Transcript
Scott Adams (0:00)
Hey, everybody, come on in here. I got room for you. There's room up front. Come on, everybody. All right, stock market is up a little bit today. Good for us. Good for us. People have stocks, bad for everybody else. All right, let me get your comments working and then we gotta show. Come on in. Have a seat. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to try to elevate this experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of Margaret glass, a tank of shell to stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Good stuff. Well, let's check technology news. What is the coolest new technology? Well, I saw this on a Mario Naufel post who I recommend you follow on X Mario Naufel. There's a new laptop product that instead of having a screen on your laptop, all it is is some glasses. So the glasses allow your screen to look like a hundred inch screen with lots of different windows open, floating in front of you, so nobody can see your screen if you're on an airplane, let's say. But you would have the experience of a hundred inch virtual display in front of you. And I have one question. Can I wear those glasses over my glasses? That was always my problem with 3D. They have to wear glasses over your glasses. But maybe if you're new, if you're nearsighted as I am, maybe that's all you need. I don't know. Well, the Daily Mail is reporting that Joe Rogan was talking with a AI expert, a computer scientist named Roman Empolisky. That seems pretty close. And Joe was speculating that what if. What if God is not our origin, but rather our destination? Oooh, what if AI is the process of God being born? And once it's born, well, we don't know what happens after that. But if only somebody had written a best selling book on that same topic. Wouldn't you want to read that? Yes. It's called God's Debris, the Complete Works. It's my book. And those of you who have read it, you're probably saying to yourself, I knew that sounded familiar. Now, I don't know if Joe Rogan has read the book. But the idea has gotten around and I don't want to give up, don't want to give away too much. But if you like philosophical, AI God philosophy stuff, well, I got a book for you. It's on Amazon. According to Zero Hedge, the US has canceled 54 contracts, has saved $804 million in two days because of Doge. So here's what I think about Doge. I think that it worked way better than, than people think, because the biggest thing you have to change is how people think and how they act when no one is watching. And it seems to me that the biggest thing that Doge will accomplish is it made cost savings a thing. It was like it didn't exist, right? If you talk to a politician or you look to the news, what was a story you would never, ever, ever see? Well, we cut a bunch of money out of that budget. It wasn't even a thing. And now it's not only a thing, but you see the top level political people sort of competing to see who can do the best job of saving money. So it went from a thing that nobody thinks about, nobody talks about, and maybe it isn't that important to something that's baked into everything we do and the way we see government. And now it's just part of the fabric of the government at this point. So I think that what Elon Musk accomplished will have a very long tail and it will ripple into the future in a positive way because he simply made it. He simply made it a positive thing to say, hey, I found a way to save a bunch of money for the country and I'm going to go brag about it. So it's a big deal. Let's see what else happens. Oh, Doge is also, or something Doge like, is now working on the Pentagon. So the Pentagon budget is where they're starting to lean next and look for additional savings, of which we expect to find a lot. But there will be a lot of more pushback from the military budget, so who knows how much that will stick. But at least Doge is going after the motherlode. You know, the place where in theory you would find the most to cut. In practice, we don't know yet. But in other good news, Doge wise, you know how Trump wanted to use his executive authority to downsize a bunch of executive departments. And some activist judge said, no, you can't do that. You do not have the authority to be in charge of the thing you're in charge of. And then everybody said, wait, what you Telling me the president is not in charge of the executive branch. That's sort of exactly what he is. But an activist judge, if I recall, said, no, no, I block it. The Supreme Court decided six to three, guess who the three were to lift that lower court order. So now Trump can fire the federal workers, and I believe he's already started. So, once again, did Doge fail, or did Doge just have to find its footing and get through the legal challenges and, you know, just become institutionalized? It looks like Doge is working. It's just that not exactly the rapid way that we thought it might work. It just takes a little bit longer. But that's a big deal. It's a very big deal that Trump now has the legal authority he always did, but it was being blocked legal authority to cut staff. It would be a big deal. Speaking of big deals, Bill Pulte, who is the U.S. director of Federal Housing, is a superstar. And one of the things that he just got through with the help of Trump, is that your rent payments will now qualify on your, I guess on your credit report or when you're trying to get a mortgage. I didn't know that that wasn't already a thing. Did you, did you know that you could have successfully paid rent for decades, but when you went to buy a house, the bank would say, too bad you don't have a good credit? And then you would say, what do you mean? I've been paying rent for 20 years. I've never missed a payment. How do I not have good credit? And the bank would say, rent doesn't count. We need car loans and department store loans and credit cards. But all that rent you've paid, which is most of your financial obligation, it's the biggest part, didn't count. So Bill Pulte gets Trump to change that with Executive Order. Now it counts. How big a deal is that? It's a big deal. So congratulations, Bill Pulte. Well, according to the Hill, Julia Shapiro is writing that we've got a gigantic blackout risk coming in that AI is going to suck up so much of our existing grid and power that the odds of getting blackouts go from smallish. But we, you know, in California, we, we do have blackouts occasionally in the summer, usually. But the odds of these blackouts are going to go up by 100 times what they are 100 times. Now, I have a question. If the reason for the blackout is that the AI data centers are sucking up too much power, wouldn't they just turn off the data centers? Because I'm almost positive I could go two days without the data center working. Could I go two days without using an AI that relied on some California data center? I feel like I could, I could make it two days. So would they really turn off my house? Would I really be sitting here in the dark because the AI data center was using too much electricity in California? You better not. Let me just warn you, don't turn off the residential AC in the summer because the AI data center needs too much power. You better work on that. You, you, you power and political people. Maybe you need to sit in the same room because you need to do that in the right priority. You know, we can make AI wait a couple days, but I'm not going to sit in a 110 degree heat with no AC because the AI needed some extra power. You, you better, you better get on that right away. Hold on a second. Excuse me, My nose only runs when I'm ready to do a podcast. It doesn't happen any other time of the day, weirdly. Well, I've got a question for you. So, so far there have been, correct me if I'm wrong, two recent shootings about border patrol and ICE people. So there's a lone gunman who shot somebody, and then now there are 10 suspects in Texas who had a plot that they carried out and which involved shooting members of ice And I guess one of them, maybe it was a local police officer, got shot. So my question is this. Number one, have you seen the picture of the 10 suspects who planned the ambush? I think about half of them were presenting as female. But do you believe that 5 out of 10 violent domestic terrorists would be female? Does that sound like something that's normal to you, that half of them would be female? Well, I have a question, because none of them look female to me. They look like they might be trying to pass as female. So they might be trans. I don't know the actual secret of it, but of the five or so on that list of 10 that are sort of looking female, they don't look like they were born that way. But I don't know if that's a weird coincidence or just the way I'm looking at it. But that's not why I brought it up. The reason I brought it up is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but attacking the people who protect the border is not like attacking normal. Anything else. If you attack the people who are, who are keeping the, the bad people from entering. Now obviously they're also preventing perfectly good people from entering, but they're they are keeping the cartels and the gangs from coming into the country as they were. Isn't it an insurrection if you, if you have an armed, violent approach to the border patrol, it feels to me like that's an insurrection. It doesn't feel like to me like that's just a violent political act. It's an insurrection. Right. Because what would be, you know, more transformational to the country than opening the border? We already saw that. So, yeah, to me it looks like an insurrection. January 6, of course, was not an insurrection because the news told you that all the people who participated believed that they had lost the election fair and square, but wanted to take power anyway. That is the weirdest thing that the public has ever been told. And we just sort of accepted it. It's like, oh, yeah, I guess CNN read the, read the minds of all those thousands of people and found out that they believed that they really had lost that election, but they were going to try to take power anyway. Probably there wasn't. I'll bet there wasn't even one person who thought that. And the entire narrative and the way history will be written is based on fake news about what people might have been thinking. And we're living with that reality right now. Amazing. So January 6th is the biggest remaining hoax. I think we've worked very hard to debunk as many hoaxes as we can. But the January 6th one, that's now the tentpole hoax. So you're going to hear me hammer on that a little bit more. Meanwhile, according to Fox News, Cornell University got hit with a civil rights complaint over alleged DEI discriminatory practices. But here's the good news, bad news. So it feels like bad news that there's a major university discriminating based on race and gender and whatever else. But Cornell is defending itself by saying that the must be the Department of Justice. No, the they're being sued. I'm sorry. The American first policy is to file a complaint. So there's a lawsuit. But Cornell is defending itself by saying that the offending thing that caused the lawsuit is an old website, pages that are no longer relevant. And they say that they have, in fact, worked hard to obey the law, and they intend to obey the law. And they don't want to do anything that's illegal or discriminatory. So I don't know what's true. But I like the fact that there's a lawsuit to stop people from DEI discrimination. And I like the fact that the entity being sued Cornell University is, instead of trying to, you know, double down and say, we're going to keep this dei, even if we have to change the name of it. Instead, they're just saying, no, we're trying as hard as we can to obey that law. It feels like progress that the lawsuit is meeting people who are kind of arguing the same side and saying, no, we're really trying to do what you want us to do. Are they, Are they really doing it? I don't know. We'll find out. But I love the fact that it seems like two people on the same side against dei, maybe. Well, Trump said yesterday that we're close to making a trade deal with India. Remember, I told you that if everything goes well with these tariffs and trade deals, that what the Democrats didn't see coming is that there would be an infinite number of good news days for Trump. So he'd be able to say, well, Vietnam made a deal. Well, it looks like Ireland's got a deal. Oh, well, it looks like the UK's got a deal. We got to deal with China. And every day he would be able to mention a new major, major economy that made a good deal with the United States. That makes the United States a little bit richer because presumably there would be improvements in our situation. Here's another one. We're close to making a deal with India. So not only does it get to announce that it's close, but that if the deal ever gets made, he gets to announce it again. And then there's about 100 more countries that are going to get their tariff letter today. I think that'll say, well, you didn't make a deal with us. So here's your new tariffs, presumably some number of them, because they have till August 1st before it really kicks in. They just got the notice today, but presumably some of the other major economies are going to say, oh, hold on, hold on, here's our best deal. And then Trump will get another few months of, well, we got another trade deal with Elbonia. So that's looking good. And the stock market is up today. So if you were worried about the tariffs destroying the economy, today is the day. The, the, the tariff numbers are going out and the s and P500 is up. Do you have any more questions? I feel like the stock market has now answered all questions about the chaos. Remember, the Democrats always try to solve chaos. Well, these tariffs are just going to cause chaos or it's going to cause us to get 100 trade deals or $300 billion a year in tariffs, which is what Scott Besant is estimating he estimates that the tariff income. And again, remember, this is not necessarily paid by the foreign entity. It's paid by the importing entity, which is American. But $300 billion from that process would be going to the treasury per year if we hit the high number. Meanwhile, Post Millennial is reporting that the Trump administration is going to ban China from buying U.S. farmland. You know that there's this big issue that the claim is that China is buying a lot of farmland and coincidentally, seems to often be near US Military bases. And that would become a. A military risk because it's close. Really? Local weed. Wow, thank you. That's unusually generous of you, huh? I don't encourage tipping, by the way, because I probably have more money than most of you, so tipping feels weird, but when you do it, I like it. So I mixed feelings about it. I don't encourage it, but I love it when you do it, so there's that. So the question that hasn't been answered by this story about the Chinese farms. What happens to the ones that are already there? I didn't see anything about them needing to sell. So there's already a lot of Chinese farms near American military stuff. I also wonder, is it a complete coincidence that the Chinese bought farms near military complexes? Because you could imagine it could go either way. You could imagine that everything the Chinese do here is orchestrated by their government. And of course they would want them to own farmland near our military complexes for various reasons. But if you just. If you just took a bunch of, I don't know, a bunch of tax and sprinkled it over a map of the United States and then just dropped them, wouldn't some of the tax, or really a lot of them be weirdly close to military assets? Because we have military assets just all over the place. So I've never been 100% convinced that the Chinese government is behind these purchases of farmland. It could be that they just need access to guaranteed food sources. It might be just that. But given the other things that the Chinese government does, it would be foolish to assume that it's a coincidence. Are you happy now? You got really unhappy when I started to say maybe it's just totally chance, but I redeemed myself again by saying it would be unlikely. If that's just chance, so we're on the same side worry. There's a story that apparently there was a. I saw this on a John Ziegler post. Apparently in 2024, Kamala Harris did a podcast with a liberal podcast called Subway Takes, and apparently the interview went so poorly Even though it was a friendly she, there was not really any pushback. It's just that she was such an idiot that the podcaster and the campaign agreed that it would be better not to show it because it could ruin her chances of getting elected. Remember, I told you that after the election was over, you'd hear not only bad stuff about Biden, but you're going to slowly hear more and more just outrageously incredible stories about Kamala Harris. If it looks like she's never going to be president, you'll hear those stories. Well, here's one. Do you think that Trump has ever, even once, in all of his media appearances? Do you think that even once, that his people and the podcaster who talked to him decided that it was so bad that they wouldn't even show it in public? Of course not. No. Trump performs so well that he could be the most media connected person of all time as president, and not once, not once as it caused a problem that could, you know, take him out of contention. Not once. But I've got a suspicion that if there's one podcast that interviewed her and it was so bad that they decided to just keep it in the tank, what are the odds it was only one? Just one. And what are the odds that she was maybe drunk as hell when she did the interview? They never said that, but it seems to me that a sober Kamala Harris would at least say some words out that they would run. So whatever the problem was, it was so bad that both the campaign and the podcaster decided to kill it. That feels like maybe there's something else they're not telling us. Like, how drunk would you have to be to be that bad? So I'm going to assume drunk, but I don't know that. Newsmax is reporting that the Republican senators in their super PAC have raised a record $85 million. So as we're starting to prep for the midterm elections, you should know that the Republicans are doing great on raising money. I guess Trump is helping on that as well. So if you follow the money, that would be a good sign for the midterms. Do you have a prediction yet for the midterms? I feel like this might be the first midterm where there's some mystery, because normally all you'd have to do is say the party that's not in power will win more seats in the House. And you could. You could kind of bank on that because it's so predictable. But as soon as you throw Trump into it, it becomes unpredictable. If the Republicans Double the amount of money they have. That's unpredictable. If Trump continues to do 80, 20 issues, that's unpredictable. If that's the first time, I, I would say this is the first election, the midterms in which podcasters are simply more important than the traditional news. You could argue that was true for the 2024 election, but it's definitely true now. The. The people who are paying attention, except for the senior citizens watching the. The regular news, the podcasters are really the main thing moving the needle right now, and they tend to lean Republican. So we got that going for you. So if you look at the accomplishments that Trump should have, with any luck, it's going to look pretty impressive. And I doubt I would ask any historians to correct me on this, but if, if things just stayed about the way they are, let's say there's no new surprises. But the things that are already in progress, let's say they just go the way you imagine they might. Let's say, for example, that Gaza gets some kind of a ceasefire, whether it's today or tomorrow or just before the midterms. Let's say that Iran doesn't rebuild its nuclear facilities so quickly that it becomes a midterm problem. Let's say that the economy stays strong, and let's say that tariffs work out. You know, you can just go down the line and say, what if things just sort of stay the way they look like they're going to stay. Now, of course, that never happens. What happened? Douglas Mackey says. I'm just saying this in the comments. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out my conviction, Douglas Mackey, for lack of evidence. The case has been remanded to the district court with orders to immediately dismiss. Well, look at that. I won't get into the Douglas Mackey case, but he would be another mega person who was targeted by the bad guys. So look at that. Douglas Mackey might be a free man. Well, he's probably free, but that must be nice. All right, let's talk about Epstein. The Epstein thing just has infinite legs. There's always more to talk about. Number one, that missing minute in the video that allegedly showed Epstein's cell door. And people said, wait a minute. You showed us that. That video to prove that nobody could have gotten to Epstein. But there's a minute missing. Well, the minute was exactly at the end of the. The hour. And when I saw that, I said, that feels like it's more something to do with all the videos. Have a missing minute at the end. And sure enough, I Don't know if it's true. But that is the explanation we're getting. The explanation is that all of the videos of everything, all the time will be missing the same minute as the end. So it doesn't mean that anybody did anything. And plus, you wouldn't be able to do much in one minute, right? So. So probably the missing minute is not meaningful. However, I've not seen anybody debunk the claim that the video doesn't even show the door of his cell. Has anybody debunked that? Because I've seen claims that his door doesn't look like that. You can't see the door number on it. So whatever that video is, it has nothing to do with Epstein. So I'm going to assume that the video is not meaningful either in any direction. It's just this mystery. All right? Somebody has a video, it doesn't mean anything to me. So it doesn't prove anything and it doesn't disprove anything. It's just nothing. Then there was a question of why Pam Bondi at one point back in February, I think allegedly said that she had the Epstein client list on her desk for review. But then when the newest information came out, it said there was no client list. So how could both those be true? How could it be true that Bondi said that she was, she had to review it and it was on her desk, but it doesn't exist. Well, I think she gave the answer I was expecting, which was she was speaking more generally about the files were on her desk, not that there was a client list on the desk. Now, do you believe that she had Epstein files on her desk or near her desk and that, you know, she knew she had to look into it, but that wasn't necessarily saying there was a client list. I believe her. I believe that. I believe she was talking about generally the information and the files and not specifically about a client list. So to me that sounds like actually a perfectly good explanation.