Unknown Advertiser (10:41)

You know that one friend who somehow knows everything about money?

Scott Adams (10:44)

Yeah.

Unknown Advertiser (10:45)

Now, imagine they live in your phone. Say hey to Experian, your big financial friend. It's the app that helps you check your FICO score, find ways to save, and basically feel like a financial genius. And guess what? It's totally free. So go on, download the Experian app. Trust me, having a BFF like this is a total game changer.

Scott Adams (11:08)

Well, speaking of art and AI, the White House has released a social media meme of Trump looking like Superman in the new Superman movie. And the. The text that accompanies that is the symbol of hope, truth, justice, the American way. Superman Trump, now imagine, if you will, what will the copyright holders for the Superman property say about that? Are they going to say, oh, that's very nice, thanks for promoting our movie? Probably not. Will they say, you must immediately take down that meme because you're violating our copyright? Probably, probably. Will that still work out for the White House? Yes, of course, because they're not going to be badly sued or anything over one meme. But if it makes a little bit of a controversy, even better. So the people making the movie should be winners because they'll get a little attention and the White House will get a little attention and they might have a little fake fight. Oh, take down that meme. It's our copyright. Oh, it's just a joke. No, you must take it out. Then they both get attention. So good work on both sides, I'm sure. Well, did you know that Trump is putting big tariffs on imported copper because he's trying to what, what is being called mine baby mine instead of drill baby drill. I didn't realize that Trump is also going hard at bringing mining of important minerals back to the US but apparently he is. So copper would be one of those. It's got a big old tariff on it now and that should make it a lot more economical to mine that stuff in the US And I think some of the, some of the red tape is being removed as well. Speaking of red tape, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just made a very cringeworthy little video in which he was promoting the military's big increase in spending and development of drones. So you know how I always say, and you've heard me say it a million times, that, that whatever country does the best on drones is going to, you know, own the future because drones are going to be everything in military. And we of course worry that maybe the US Is a little behind or a lot behind, let's say China behind China, maybe behind Russia. So P exeth does a little cringe worthy video where he's walking in the lawn and some people in the military are operating little drones that are buzzing around him, but they're very unimpressive little hobby sized drones. And then, you know, one of the little clevernesses in the video is that one of these little drones delivers to him a piece of paper, but it sort of stalks him a little bit with a piece of paper. And it's, it's not really well written or produced. But I did say to myself, I bet there's not one politician who could have did, who could have done what p Access did. Now, I would say overall, the video was it missed the mark because it made our Jones look weak and stupid and not very lethal, which was the opposite of the message they were trying to send. It just looked like we had just learned about drones yesterday because literally, they're just little hobbyist drones. It's not like they were showing the drones blowing up a tank. We showed our drones looking completely harmless and delivering a piece of paper to P Hegseth. So I'm going to say it missed the mark. However, I will say that there's not a single other person in government who could have pulled off that segment. But P Hexseth has TV experience, so he made it look like a, you know, a segment from the morning show or something. He actually pulled off the acting part, even though it was too corny anyway. But I like the fact that the government realizes not only do they need to make a bunch of drones, but we need to tell everybody we're really good at drones because that's part of the war. Speaking of drones, ZMA Science reports that there have been some flights of actual jets, not a drone per se, but an actual jet as human pilots. And they've done some flights in Europe where the pilot is AI Now, I guess they have been keeping a human in there just in case, but AI can now pilot a full jet. I assume that includes takeoff and landing. Seems like it would, but I don't know. However, I would ask the following question. Is this just so we can make it look like we didn't waste our money on the jets? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the most expensive parts of making a jet is making it so that a human can stay alive inside it. If you were a drone, you would not need all the parachutes and, you know, all the visual stuff that a pilot needs. So wouldn't it never make sense to have AI piloting one of these jets made for humans? Because it would be like a gazillion dollars worth of assets. And I don't know, I feel like human operated jets that have cockpits, they might be on their way out and fairly soon anyway. AI is going to be so much better than human pilots. Well, John Kerry, you all know John Kerry from the Biden administration and he's, he's run for president unsuccessfully in the past. According to oan, John Kerry has admitted that Trump was right about the border. And Kerry has even gone further and said, without a border protected, you don't have a nation. That's exactly what Trump says. That's full on Republican messaging. And now he says it now. So John Kerry now can tell us, oh, your entire country would be destroyed if you had another four years of Biden. Now, he didn't say that, but he did say without border protection, you don't have a nation. And we know we didn't have border protection until Trump took over. So I worry about the, the bravery of Democrats. You know, maybe they need another shot of testosterone because John Kerry certainly knew that the country was at risk of complete destruction under his, under his preferred administration, Biden. But now, now, after some time has gone by and Biden can't fight back and everybody admits he wasn't really in charge. Now, now he can say out loud, oh yeah, Trump was totally right on the border. Now how many other things are in that category? A lot. Yeah. If you were to take a list of all the things that Democrats are criticizing Trump for and then just check back in five years, how many of those issues do you think Democrats will say, well, yeah, you know, I have to admit he was right about all that crime stuff? Well, yeah, yeah, I have to admit in retrospect he was right about, you know, building up the military to reduce our odds of getting in a real war. I mean, it's going to be a long list, but it has begun. The Trumpification of history. Anyway.

Unknown Advertiser (20:23)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states.

Scott Adams (20:50)

The According to Newsmax, Sam Barron is writing that the Education Department is ending free tuition for illegal immigrants. Now how many of you knew that illegal immigrants were allowed taxpayer funded technical and career school education? According to the Daily Caller, how many of you knew that you could be a non citizen and not even here legally as a citizen and that we would still pay for your technical training? Now if it were free, I'd be all for it, I suppose, because it wouldn't cost me any money. But I think there are a few other news stories today about free benefits being removed from undocumented or illegal residents. And I thought to myself how did all that stuff became become free and available from health care to advanced education to I think also what's that thing where kids go to school early Head Start. It's, there's a lot of unraveling to do. And at the risk of sounding like a big meanie. I would love everybody to get everything for free. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be great if everybody could get everything for free? What a great world that would be. But it's not really possible. And the only way that some people could be happy is by making sure that the unhappy people don't take all their stuff. There's no other way to get there. Oh, well, I take it back. I did see Elon Musk at some event talking about AI and he believes that in the AI slash robot future that our economy might be a thousand or a million times better than it is. But like actually a million. Not exaggeration, but that it's possible that things will be a thousand to a million times better. Well, at that point, probably free stuff for everybody. So we might be, I don't know, one decade away from not having any kind of shortages whatsoever, because everything we have a shortage of AI just figures out how to get around it. Oh, it looks like you'll run into copper, but we have environmental problems, so we can't mine more of it fast enough. That's all right. Here's a new technology for getting copper out of the ground without hurting the environment. Oh, that's a pretty good idea. We'll go do that. Don't need to do it. We will send robots to do it. We will send our robots to mine the, the, the rare minerals. So maybe, maybe it doesn't matter what our. Now, if, if Musk is right, it also means there might be this window of time where the deficit really, really matters, and then it almost instantly will go to. Doesn't matter at all. Do you know what I mean? Because right now we have a standard economy and AI isn't really replacing too many things, not at least not right away. So right now our, our national debt is a existential threat. But what would happen if AI made everything so profitable and easy that everybody had 10 times more than they needed? Wouldn't the national debt almost become meaningless? So we might have this weird little window of time that might be 10 years or 20 years or 5 years, I don't know, in which we could all be dead because of the debt. But that at some point, if you could just make it to that 10th year, or maybe it's the 20th year, if you could make it there, then AI and the robots will just make everybody have everything and you don't have to worry about anything. So that'll be interesting. Well, allegedly News Nation is reporting that Trump says there's a good chance of a deal with Hamas for Gaza for some ceasefire? I think Netanyahu says maybe in a few weeks. Trump's got it up to a week. But do you believe that? Do you believe that there will be some kind of deal? Well, I hate to be a pessimist, but I believe they're only talking about releasing 10 hostages. Really? We can't get a deal in which they give up all the hostages. And of course, Israel would like Hamas to give up all their weapons right away, and Hamas will not want to do that, and they won't want to give away all the hostages because then they're more defenseless. So I don't know. I, I would have bet against Trump getting a good result in Iran, but there's a good argument that says he did. So is it possible that Trump, with Netanyahu will pull this off and get something like a ceasefire that at least brings relief to the citizens within a couple weeks? Maybe, but I would bet against it, actually, or it will just, you know, delay how long it takes to unravel the whole thing. Because as, as long as there are hostages that are in tunnels underground in Gaza, you're not really going to get any lasting anything. So I don't know how giving up, you know, 10 hostages for how many, probably thousands of Palestinian prisoners, I don't know how that gets you to a lasting deal, but I would like to be surprised. We'll see. Well, you know that the Supreme Court said that these district judges can't do sweeping national decisions. Only the Supreme Court can do that. But it didn't take long for the the district court, a New Hampshire judge, has issued an injunction blocking Trump's executive order that would end birthright citizenship. So Supreme Court says Trump can do it and the more local judges can't stop it, at least nationwide. But all they had to do was do a class action. So instead of doing it the old way that the Supreme Court said you can't do, the Supreme Court left open that you could do the same thing. You could ban it nationwide, but it had to be in the context of a class action. And apparently it didn't take long for the New Hampshire judge to be presented with a class action. So is there a way around that? I don't know. Do not know. Meanwhile, Trump has announced new heavy tariffs on Canada starting August 1, 35% tariffs. And CNBC is reporting this. And I guess he's not happy about the Canada's fentanyl actions. So there's a little too much fentanyl coming in that's what Trump would believe, I guess. So Trump cited fentanyl as a reason for the tariffs. Now what is Canada going to say? Oh, we made lots of progress and guess that's not enough. So here's what I'm wondering. I've told you about my mother's philosophy that she drilled into me when I was young, that you can get used to anything if you do it long enough, including hanging. It seems to me that Trump has now made the entire world understand that he will use tariffs as sometimes a club and sometimes a revenue source for the government anyway. And does it feel like we just got used to it? Did he make the entire world just sort of adjust to a reality where he can punish other countries by just ramping up and down the tariff? Doesn't it give Trump some kind of weird control over other countries policies? And I think Canada, they might fight back, they might retaliate. Some of this I think was retaliation from the retaliation. But have we reached a point where it's all normalized? I feel like we have. There will still be pushback, there will still be retaliation. But it doesn't seem weird now. Does just seems, oh well, Trump will probably increase their tariff until they give us what we want. It would be one thing if he only used the tariff in situations where they tariff us. So we tariff them back. But Trump is using the tariffs as sort of a general weapon. So he's terrifying Brazil because he doesn't like the lawfare they're doing against the the prior leader of Brazil and he doesn't like the digital taxes on our digital platforms. So apparently Trump is just normalized using tariffs as a weapon. We'll see if it works.

Unknown Advertiser (31:40)

When you hear Lululemon, you probably think of aligned yoga pants, weightlessly soft, like you're wearing next to nothing. That's why you see them in class, at the grocery store and in the park. But did you know about skirts with built in liner shorts so you can still jump for the Frisbee and tanks and bodysuit boots with a line's iconic stretch. You won't want to take it off. And with endless style options, you don't have to shop in store or online@lululemon.com weirdly.

Scott Adams (32:12)

Or maybe this is a good thing. Financial Times is reporting that the Pentagon is in a business deal with a a mineral producer in the US So there's a mineral producer that's doing some mining, I guess. What kind of. What are they mining anyway? The Pentagon is apparently putting $400 million into a direct investment with the US Rare Earth Mining Company. So there won't just be a customer, they'll be a part owner. To which I say, and you know, it's not like they're the only market. So the military won't be the only market for minerals. It would be the whole tech business. But does that feel like a good idea to you? I feel like Trump is the only one who understands because he's talked about this with TikTok and other. I think we've heard it before. Yeah, with, with Ukraine. So Trump believes that the US Government can just be an investor on something where the US Government can make it profitable. So the beauty of an investment like this is that not only does the Pentagon get a, you know, a share of the profits that presumably would lower their, you know, need for tax paid funding in the future. But so not only do they get a portion of it, but they can determine that it's profitable because they get to decide where they buy their supply from. If they, if they buy it from their own company, how is that not good for American taxpayers? I feel like I always wonder why the government didn't do this, but only in those situations where the government can guarantee that the government's own actions would make this thing profitable. So I don't know, it's definitely worth a shot. It would be funny if we could get to the point where the government was self funding. Here's my version of that. This is not a practical idea, but it'll give you the sense of it. What if instead of collecting taxes as governments do, what if the federal government said, we're not going to collect any taxes, but it will be illegal to buy any form of insurance from any private company. You could only buy it from the US Government. So it would be anything from car insurance to medical insurance, but it would charge enough to make a profit and that profit would replace the taxes. Now that's a bad version of the idea. So you don't have to tell me you can never do that for 10 different reasons. But it always struck me that a government could somehow make a profit. Instead of being a cost center, it should be a profit center. I think only, probably only Trump would even imagine the world in which the government could be a profit center. Let's talk about mass deportations. Jessica Tarlov on Fox News says that Trump supporters didn't vote for mass deportations. Do you believe that? Do you believe that Trump voters didn't vote for mass deportations, but rather voted for. We'll do the worst first. The worst first seems very different from what we're observing. And there's a little extra news that's being. That's being created over that. There's a report. I saw Steve Bannon talking about it. I don't know if the. I don't know if the report is real, but he's treating it as real. And the report is that Joe Rogan had dinner with Trump and that Joe Rogan was trying to talk Trump out of the mass deportations and do the worst first instead. Now, I don't know if that's an accurate report, because reports about what somebody said at a dinner that people weren't at, it's not exactly the most credible source of information. But how many of you feel there's a division that matters? How many of you think that Trump has sort of baited and switched on you? Because I do. I would put this on my list of promises made, promises not kept. Now, remember, I'm a big, big Trump supporter, and I do think that one of the most impressive things about the Trump administration is how close his performance is to what he promised. Probably maybe nobody ever better. He might be the number one best politician at making a promise and then keeping the actual promise. But this one, to me, looks like a broken promise. It's definitely not worse. First. And there might be completely practical reasons why they couldn't do it that way, because once you get the easy, bad people, the ones that are easy to find, you could predict that the numbers don't work. If the only thing you try to do is get the ones who committed extra crimes after they crossed the border, which is itself a crime, you would run out of them, and then it would look like you were not succeeding in what you had promised, which is a large amount of deportations. So maybe there was no way that that was ever going to work. Just the numbers. The numbers couldn't work. So here we are. I don't know if this is going to be a big split, and I don't know if anybody's not going to vote for Trump next. Well, not Trump, but I don't know if anybody's not going to vote for Republicans because of this, because on one hand, he definitely said he was going to deport everybody who was here illegally. So that part feels like that's a promise kept because he said we're going to get everybody. But he also said we're going to do it in the order of worst first. And that part doesn't look like that's true at all. That's my current Take. But maybe it couldn't have been. It might be by its nature the kind of. Exactly the kind of promise that nobody could keep because the numbers just don't work. You would run out of people to deport anyway. So here is my take, which I have not given you before. There will be some point in the deportations where we all feel it. On day one, even if they deported 10,000 people, almost none of us would feel it. Like everything would look exactly the same because you probably don't know anybody who got deported. But as that number creeps up and there's a lot of self deportations, et cetera, at what point do we start noticing it? As in, I heard somebody say that the LA traffic was way down. Well, it might be because it's the peak summer vacation months, but it might be because the deportations are having that much of an effect, or at least keeping people off the roads. So that's something you would feel, if that's what's causing it. How about what will happen if rents start going down and the news says, well, it's because there are fewer immigrants renting places? Well, you would feel that. What about if the deficit gets a little bit reduced? What if the news tells you it's because we're no longer paying for undocumented people? Well, you, you would feel that maybe not as directly, but what happens also when small businesses start going out of business because they just can't get enough employees? Or will it be the opposite? Will it be that more citizens have jobs because jobs open up? Well, those are both. You can feel. You would feel it if you tried to get a service at your home and you just couldn't get anybody to show up. You would feel it if your unemployed family members suddenly become employed, and only because some jobs open up. So, so until we feel it, we don't know which way this mass immigration is going to go. But I feel like we're within only months of everybody having some experience that they believe is caused by this. It'll be a contest between services that you can't get. Like you'll go to the restaurant, your food won't be there, and you'll try to get your lawn cut and there's nobody to do it. Well, in the long run, do those jobs get filled and you don't notice the difference, or do you just really notice, wait a minute, we don't really need to ship back any more people because everybody who wants a job seems to have one could go either way. So that's my prediction. Is that when the news starts reporting that ordinary people can feel the difference. Not just hear about it on the news, but you feel it. Because somebody won't return a phone call, your food doesn't come, your prices go up, or your prices go down. So I think we're only maybe the end of the year that you're going to really start feeling it, or at least it will be reported that it's part of a cause.

Unknown Advertiser (43:13)

They say to only bring what you can carry. So with the all new 2025 Ford Expedition Tremor, bring a lot like three dirt bikes, a few tents, an entire crew ready to make memories, a panoramic 24 inch display, and the confidence to push your limits. The all new 2025 Ford Expedition Tremor. Always consult the owner's manual before off road driving. Know your terrain and trail difficulty and use appropriate safety gear. Max payload varies based on accessories. Vehicle configuration. See label on door jam for carrying capacity of a specific vehicle. Always properly secure cargo.

Scott Adams (43:43)

All right, well, how many times have I told you that you don't know anything about a story until Alan Dershowitz weighs in. And once again, Alan Dershowitz is at the center of history. As you know, Dershowitz was a lawyer for Epstein for a while, but also Dershowitz, separate from that, was accused himself by, I think it was Virginia and Joffre, the one who died recently tragically. And for a while, she was accusing him of being an abuser. Yeah. As part of the Epstein abuse thing that my understanding is she withdrew that and said it was never true. Now, I don't know what is true. I just know that the one and only accuser changed her story long before death and said, no, it didn't really happen. So Dershowitz is, you know, innocent by our standards, and that's all we know. So. But during either one or both of those situations, either, either because he was a lawyer or because he also had some rights to disclosure, I guess if he had been sued. Dershowit says that he basically knows who's being protected by keeping the Epstein files a little bit secret. And he knows why. So Dershowitz knows the actual answer. He knows the people who are being protected, and he knows why. And he says that directly. Do you believe him? I do. I believe him. I believe he may not know everything about the story. There might be things even he doesn't know. But. But I'll bet he knows the big picture now, given that he says directly, and he would know, he says it directly, that somebody is being protected and that he even knows who they are and why they're being protected. Here's what I believe we can conclude with certainty. So there's no such thing as 100% confidence ever with this stuff. But. But I would say I have achieved a sense of certainty about the following things. Number one, Trump, Bondi, Patel, and Bongino are all lying. I am certain of that. I'm certain they're lying and that they know that there's more that could be disclosed. But for reasons that Dershowitz knows, and presumably the four of them I just mentioned also know that is exactly what it looks like. That there. And then on top of that, I'll add the following. There would certainly be an element of trying to protect the innocent, because there would be lots of people whose names were associated with. With Epstein who didn't know what he was up to and maybe just has some business or charitable contact with them. It would be terrible to destroy their lives by associating him in a public way with Epstein. So some of it is almost certainly protecting the innocent. But given what Dershowitz said about it, I feel as though we're also certain that there's some guilty people being protected. You do you feel like you can say that for sure? I feel like it, because otherwise Trump would have said, you know what? There's not enough information about guilty people, but there's a whole bunch of information about people that are not even accused of anything. So the reason I'm not going to give you the files is so that the innocent people are not blamed. He would say that, because that would be an understandable, easy thing to say if it were true. So I conclude that if Trump doesn't say it's all about protecting the innocent, there's nobody guilty in our files, he would have said that, and we would have sort of accepted it. Might not like it, but we would accept it. I would definitely accept. I cannot throw these people under the bus. They were good Americans, and it would be a travesty of justice. And there's nobody guilty in these files. It's all innocent people. We're not going to do it. I can get over that. But he didn't say that, and nobody offered that as the excuse. So that tells me that you definitely have some innocent people in there, are worthy of protection, but you almost certainly have some guilty people in there. And I feel like that is so strongly suggested that I accept that as a certainty. Next, I accept it as a certainty that Epstein was an intelligence asset. There might be some. Something we don't know about whether he was only for the CIA or only for Mossad, but I feel like the most likely is both. He may have been, you know, 80, 21 versus the other, but the number of contacts that he has with both the CIA and, you know, indirectly with Mossad, it's hard to imagine that he worked for only one of them. It seems far more likely he had a little business with both. But I also, I'm not sure that I care. That doesn't seem terribly important. But then there's a question of whether it was a murder or a suicide. And I would argue that that's just a distraction. It could be either one. But does it matter? I mean, I mean, do you care if allegedly he had been murdered? Do you care that the murderer has not been found and prosecuted? You don't care. You have no care whatsoever if he was murdered. So does it matter? Yeah, we imagine it matters because we imagine it's like a normal situation where of course you want to find a real killer, of course you do. But do we, do we care at all? I don't think it matters at all. You know, it's sort of a curiosity. I enjoy looking at the back and forth of it. I would say the most likely explanation, but I won't put this at 100%, is that there was somebody in his cell block who was the designated murderer because that was the one places the camera was not. So if allegedly, I think his brother, Epstein's brother, says he believes it's a murder because the first two coroners said they couldn't call it a suicide because it looks like a murder. And then here's the funny part. I saw Epstein's brother talking about how Cash Patel and Nick Bon or. And Dan Bongino both said that they saw the files and it's definitely a suicide because they, they know what suicide looks like. And Epstein's brother asked a completely reasonable question. How many suicides have you seen? You tell me, how many jail suicides, jail suicides has Bongino seen? Well, is it a lot? Like, why was he even looking at jail suicides? And how about Cash Patel? Now, both of them are deeply experienced, you know, in the domain of, you know, the justice system, etc. But really, how. How many suicides have they seen? And, and, and if you were going to fake a suicide, let's say you were some intelligence agency and you were setting something up to look like a suicide, wouldn't you know everything that Epstein and Bongino know about what makes something look like a suicide? Do you Think they wouldn't have tried to make it look like a suicide? Do you think that Bongino and Patel are the only ones who know what it would look like if it were suicide versus murder? Well, if it were a setup, the people who set it up would probably know what it looks like if it's a suicide, and they would set it up to look that way. So if the only thing you do is look at the files, it's not like they walked around in the cell. They weren't there. All they're doing is looking at the files that other people put together and they can tell if that's a real suicide. That's ridiculous, isn't it? Am I wrong that that's just sort of ridiculous? So I'm going to say it's more likely murder, but it doesn't matter. I also say that we could conclude that Trump is not implicated in the files. Everybody agree? I think we can say with certainty that he is not implicated for any kind of crime in the files. And the reason would be if Trump were implicated for anything. Are you telling me that that would not have leaked down already when Biden had full control of the files? Of course it would. Even if nobody else's information got leaked, there's 100% chance that if Trump had any negatives in those files, you would have heard about that. All right, so here. Here's me putting a lid on it. Trump, Bondi, Patel and Bonino are definitely lying about us about nothing being those files. The reason they're lying is to protect both innocent people and guilty people. I believe that's just. Now you could just call that a fact. And they're winking so hard when they say there's nothing in there that it almost looks honest. It looks like honest people who have been asked to lie. That's what it looks like. So I don't even hold it against them because it would be their job to protect the country first. Right? It's their job to protect you first and protect the system that protects you. I suppose so, yeah. If they lied to us and we know exactly why, but we just don't have the names of the people, I could get over that. I think Mike Benz. I saw something on X saying Mike Benz thought that the Republican voters would hold it against Trump and therefore maybe hold it against the gop. I don't think so. I feel like the Epstein thing is too small and too irrelevant to our lives that we would or anybody would change their vote on anything important. I think it's a Curiosity, a distraction, a mystery. You know, less of a mystery every day. But now I don't think it'll change any elections at all. So Jamie Raskin, the. One of the designated liars for the Democrats. I always like it when he goes public on something because he's such a weasel. It's like watching a TV show where. Where the casting director got everything right. Like, all right, who are we going to cast as the weasel? And they're like, all right, we got this actor named Jamie Raskin. Perfect. He's got just the look. He looks like he's wearing a rat skin. You want me to give you an image that you'll never forget? When I hear his name, it makes me think of two words, rat and skin. But then when I look at him, I imagine that there's a giant rat who's wearing a human costume. But it's just like a, you know, it barely. Barely conce conceals the fact that it's a giant rat. And now when you look at him, just imagine him being a giant rat wearing a disguise as a human. It's all you'll be able to see. It's all you're going to see when you see him from now on. You're welcome. Anyway, so Raskin is clever, and so he says that. That Trump's not living up to his promise to release the Epstein stuff. Now, isn't that convenient? It is true. It's true that it's a promise made and as far as I can tell, a promise not kept. So he's right about that. But then he goes further. He says, if there's nothing to implicate Donald Trump, then release the Epstein files. And I thought to myself, damn, that is some good weaseling. You know, I. I have to admit that even though I don't like weasels, when they do a really good job of weaseling, I'm a little bit impressed. Sort of like when a serial killer has built an underground bunker. I think, whoa, you're no ordinary serial killer. You put in the extra work to make that underground, you know, torture cell. So when I see Raskin come up with, if there's nothing to implicate Trump, why not release the Epstein files? I say to myself, damn, that's some good weasel stuff right there. Now, I think my argument is stronger. If there were anything about Trump in there, you would already know it, of course. So it's not honest and it's not, you know, deeply rational, but it's really good, you know, weasel attack on the other side. So I'M gonna give him. I'm gonna give him the win on that one.

Unknown Advertiser (59:10)

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for 15amonth is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big ideal for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Unknown Advertiser (59:33)

Of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.

Scott Adams (59:43)

Meanwhile I guess the FBI found that Antifa suspect or they know he is, he's wanted so they haven't found him yet. I guess so. You know how the 10 antifa terrorist guys, one of them apparently shot member of law enforcement and they're looking for that guy. His name is Ben Haniel. Song S O N G 32 years old and I have only one question about Bensong. Will they take Song to Sing Song? No. Will they put a song in Sing Sing? I had to check. Sing Sing is still a prison. Yeah. So you'll be singing a new song pretty soon in Sing Sing. If you haven't seen it yet, you need to see a video that's going around social media in which the DNC chair Ken Martin is asked about Zoran Mamdani's refusal to condemn the quote globalize the Intifada slogan. Now globalize the intifada would sound to a lot of people like just a purely anti Semitic, you know, cult of violence against Jewish people. And he was asked to, to comment on that. And instead of saying people should not say that, he said we're a big tent party. We're a big tent party. Ken Martin. I don't like to give advice to Democrats, but I'm going to make an exception in this case. If someone asked you what is the take of your party for having terrorist sentiments, you should probably say, well that's not something I agree with. Instead he goes sauceride. You know, I always talk to you about how you can tell when the especially Democrats are lying because they open their eyes extra wide, you know, compared to the resting state. So if their eyes open really wide, you know that they're trying as hard as they can to convince you that what they're saying is logical and reasonable. And he goes so wide eyed goes, oh, we're a big ten party. Yeah, the Only way we win is by having a big tent. So I hope you don't ask me any follow up questions because Big Ten sounds good. Right? Right. Oh no, don't, don't bring up that globalizing into father again. No, let's talk about tents. Big tents. So I can say the Washington Free Beacon had this story anyway, that's as hard as you could possibly fail when asked the question. And is there anything like that on the Republican side? I feel like there's not. If you asked a Republican, an elected Republican raven head of the rnc, if you said to them, hey, there were some white supremacists who said this or that, that was something horrible, don't you think that the ordinary Republican would have no trouble whatsoever saying, oh my God, I certainly disavow that. Do you think that they would say, well, they might be saying some super racist white supremacist thing, but you have to remember we're a big ten party. Do you think you could find even one Republican who would think that was a good way to go on that answer? I don't think so. Only, only a Democrat would say, yeah, you might be a little terroristic, it's a little bit murdery, but we're a big TED Party. So next question. Harry Enten, the data expert at CNN is saying that the CNN did a poll, I think it was their own poll about how worried people were about climate change. Are they greatly worried about climate change? Apparently they've been asking this question or somebody has for many years. And in 1989, quite a, quite a long time ago, 1989, 35% of the country said that they were quote, greatly worried about climate change. Now we've had years and years of just massive brainwashing to convince more people that climate change is the thing they should worry about the most. And here in 2025 it went from 35% up to 40. So I would say that that's actually a significant move up even though a lot of lot of years have transpired. But Harry Ensign was blown away by the fact that that number hasn't gone up a lot because all the messaging is that it should. What do you make of that? Why is it that all of that, why is it that all of that fear mongering that has been just non stop a wall of fear mongering for, I don't know, 25 years at least. I mean the heavy part, probably 25 years, but it's happening since 1989. Do you think that people just look at it and go I don't believe that. Do you think they thought about it or is that so much time has gone by? Because it never really peaked. I mean, it was never really much more than that. So to me it's sort of a mystery. I feel it has as much to do with how many people don't watch the news. So maybe 60% of the country isn't worried about anything except the prices at the pump and the eggs because they're just not watching the news. Is that all we're seeing or, or there's something else. I don't know. Anyway, everywhere. Every now and then I reflect on how many hoaxes I've been asked to believe, primarily by Democrats. So there was a climate change hoax, which I call a hoax because wait till you find out about climate models. There was a fine people hoax which completely dominated politics and was the reason that Biden ran for office. Completely made up. The Russia collusion hoax, which Brennan and Clapper apparently were behind, if not Obama himself. And we lived under that non stop. It was like the biggest, most important news thing, completely made up, completely made up. The hunter laptop story, completely made up. And then I'm going to add this one. The fact that you needed a bipartisan bill to close the border, your fake news was reporting that non stop. And I never saw once anybody on CNN say, well, I mean that's clearly you don't need a bipartisan bill. We even know that was sort of obvious the whole time and they still stuck to you, that bipartisan bill. But I would say that if you're looking at the Democrats as the source of all hoaxes, they're not the source of all things that are not quite true because Republicans have a little of that too. For example, Trump said he would release the Epstein stuff and clearly he's not. So you can judge that. And I don't think that the Border patrol is, well, let's just say that border security is not going worst first. There was a definite attempt to go worst first, but I feel like we got a little B switch on that. So. But those who were not, those were both smallish because the, the border thing, like I said, Trump did say eventually everybody would be deported who was not here illegally. So a little bit of exaggeration with the worst first. And then the Epstein thing, he might have sort of meant it, but then he got talked out of it. Not the biggest problem in the world, but look at the size of the Democrat hoaxes, Climate change, trillions of dollars, fine people hoax, completely divided the country. Russia collusion worse than Watergate by about 10. The Hunter laptop hoax could have changed the election outcome. And then the whole border security thing, they were letting people pour across the border and then pretending it wasn't happening. These are gigantic problems. So if you compare it to, oh, Trump said he would release the Epstein files. That is already old news from a long dead guy. Not really that important. Said he would do the worst first. Well, they tried. It's just that they ran out of people to do worse first so they kind of quickly pivoted and not entirely unexpected. Now think about the Democrat messaging. So just a few short years ago, here were the main things the Democrats were pushing. Climate change woke identity politics, all things trans, all things dei pro immigrant and Trump is Hitler. Right. So that, that was like just a few years ago. So let me say it again so you can compare it to the new climate change, identity politics, trans stuff. Dei pro immigrant and Trump as Hitler. Now, apparently having realized that none of that works, they have completely different priorities and opinions and now they're working on affordability, but with a socialist flavor and that Trump is an authoritarian. Do you know why they call Trump an authoritarian instead of Hitler? It's because the Hitler thing became too comical. That literally nobody was buying the Hitler thing because they used it too much, they overused it. So they had to come up with a new word to get all of their fake news people to repeat. That would sound like Hitler but wouldn't be Hitler because that would be too laughable. So they came up with authoritarian. Meanwhile, Bernie was trying to come up with what was his word for the, for the rich people. I don't really remember his word. It was so bad. What, what did AOC and Bernie, they were on the. Who are they railing against? Oligarchy. Oligarchy. I couldn't even remember their word. That was such a weak messaging. But here's the thing. I think affordability is important and you know, maybe some Democrats think the authoritarian thing is important, but doesn't it tell you that the entire Democrat party got everything wrong because they abandoned sort of everything. If you abandon everything you were saying just a few years ago and you try to stitch together some Frankenstein monster of new stuff. Well, how about Trump's an authoritarian, but we kind of like socialists, but not totally. But affordability is good. Oh wait, affordability is improving. But we can't give Trump any credit for that. They got nothing. They're, they're really out of and a weapons there. Anyway, Trump says he's going to make a major statement about Russia on Monday. What in the world could that be about? Do you think there's going to be any productive movement about Russia and Ukraine? I don't know. I did HEAR that the U.S. is making Europe pay for the weapons that the U.S. is providing to Ukraine, which I don't mind so much. If what the US Is getting out of this deal is weapon sales. I don't mind that much as long as Europe's going to pay for it. If we were paying for it, well, I'd have a little more problem. So maybe that's all he's going to say. Who knows? All right. I thought this was a joke, but I feel like this is real. I told you yesterday that there was a Democrat podcaster called Subway Takes. That's the name of the podcast. And that Kamal Harris did an interview, but that the podcaster and the campaign collectively agreed that the interview was so bad that they would not publish it. So you might say to yourself, oh, my God, how bad could it have been? Well, the podcaster was a Muslim, still is a Muslim, and has a Muslim name, and I don't believe was hiding the fact that he's a Muslim. And when Kamala Harris was asked about her favorite spice, apparently she said bacon to a Muslim podcaster. Her favorite. Her favorite spice was something that his religion. His religion bans her from eating. Now, that was the thing that the podcaster himself offered as the example of how bad it was. But I don't think it was the only thing. But, but can you imagine? Can you. I just love how bad it was. All right. Did you know that I saw Tucker was interviewing Steve Robinson of the Maine Wire, a reporter who said that there are two hundred and seventy owned properties in Maine and little state of Maine that are owned by Chinese organized crime. So apparently Chinese organized crime has a gigantic foothold in Maine. Now, don't you assume that's not the only state that they're active in? How many Chinese organized crime entities are in America? And if you were the government of China, would you be maybe working with your criminal element to make sure that there was more crime in America and get them out of China? I don't know. So I am worried that one of China's strategies is that they're just bigger than everybody else. They just have more people. So where we might say, you know, we're going to send a hundred spies over to China or whatever the number is, China can just say, oh, yeah, we're going to send 20,000 spies to America because they could. We'll just send 20, maybe a hundred thousand so they can just overwhelm us with, you know, more soft assets. Well, there's that. All right, Going to skip that story. According to Dexerto, whatever that is, Japanese residents are renting grandmothers, and they rent the grandmothers to provide the following services. They rent a grandmother for cooking, chores, and emotional support and sometimes advice. So I. I saw that, and I was like, I want to rent a Japanese grandmother. So I rented a Japanese grandmother for some chores and cooking, but she just kept bitching about the commute, so I had to let her go get it because she commuted all the way from Japan. See, that's a joke. All right, forget it. I won't even try. Hold on. All right, so I'll remind you again that my conversation with Jordan Peterson is now on YouTube. If you. You want to find it, just. Just Google my name and Jordan Peterson and you'll find it. I think you'll like it. Let me. Let me know what you think. And that's all I got for you today. Thanks for joining. I'm going to say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers on Locals. I'll remind you again that if you feel lonely, locals would be a good place to go, because they spend as much time talking to each other as they do talking to me. And they like it. It's a part of the day where they get to interact with some familiar people who care about them. All right, and if you're not on Locals, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. Thanks for coming, Locals. I'll be private with you in 30 seconds.