectly fits into the narrative that when Israel does military stuff, it's super clever and super effective. So is it true that the head of the anti Israel unit in Iran was a Mossad agent? It might have been. I mean, I wouldn't rule it out, but it fits perfectly into that narrative of look at all the genius stuff Israel's doing militarily. So every time they fire a rocket, there's always a narrative of some genius thing they did. Some of them will be true Grandpa's here.
- [32:24]
Sponsor/Advertiser
Hank's always helping out grandpa style. Now he's treating his prostate cancer with help from 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. Xtandi can cause harm to an unborn baby or miscarriage. Use personal 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.
- [33:24]
Scott Adams
Mike Cernovich has an interesting non standard prediction he said on X My unpopular take is that neocons have claimed Iran was much stronger than it was to scam more military spending and that Iran isn't going to retaliate in any material way. In any material way. Now they've already sent 100 drones toward Israel, but is that a material way you could argue that it was more just reflex, just perfunctory, had to do something. 100 was a big round number. So you could argue that that's not yet a material way because Israel probably shot down most of them. But I'm not on that page, but only because I don't know one way or the other. It's an interesting kind of an interesting prediction because we might see for the next few days not much of a reaction beyond, you know, some drones heading toward Israel. But is it possible that Iran would say, you know, we'd better not really do anything material now, materiel would be a major attack on the homeland of the US not necessarily by rocket, but if they had assets that are already embedded here that could do all kinds of terrorism, I'm sure they're trained to do that. So I will join with Cernovich this far, which is you could imagine a range of things that Iran could do that would be bad for the United States. I feel like they're not going to do the whole range. In other words, I don't think there would be much of a cyber attack. Even if they're capable of doing one, there might be a little one or, you know, maybe one. We don't know where it's coming from. And I don't think they're going to unleash the domestic terrorists to bring down buildings in the United States, even though they obviously could. They would have the wherewithal and they've had years to set things up. So I think I'm going to agree with Cernovich that there will be a response, and there has been already, but it might be way less than you expected or way less than they're capable of doing. I think Cernovich is in the capability camp that they don't have as much capability as you thought. I'm in the. Even if they have the capability, they might hold back because there's nothing good that could happen. If they attack homeland, us, it would be all bad, although they've been a little irrational. So you never know. Well, in theory, Trump will have a military parade tomorrow. Is that still on? It's kind of weird that a war would break out that we may or may not be involved with and that we would have a huge amount of military assets placed in one, one easy to destroy place. Now, obviously, if somebody attacked Washington, D.C. you know, they would have to make sure that they destroyed the whole United States. Because if you attack Washington, D.C. you know, we're not going to be happy until we've destroyed Whoever did that, you know, completely. So on one hand it should be one of the safest places you can be. But doesn't it seem weird that we would have, you know, a big parade full of military assets at the same time that there's a military action going on that we're sort of, but not really part of? It's kind of awkward now. It does give the Democrats an easy target so they can say, look at him trying to be an authoritarian with his, with his despot looking military parade. And I have to admit part of me agrees with the Democrats that if you're just going to look at the look of does look like, you know, he planned a birthday party for himself because I guess it's his birthday too tomorrow. And none of that's true. I mean the, the history of this idea is that other countries celebrated, you know, their victory in World War II, but Trump wanted to make sure that the world knew. I don't think this is technically true, but he wanted to make sure the world knew that the U.S. involvement in World War II is what won it. I think it was more the Russians than the U.S. if, if I know anything about history, which I don't, but certainly the US Helped a lot and maybe made it faster. But the Russians would have crushed Germany eventually. I think so. So Trump was thinking, you know, let's put down our, put down our marker for what we did in World War II. And you know, it's a way to respect the soldiers and it's Flag Day and those are good reasons, but none of them matter. What will matter is the visuals. So if the Democrats get a picture of Trump looking like a dictator with tanks rolling by, then they win because they would get the best image. If Trump pulls off a dignified, respectful military parade where it just looks like we're strong and patriotic, well then he's at least going to break even. I don't know if he can come ahead on this one, but we'll see. And it's sort of interesting that it's not coming killed, but I also doubt that we bring to a parade the assets that matter the most in an actual fight. It seems like we would be, you know, we would take all the half broken stuff, you know, the stuff that looks good and we wouldn't take that many missiles or that many tanks. So anyway, in other news, I feel sorry for the, what I call the LA photo op contest which you call the protest and, or the riots over immigration, but they are so overshadowed by the Israel's attack on Iran that It went from the thing we would talk about all summer to totally unimportant in just a few hours, because how much interest do you have in a few people burning cars? And they've even slowed down on that versus an entire war going on that we're kind of getting dragged into a little bit? These are not equal. So most of the juice or energy for the whole protest against the immigration just got sucked out of the whole situation. But I saw a. A take by Chris Cuomo, News Nation, that I had not seen before, and it changes everything. So, obviously, most of, you know, the, the demonstrations or the riots are organized. They're not organic in any way. We knew in advance there would be summer protests, and we know it's being funded by somebody and organized by somebody, and if it were not, it wouldn't be happening. But Chris Cuomo's take is that somebody who's funding it is China, and that China is using the immigration issue as a way to destroy the United States from within. And the evidence for that is that there's a specific Chinese billionaire who we know to be funding it, and he would not be doing it except with the government of China saying yes. So if you look at these, these protests, it's not about the Mexicans and it's not about the immigrants, it's not about the illegals. It's literally a war in which China is destroying us with these protests and with, you know, whatever other support they have for unlimited immigration, because they know it will destroy the United States. And I know that Trump said he was going to be looking into the funding, but what if he finds at the same time he's got these great trade deals with China. What if he finds that China is behind the protests? Because according to Chris Cuomo, I mean, he works in the news business, he's not guessing. According to him, we would find that China is actively attacking the United States, not only with fentanyl, which apparently was ignored in the trade deal conversations, but also with these protests. So how do you have a normal trade deal with somebody who's very actively trying to destroy your entire country in a very visible way? It's. It's weird that we pretend we're just trade partners when we're clearly at war. And when I say at war, I mean they're at war with us. I don't know if we're at war with them. I mean, maybe our dark arts people are doing some bad stuff to China we don't know about, which seems likely, actually, but it feels like it's just one way at this point.
- [44:55]
Sponsor/Advertiser
Your burger is served. And this is our finest Pepsi Zero Sugar. Its sweet profile perfectly balances the savory notes of your burger.
- [45:04]
Scott Adams
That is one perfect combination. Burgers deserve Pepsi, so that's bad. Anyway, the, as I call it, the LA photo op contest, the Democrats are pulling ahead because the they had this issue with Senator Alex Padilla. Now, it turns out that he's a senator from my state who I never heard of and would not recognize if I saw him. So he's a junior senator, I guess, and he made the mistake of attending a Christy Noem event and getting a little loud and looking aggressive while also not looking like a senator. So the security did a really good job of dragging him away because he looked like he was, you know, just a normal protester. And he looked like he might be a little bit dangerous because he was big and he was, you know, not. Not taking directions to leave. So that looks a little bit dangerous. So they very efficiently and professionally pushed him into the hallway, took him down and handcuffed him. So that put the Democrats temporarily ahead in the photo op contest because they got the great photo op. Now, I have to say that my favorite part was there was one security guy, I don't know who he worked for, but he was about half the size of Padilla, who looks like a big guy, and the small guy was just manhandling Padilla and manhandling him into the hallway. It was kind of impressive. He was obviously good at his job. Anyway, so security did a good job there, in my opinion. But Democrats got the video and they got the photograph, and then they got to be. It's a full dramacrat mode, you know, the dramacrats. Oh, if they could do that to a senator, what could they do to a poor shopkeeper? What will they do to you if they could do that to a senator? I'm crying. So the Drumocrats just need a good photograph and a good story, and they got both. So they are temporarily ahead in the photo op contest. Speaking of who's funding it, Trump said recently, I believe they're paid, and we're going to find out through Pam Bondi and her staff. And I guess my question would be this. Is there anything illegal about paying and organizing a protest in the United States? And what would it be? What would be the law that's being broken? I want it to stop and I want us to know where it's coming from, but I don't know if it's illegal. So that's an open Question separate from the LA protest, but maybe they have some connection. I don't know. Is the no Kings protest, which is allegedly triggered by the military parade? So it'll happen tomorrow at the same time. And the idea is that while all the imagery is showing these tanks and making Trump look like a dictator, that they will say, you know, no kings. So it's a protest to challenge Trump's perceived use of the army as a show of force and symbol of authoritarianism. Now, does that seem a little too conceptual to you? Let me tell you what the no Kings movement will accomplish. So, apparently it's nationwide, so there will be a whole bunch of events, and they will all be marching with signs to say, no Kings, no Kings, and there'll be a picture of Trump. Now, what if I taught you about how the brain processes information? If I told you no Kings, does that make you think of no Kings? No, it makes you think of a king. If I tell you Trump is no king, does that make you think, oh, I guess that removes my thoughts about Trump being a king? No, it makes you think about Trump being a king. So the weird part about this is that prior to the no King's March, I guess it's tomorrow, there was really zero chance that Trump could ever become the king of America. But now it's possible. It's made possible because if the news reports endlessly about an event called no Kings, and then you see pictures of Trump, you will associate in your mind Trump and King over and over again until half of the country thinks it's a good idea. So this is the dumbest event in all of events, because they're taking something that had zero percent chance of happening. Trump becoming a king, and they're raising it to 5% is still very unlikely. Very unlikely. But they're taking something impossible and they're elevating it into, well, you know, if you had to have a king, who would you choose? I mean, think about it. We don't want a king, but if you had to have one, how many people would choose Trump? About half of the country. So it's kind of hilarious to me that they don't understand what they're doing. So, yeah, no King. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom, who is basically Triumph the Insult Dog. Now, do you remember there used to be a puppet on. Was it Conan, Conan o' Brien show, There was Triumph the Insult Dog, and the dog would just insult people. That's what Gavin Newsom is now. He doesn't have any policies, he doesn't have any ideas, but he wants to talk about Trump every single day. And he wants to be Triumph the insult dog with a bad haircut or a good haircut, I guess. So here's what he said. Gavin Newsom, what an embarrassment. Honestly, that's about as small as it gets. How weak. He's talking about Trump here. How weak do you have to be to commandeer the military to fetch you on your birthday in a vulgar display of weakness? That's Donald Trump. And Gavin goes on, now remember, this is classic Democrat. They don't have a policy, they don't have a good candidate, they don't have any good ideas. All they have are personal character insults. So he goes on, this is what he does. He creates a problem and then he tries to be a hero in his own Marvel movie, creates the problem and then tries to do a make believe as if you're all perfect little sheep and you're going to go along with it and he'll be the hero in his own Marvel movie. How pleased with himself was he to come up with that idea of the Marvel movie? I feel like he was internally really satisfied with himself. It's like the Marvel movie. Yeah. I'll just say he's making his own Marvel movie. Nobody said that yet. Right. That'll be clever. Yeah. So then he makes us think about Trump being a superhero in a Marvel movie. Good job, Gavin. No, if you keep telling us that Trump is making his own Marvel movie, we're going to think of him as one of the heroes again. Complete, you know, blindness to the persuasion level here. And then the other thing that Gavin has is a weird hand moving. So I should have read this with the, the right hand movements. Let's see if I can do that. This is what he does. He creates a problem and then he has to be a hero in his own movie. It's like a Marvel movie. Anyway, that's enough of that. That was me moving my arms, in case you're listening on audio. All right. As you know, Trump had taken control of the California National Guard and was having them guard some national or some federal buildings in the LA area. But I guess a federal judge ruled that Trump had illegally federalized them. So a court wants to return control back to Newsom, but there's an appeal. So that's not going to happen until Tuesday. And it might not happen on Tuesday because the appeal is happening. So somebody's going to be in charge of the National Guard. But it doesn't sound like much of a king, does it? Let's see, a king would be in control of the military and all branches of it. But Trump, he didn't do the right paperwork because it's really just a process problem. It's not even a question of whether, whether the president could have control of the National Guard. It's a question of whether he did it through the proper channels, which would require the state to agree, I guess, which doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I have that wrong. Anyway, in other news, Bernie Sanders and Angus King of Maine, they're both independents. They're proposing a ban on big Pharma ads on TV 0HEDGES Talking about this now. What would happen if they succeed? If they succeed, then the biggest revenue source for the news network business would be removed. So the Federal Court of Appeals stayed the order. Three hours later. Okay, thank you.
- [56:55]
Sponsor/Advertiser
Out having fun. But the background noise makes hearing impossible. Your friend just cracked a joke, but you completely missed it and then, like, immediately ordered tacos. Discover Nuance Audio, the new invisible hearing solution that's built into your glasses. Discreet, comfortable and easy to use. Nuance Audio glasses help you hear better and reduce annoying background noise so you can focus on the conversations that matter. Find a store near you@nuanceaudio.com.
- [57:24]
Scott Adams
So what would happen? How would we know what's happening in Israel if you didn't have the networks that have pharma commercials? Something would have to happen to either deny us news, at least the expensive kind of news where you have to go on location and stuff, or there'd be an entirely new news model that has to be invented. I don't know which it would be, but I also don't know what the odds of this passing are. I think it's probably low because the pharma probably has a lot of lobbyists, so probably it won't go anywhere. Well, Trump has softened on his opinion of deporting farm workers and people in the leisure business, like hotels, because he realized that if you get rid of the, the non citizens who are doing farm work and hotel work, that those industries would collapse. Now, there is a legitimate difference of opinion about how hard you should go at the immigrants who are doing work, let's say work at a farm. I think Trump used the example of some people who had been working at the same farm or doing 25 years now. Are we better off if we, if we deport the people who are doing those jobs? Well, you probably say to yourself, it depends. If we can fill those jobs with American citizens, then we're better off deporting everybody. Even if it's cruel. The country would be better off. I would argue that your opinion of whether an American born citizen can fill those jobs is entirely based on your personal experience in those domains. Now I have experience in the leisure business domain, specifically restaurants, locally, and I could tell you that if you tried to fill those jobs with American citizens, you wouldn't come close. Now why? I don't know. I don't know. But these are not jobs that you could just say, hey, I now have opened up a whole bunch of farm jobs, come work for me. Now, maybe because they don't want to work that hard for that amount of money. Maybe because the location they don't know how to relocate is expensive. Maybe I don't know what the reason would be. But I guarantee you that those industries would have one hell of a time staffing if they had to use American citizens. What's wrong with American citizens? I just don't know. But it's true that if you live where there are tons of immigrants, you can get any service done fairly quickly. And if you live where there's no impact of immigration at all and you try to get somebody to fix your gutter that's falling off, good luck. Good luck on that. It's just really, really tough to find Americans to do a certain level of business. They just won't do it. They'd rather be unemployed. So there's room for disagreement as to whether that group of people should be deported. I'll tell you from my real world experience, it's not going to buy you anything. You're not going to come out ahead. So whatever you want to do with that, you can do with that. So apparently there's a website now that starts to describe the Trump Gold card. That's where if you have $5 million and you're willing to invest a certain amount in the US you get to be a citizen. So if you invest at least a million or at least blah blah, blah, or you hire, you have to hire at least 10 full time positions and invest at least a million or some other, some other number. All right, so that's kind of fun. We'll see if that works. It's worth a try, right? That the whole thing of selling citizenship to people who can, you know, know, increase employment and make us a smarter country, it's worth a try, you know, maybe, maybe it'll work, I guess. According to Newsmax, the House has passed a Doge cuts bill. So if I understand this, there's now a separate bill from the one we've been talking about. There's Just about cuts. And I guess it barely passed the House, which means I guess it has to do the Senate next. So this might explain why Musk and Trump decided that they don't need to be enemies. Is it could be that Musk was told that there would be a series of separate bills to do doge cuts and this would be the first one. So we'll see if it gets all the way through. The New York Post is reporting that Gen Z is getting rid of their smartphones and many of them are using blackberries because the BlackBerry gives them the. The basic communication without all the other, you know, mentally destroying aspect. So do you think that's real? I'm going to say that might be a thing, but I don't think it's going to catch on because dopamine kind of beats everything. I definitely respect the people who say I'm going to try to get off the dopamine trail or dopamine train, I guess. And, you know, I'm going to have a BlackBerry and that'll be bad enough, but at least it won't be all those other apps that destroy my brain. I get that. But the dopamine, the dopamine pull of a smartphone I think is way too strong. So I don't see the BlackBerry thing becoming like a trend that eats the smartphones. I see it as something that a small group of hipsters who didn't get that much dopamine anyway from the wraps might be willing to do for a short time. But I don't see that being a big thing. We'll see. According to Zero Hedge, a company called Micron is going to invest 200 billion in America to reinforce our global chip dominance. So that would be another big win for Trump and his desire to get chips and cars and other high tech things made in America. This one's a big one. $200 billion, obviously, over a number of years. Stanford research finds that a therapist chatbot will just make things worse. If you have schizophrenia, delusions or suicidal thoughts, this is written up in futurism. Does that surprise you? So, human therapist, you might break even, but a chatbot therapist might make it worse. You might even end your life. That's bad. But it makes me wonder if this study was done by therapists who didn't want to lose their jobs. Oh, yeah, no, the chatbot therapist will kill you. Yeah, you better pay me $400 an hour. So I don't trust that study. I guess the CIA has released some more RFK assassination documents, but I haven't Heard any news about that, so those must be boring. Newsmax Health says that the CDC is going to rehire 460 people who had been laid off. Now, that's out of 2400 people who had been laid off. The, I guess 460 of them they decided they needed because they were working on stuff like, you know, deadly diseases and minimizing them. So the cusp went a little bit too deep, but some percentage of them will be reversed. I don't know if that's a good job or bad job. I can't tell. Goldman Sachs says that the odds of the U.S. going into a recession are down to 30%. They used to have it at 35, 30%. What do you think? 30% chance we'll go into recession? I don't know. There's nothing right now that looks like recession, but anything's possible. According to Fox Business, Trump might be looking at Scott Besant to replace Jerome Powell in the Fed. When Jerome Powell's contract is up in a year. I don't know how real that is, but Scott Besant always makes me feel confident when I hear his financial opinion. So that might be a good choice. So Trump has entered the California electric car mandate, which affected 17 other states. And he's also going to unveil a plan to ban windmills, which he calls one of the greatest scams, and he calls it junkyard optics. That's really good. Junkyard optics. You know, before he said junkyard optics, I used to think the same windmills was kind of cool. And I would enjoy seeing them because they're big and they're impressive. And, you know, they're. They're windmills. If you haven't seen one, they're almost scary. They're so big because your brain doesn't really process it. It shouldn't be so big. So to me, looking at windmills was always kind of fun. But the moment that I read that Trump called it junkyard optics, it looks like a garbage dump to me. Yeah, the. The minute he said it or the minute I read about him saying it, I was like, oh, yeah, yeah, I can say that looks a little junkyardy. I see what you're saying. Meanwhile, fentanyl tests are way down. Nobody knows exactly why, but they're almost cut in half. Some of it is because the Narcan that can save you if you're dying from an overdose. Some of it is young people seem to be less interested in that kind of drug. Some of it is that the fentanyl might be weaker some are saying so there might be several reasons why. But the good news is fentanyl deaths are way down compared to the past. Anyway, so that's all I've got for today. Thanks for joining, everybody. Hope you're entertained and smarter now. And I'm going to say hi to the people on locals who are subscribers. The rest of you, thanks for joining. I will see you next week, same time, same place. All right, in 30 seconds, I'll be private with.