Ryan Reynolds (23:04)

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.

Scott Adams (23:35)

There's an article by David Harsenyi in the Washington examiner titled why Climate Climate Change Alarmism Failed. And he notes that there's a poll that CNN's Harry Ensign is talking about. This shows that only 40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change, which is the Same as in 2000. So in 25 years of trying to scare people, 25 years of trying to scare the public, the number of people who say they're scared exactly the same as it was before they tried to scare the public. Now, do you ever just read a story and you sort of uncritically accept the elements of the story? All right, I'm going to give you one right now. All right, this will blow your mind. If it has the same effect on you than it does on me, it's going to blow your mind. All right, I live in California, as you know, so it's a very blue state. Presumably, most of my friends in my adult life have been probably more Democrats than Republicans. You know, obviously, I Lost most of my friends when I started backing Trump. So I'm talking about a little bit in the past, but I realized today that not once in my life have I met anybody who was worried about climate change, like, ever in my whole life. Not one person. Now, are you really telling me that 40% of Americans are, quote, greatly worried about climate change? That sounds to me like something that people say to pollsters but is completely disconnected with reality. How many times in your life have you been at, let's say, I don't know, a party or a barbecue or a family get together and somebody brought up climate change as an existential threat? Has it ever happened? Because it's never happened where I've been. I've never even seen anybody interested in climate change, much less afraid of it. No interest whatsoever. So is that different than your experience? Because I'm very skeptical that 40% of the public thinks it's, like, our biggest problem. And yet nobody's ever, not once, 40% of the public, and not once has anybody brought it up where I could have heard it in person. Nobody. Now, how many of you are having the same mental experience I had this morning, which is, oh, yeah, how could it possibly be true if nobody's ever brought it up around me? Because there's nothing else they haven't brought up. Right? You've heard people say bad things about Trump. You've heard things about Ukraine and Gaza, the Middle East. You've heard. You've heard all kinds of things, but I bet you've never heard anybody complain about climate change. Yeah, I don't believe it. Anyway, the Pentagon has announced is removing those National Guardsmen from Los Angeles. Remember, they were placed there to guard the government facilities because there was a lot of protesting that was getting on hand regarding the ICE stuff. Well, I guess the protests have wound down, and the National Guardsmen never really had to get directly involved, as far as I know, but they're being withdrawn. Would we include that as a Trump success? I would. Wouldn't you? The, the point of the National Guardsmen was in case they're needed, but also as a deterrent. So they were there to deter, you know, bad actors doing violent things against government properties. And as far as I know, they succeeded. So the fact that there was no, you know, bloodshed or direct confrontation seems to be another Trump success. All right, there was a CEO, According to the Post millennial Thomas Stevenson's writing about this CEO, there's a CEO of a marketing group that apparently is in the business of organizing protests. And the CEO of one of them says he was. He was offered about $20 million as a contract to organize anti Trump protests and he rejected it, so he decided not to take it. But the CEO of the company called Crowds on Demand and he didn't want to do the. The. The protests that are going to happen on the 17th, which would be tomorrow, I guess. I guess a bunch of protests are going to kick off nationwide tomorrow. And how alarmed are you that there is a commercial entity that organizes protests that are meant to look organic and he's completely public about it. I feel that Trump is letting this one. He's going easy on the protests, but maybe because they haven't been that big or that bad for Trump. But I feel like the protests need to be branded as unnatural or non organic or at least paid. So I don't know how many of the protesters are paid, but if the organizers are paid, like a lot, it's not really a real protest, is it? It's like it needs some other name. If you call it a protest. We have a long history in this country of saying, oh, protest. I'm glad we have free speech. Everybody gets an opinion. Protest is good, but it's not really a protest because that one is, you know, protest kind of implies that people had this opinion and they felt so strongly that they, they had to just band together. But if you're organized by paid people were paid to do it, that's not exactly a protest. What would you call it? Somebody says mercenary mobs. Oh, that's not bad. Mercenary mobs. But that sounds like you're killing somebody. What would you call it? Indeed, indeed. Some kind of persuasive nickname, kind of a. Kind of a Trumpism. It needs something we can call it that makes you not want to do it. So we'll work on that. I don't have an idea for that, but. But maybe Trump does. I've just been calling them organized and non organic, but those are not really catchy. Those are just descriptive. We need something catchy. All right. Inorganic. Inorganic protests. Yeah, we could do better. Well, this autopen story refuses to die. To me, this is a summertime story where there's not enough regular news, although there's more regular news under Trump than I've ever seen before in the summer. But you always need a little extra for political purposes. So I guess this autopen story, the White House is going to review more than a million documents under the Biden administration and they just want transparency. But to me, all they're doing is making sure the Auto pen stays in the news because it's really sort of a winner for Republicans, wouldn't you say? It reminds you that the Democrats fooled you into thinking that Biden was functional. And that's one of the biggest hoaxes, if not the biggest, in the history of the United States. So as long as Trump can make you think about Biden and how that was covered up and how that wasn't a real government, Trump wins. So I would argue that nobody really cares about the autopen. Probably. I doubt that Trump really cares, but it keeps it in the news. So auto patent is more about making you think Democrats are bad people. I guess it's working. CNBC's Rick Santelli on, on the TV, he says that Trump's tariffs are not dooming the economy. Economy according to the Daily Color News Foundation. So there might be a little bit of inflation, but it's too small that you can even know for sure. And I guess the CPI numbers were pretty close to expectations, the inflation numbers. So some say we're still waiting for the inflation that will come from these tariffs and some say enough time has already gone by to conclude that we're not going to see that inflation. I don't know. But, but I will tell you this, and I'm going to credit Dana Perino for the, for this thought because I agreed with it completely. But she said it first, which is the right take on the tariffs was always, I don't know, that was the only honest and kind of useful opinion on the tariffs because there were people who were absolutely positive it would destroy the country. Well, it's not the opinion that's the problem. It's the certainty. If you add certainty that the trade wars and the tariffs were going to tank our economy, well, you were wrong. I mean, whatever happens, it's not going to be gigantic or destroy the economy. I think we can rule that out now. Right. So if you were sure that it was a disaster, your certainty was sort of revealing that you're not good at this. But likewise, if you were just as sure that because Trump said it would make everything right, if you were just as sure that it would and it would replace maybe income taxes and all these other good things, well, that wasn't a good take either. The only take that I respect is, I don't know, we can reverse it. It's the sort of thing that is a really big ask. And if it worked, it would be a really big deal. If it didn't work, there would be some discombobulation in the economy. But probably you could just reverse it in a week. All you'd have to do is say, all right, all right, that didn't work. I changed my mind. Tariffs are dropped. So from a risk reward perspective, was it worth trying it, knowing that if it didn't work, you could just sort of reverse it? And if it did work, it would really change America forever in a positive way. So I'm going to give Trump an A plus plus for risk management on our behalf. It was exactly the right risk management because the upside was really good. If everything worked out and the downside was all manageable. If it didn't work, well, reverse it. You will be fine in about a week. Well, Governor Newsom was on the Sean Ryan podcast, and if you haven't watched Governor Newsom speak on a podcast in public lately, you have to see what's going on with his jazz hands. Do you know what I mean by jazz hands? So jazz hands is sort of a comical way to refer to dancers who are doing jazz dancing and their hands get involved a lot. So, you know, if, if you're watching me on video, jazz dancers like, ta da da da da da, da da da da. So that. So their hands are really involved. But when you watch Newsom talk, I do not recall him being that animated as he is now. And his head motions are not only, you know, far bigger than they used to be, but they're a little bit creepy. Like he was talking about some nuance in a bill and he does the piano playing. Well, nuance, all of some nuance. And it is weird. I'm going to be honest. It looks like drugs. If you've known anybody who was on any kind of uppers, I don't, I don't know what it could be. You know, I'm not going to make a specific accusation, but he acts like somebody who's on some kind of an upper. But again, I don't have any evidence of that. It's just that his behavior is different. And if you've ever been around it, you know, around people who, who are using some form of stimulant, you would say to yourself, oh, that looks familiar. I think I've seen that before, and I hate to say it, but it's hard for me to imagine it just happened sort of on its own, and that he just decided to change his. His method of speaking or something. I don't know. I feel like there's something going on there. But just to be clear, I don't have any factual evidence that would suggest, you know, that's what's going on. It's just how it strikes me. So as. As an impression. It gives me that impression. But then also, I forget who it was. Was it Mark Cuban or maybe somebody else who was talking about how Democrats need to swear more and do more cursing? And I thought to myself, is that real advice? Like, really, the Democrats feel that in order to get the mail vote or to be a little bit more manly or maybe just a little more powerful looking, that they could match Trump's use of curse words, to which I would give them this advice. You know when you should use curse words in public? When you're Trump, you can't just take that strategy and apply it to somebody who's not Trump. The reason Trump could get away with it is that he's always in character, meaning it's who he really is. It's not in character. It's genuine. When Trump curses, which isn't that often, you can tell how strategic it is. And you know that he knows he's giving you the sound bite for the next 24 hours. He knows he's doing it, and he's really good at it. His cursing is never, never seems gratuitous. It just feels. It feels so. I mean, it feels like dropping one of those bunker buster bombs right down the ventilation shaft twice in a row. That's what it feels like. He lands the curse word just perfectly, and he's done it so many times that, you know, it's not an accident. But then I watch Newsom on this podcast, and when he was told that. Told that Joe Rogan had texted in a question for Sean Ryan to ask Newsom, and Newsom says, you know, just because he thinks it might be a tough question, so he uses the mother effort. And then later, when he was questioned about how he handled the pandemic, he said, everybody's a GD genius. I know some of you hate it to hear the Lord's name used in vain, so I'll just say GD genius. But he used the whole world. And I'm thinking to myself, were those strategic uses? Did he do what Trump would do, which was guarantee that that would be the sound bite and that you would laugh a little bit when you heard it? Not really, because I didn't laugh when I heard it. And it's not just because he's not my favorite politician or anything like that. It just. It wasn't funny. It wasn't strategically placed. It just looked like he's somebody who uses some foul language on a podcast. It didn't have any effect. In fact, maybe it was a little negative. I thought to myself, well, why would you use those words without using them strategically? I mean. Yeah, so, no, you can't take people who are not known for this kind of behavior, breaking the. The bounds of civility, because that's what Trump is known for. Trump's entire Persona is very linked to, you know, violating the. These social boundaries. So it makes sense when he does it. Well, we have to talk about Epstein, because, again, it's the summer. Summer kind of topic. But Alan Dershowitz continues to be one of the most interesting people on this topic because he was Epstein's lawyer. And he tells us he knows what names are redacted and who accused who and all that stuff. But he also says that he's sure that Epstein was not an intelligence asset for anybody because he was his lawyer. And he says if he had been an intelligence asset, the first person he would have told would be his lawyer, because you would tell the lawyer so that the lawyer could negotiate a sweetheart deal. Now, he did get a sweetheart deal, and some say it's because the prosecutor knew he was an intelligence asset. But apparently Dershowitz never used that argument because he was never told that he was a intelligence asset. But here's my question. Dershowitz didn't ask him. Are you telling me that everybody in the world suspected he was an intelligence asset except for Alan Dershowitz? Is he the only person who didn't suspect it? Really? And then, then I present you with this confuser. You know, I'm a big fan of Alan Dershowitz. Public opinions about everything. Basically, he just has a smarter, more reasoned, more experienced opinion on everything that's legal. But here's the thing you need to know. If Alan Dershowitz himself were working for some intelligence unit, wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate for him to lie about it? Because if you work for an intelligence agency, aren't you sort of encouraged not to tell people? Isn't it. Isn't it a better play if you don't mention it? And if somebody asks, aren't you supposed to say, nah, not me. And then there's also that gray area, which is, well, you don't have to be on the payroll of an intelligence agency. You could just be in favor of what they're doing, maybe lend them a hand now and then maybe they do you a favor later. Maybe you were just afraid of what they would do if you didn't help them. But isn't there a lot of gray area that would Push both Epstein and maybe even his lawyer into a. Not necessarily an employee of any intelligence agency, but possibly on their side. Possibly. So as fascinating as that, point is that Epstein would have told him if he was an intelligence asset. The part that I'm missing is I asked him if he was. Isn't that kind of missing? I know. And since we know Dershowitz is very pro Israel, if there was any kind of Israel connection, would we expect that Ellen Dershowitz would be the person who would let us know about that? I would say not if it's bad for Israel. He's very open about, you know, being highly supportive of Israel. He's. He's an American first, but still, I don't know if he's the one we should believe when it comes to intelligence assets, but highly credible on other topics. And by the way, that has nothing to do with Dershowitz. I would say that's the same for anybody. Right. If you put anybody else in. In the position of being Epstein's lawyer, I would say yeah. I mean, if you know something, you're not supposed to tell people, we get it. Glenn Greenwald found an old New York Times article that said that Ghislaine Maxwell's father's publishing group, you remember Ghislaine Maxwell's father, was a big publisher, that his publishing group admitted in court that Seymour Hirsch, who wrote about the Ghislaine Maxwell and the father situation, I guess mostly about the father, was, quote, fully justified in accusing Robert Maxwell of working for Israeli intelligence. So. And we also know that when Maxwell died, he was given a official state funeral in Israel, even though he was not an Israeli citizen, and that multiple former heads of the Mossad attended his Israel state funeral. Again, he was not Israeli, and they gave him an Israel state funeral. So I would say the evidence that Ghislaine Maxwell's father worked for the Mossad is pretty darn good. Not confirmed, but certainly the breadcrumbs are there. Does that mean that Ghislaine Maxwell was a spy? No. Doesn't mean that. So we're. We're short of any kind of a confirmation there, but we got our suspicions.

Ryan Reynolds (48:56)

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

Unknown (48:58)

With the price of just about everything.

Ryan Reynolds (48:59)

Going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing.

Unknown (49:06)

Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. Ready to get 30. 30. Better get 30. Better to get 20. 20. 20. Better get 20. 20. You better get 15. 15. 15. 15. Just 15 bucks a month.

Scott Adams (49:14)

Sold.

Ryan Reynolds (49:15)

Give it a try@mintmobile.com upfront payment of.

Unknown (49:19)

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.

Scott Adams (49:25)

See mint mobile.com then you probably saw some fake news. Yesterday. People asked me why I didn't talk about it. It was because when I saw it, I didn't trust it. So my hunch that it was fake news was right. So Marjorie Taylor Greene is explaining that if you saw something that said that the there were several House Republicans who voted to block the release of the Epstein files, that was fake news. It's true in some form, but it's the reason they blocked. It had nothing to do with the Epstein stuff. It had to do with the. It was a procedural thing, you know that it was either wrapped up with something that didn't want to wrapped up with or there was some procedural problem. But no, there were no Republicans who voted to not show the Epstein files to the public. That didn't happen. There was something that might have headed in that direction that they thought had some flaws that had nothing to do with Epstein. So that did happen. But more fake news than real news. All right, here's Trump talking about the Epstein files and he said to reporters yesterday, quote, I would say that these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden. And we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia hoax. Now let me give you some advice. If you ever find yourself in a position of having to cover up something and you want to tell a lie about it, never start your lie with these words. I would say Trump literally started with, I would say that these files were made up by Common Comey and the others. I would say if you start your explanation with, I would say you're basically saying I'm making this shit up. Do you remember when OJ Wrote his book if I did it, if I did it what? If you see if I did it on O.J. s book, you say to yourself, he's telling us he did it. If your president say, I would say that these files were made up. That doesn't mean he believes that. If he believed it, he would say, well, you know, the files were made up by Democrats, so you can't trust them. He wouldn't say, I would say it. Well, I would say it. I would. Now that's bad lying. Yeah, Never, never do that. And then he said that he was asked about releasing more of the Epstein stuff. And he said, yes, and that any credible Epstein information should be released. Why do you have to add the credible part? Well, I mean, credible is sort of assumed in all information. Right. That you wouldn't present it unless it was credible. But he sort of drops that word in there like it gives you a little out. It's like, well, there is more information, but it wasn't credible, so we didn't release it. Now, if he had started with that, that might have been an easier sale. If he said, you know what? We looked at everything and the only things you don't know about that matter look to be low credibility. So we think it would just make things worse if we release it. Because you remember what happened when the steel dossier got out. That was low credibility. You know, wouldn't the country have been better off if nobody had ever seen the Steele dossier? Yeah, of course. So we don't want to make the same mistake as the Steele dossier. So since it's low credibility, according to our experts. Yeah, I know, I know we told you we would give you everything we had. But that doesn't mean the low credibility stuff. Right. That's not going to help you. So probably that would have been a better way to start. I don't know if it would have made other people happy, but it would have sounded at least like, oh, that's a real reason. The other thing that I would have bought completely is if instead of saying that the files were made up, I would have said we really thought there was going to be some stuff there, but if it was ever there, it was already removed. So, yes, you have every right to suspect that there's more to this Epstein situation. We suspect it, too. But when we look at the files, we have to conclude that either there isn't anything there or that whatever was there was removed. Now, I would. I wouldn't believe that if they said we were sure there was going to be some stuff there, but when we dug down, when we dug down, there was nothing credible or there was nothing there at all because it looks like it might have been removed and we don't know how or when I would have bought that. To me, that sounds like exactly the sort of thing that would happen in the real world. What are other people saying? Well, Dick Durbin was on CNN and he says that Republicans must be hiding something because they're not as forthcoming as they could be with the Epstein files. Now, that's a really good political attack, and it looks like a little bit like what even Republicans think is true, which makes it a good political attack. I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it's a good political attack. Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports the idea of a Ghislaine Maxwell testifying to Congress. So I guess that's an option that got floated. He was talking to Betty Johnson, so Betty Johnson got an exclusive on that. And Mike Johnson said, I'm for transparency. We should put everything out there and let the people decide, blah, blah, blah, blah. So that's always the right answer to say you're for transparency. Thomas Massie introduced a discharge petition to compel the Department of Justice to release all relevant Epstein documents. So that's happening. I don't know if that's going to get any purchase, but at least there's a motion to release everything. Here's what I would like to see. And ask yourself why you haven't seen this yet. I would like to see all the guards, just the regular guards, not the management, not the warden, but just the regular guards who worked in that area of the jail when Epstein died. Why have we never seen them in public? Because I did hear through a source which I think is probably credible that there would be at least one of those guards who would tell you that the FBI took the video away and there was nothing wrong with the cameras and they told them to shut up about it. Now, I can't guarantee that that's true. I'm just saying that I heard it through a source that I don't have any reason to question that there is a guard who has told somebody in person, yeah, I was there. The FBI took the video. There was nothing wrong with the cameras. Now, I'll say it again, I don't know that that's true. Right, Because I'm not. I didn't talk to a source directly. But why have we never heard from the other guards? There must be, what, maybe a dozen guards who are there or have, you know, direct or indirect knowledge of what happened because there's no way you could keep all of that from all the guards. So there might be somebody who has something to talk about. Well, of course, the Democrats would like to make a big deal about the division in the MAGA base because some people are mad at Trump. And so there's a publication, a left leaning publication called the Bulwark, where somebody called Will Summer was writing an article about the, quote, Epstein's Civil War and MAGA and listed on the COVID 5 Mega, I guess, mega personalities who were in this alleged Epstein civil War. So the names that they said are in the Civil War are Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and me. So there are only four figures who were mentioned, you know, on the COVID anyways, the COVID art, so my pictures on the COVID of the story, etc. Now, did you know there's an Epstein Civil War that I, I feel like I'm in a civil war. Nobody told me. I thought I was just talking about it and speculating what could be true and letting my audience know. Am I in some kind of civil war? Have I ever said, you know, don't vote for Trump because of this? No, absolutely not. I think that it's trivial and that whatever the reason is, even if it's the wrong reason, are you going to throw everything that you've gained away because of the one thing? Well, some people say yes, and that would be your privilege to do that. I would say don't, but I don't know that any of these people, Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, or Scott Adams. Would any of those people say, you shouldn't vote for Republicans in the midterm? I don't think we would. Would any of them say, you should stop supporting Trump in all the other things he might want to get done? I don't think anybody said that. So a lot of people are sure that voters will decide to stay home, and they might, but I just would disagree with the Civil War part. What I think is that the Democrats convinced themselves that Trump supporters were a cult and that we agreed on everything, no matter what it was. And then when they see quite obviously that that's not the case, instead of going back to their own assumption and saying, oh, I guess we've been wrong for years, they were never a cult. It's just that they were on the same page that the followers and Trump were in favor of strong borders. We weren't in favor of it because Trump told us to be in favor of it and we were part of a cult. No, we just have the same opinion. So when it got to Epstein and the opinions legitimately were different, well, then everybody can see, oh, it's not a cult. So the way this, this story should have been written is you thought MAGA was a cult. You're totally wrong. Here's why. But instead it turned into Epstein Civil War, as if, as if I couldn't have a conversation with Roger Stone, Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon and somehow it wouldn't go well. Of course it would. We probably wouldn't even agree, disagree on much if we were really Hammering it down. All right. In other news. Omg. The o' Keefe Media Group got a hidden video camera conversation with a Johnson Johnson lead scientist. Now, let me give some advice to the other lead scientists involved in COVID vaccinations. If you go on a date, don't talk about the things you got away with in your day job. Don't do it, because there's a good chance your date works for James o'. Keefe. But apparently this lead scientist for J and J COVID vaccine area said that the vaccine was, quote, not safe and effective and it lacked research and it was rushed. And he said people wanted it, so we gave it to them. And he said, quote, do you have any idea the lack of research that was done on those products? He was talking about the vaccines. That's a lead scientist who basically threw his company completely under the bus. So there's that. He said, I mean, we basically just had a race to figure out who could solve it best, meaning the various companies trying to make a vaccine. He goes, at one point, we just canned it. Meaning we. We can the, you know, the appropriate process. So then James o' Keefe shows up, like he does in these situations, and he says, are you so? And so. And the guy tried to. The guy tried to say that he had the identity wrong. So that didn't work out. According to Breitbart, the make America healthy again thing is working a little bit because 35% of US food industry is committed to removing artificial dyes from the food. You know, I have the following question. Were artificial dyes, like, right at the top of the list of things that were maybe killing us because the artificial dyes? You know, I'd always heard the issue, but I never really thought that was a top three, top five health concern. But maybe it was. Maybe it was much worse than I imagined. So 35 is a good start. But it makes me wonder, is there something we should have been focusing on a little bit more, like just processed foods in general? Yeah, Anyway. And. And I'm a skeptic on the seed oil stuff. I've seen arguments on both sides. I don't know how to, you know, create a winner from that. Anyway, Trump is also going after Adam Schiff for his alleged mortgage fraud, which involved having a house in Maryland. So that would be close to D.C. so that's where he would stay most of the time. But also having a condo in California, which allows him to say he's a resident of California. So that's how he can be our senator. But the problem is that he told the banks or the IRS or both that they were both primary residents. But legally, you could only have one primary residence. So Trump is calling him out for claiming that he had two primary residents, which is not legal. And I guess the documentation is pretty clear. So there's not much question on the factual part. I believe we have the documents that show that he claimed they were both primary residents. Now, that would be a problem. So by Schiff responded to Trump, and he said this. So the president today is accusing me of fraud. And the basis of his accusation is that I own a home in Maryland and I own my home in California. Big surprise. Members of Congress, almost all of them own more than one home or rent more than one home because we're required to be on both coasts. So he is using my ownership of two homes to make a false claim of mortgage fraud. So do you see what shifted there? He acted as though the complaint is that he has two homes. That's not the complaint. That was never. That was never even an issue. Of course, Trump knows, as I know, and probably most of you know, that if you're an elected official from some state that's far away from Washington, D.C. you almost certainly have to have a place to stay where you live and a place to stay where you work, because you're going to be there most of the year. So, no, it's not about having two homes. It's about specifying that both of them are your primary residence because that allows you to save money. So it's a. Is it a tax savings? I think it's a tax savings thing. So the designated liar, as I call them, Adam Schiff, does it again, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation, Marianne Angela is writing that according to one pollster, GOP pollster, if you throw in Elon Musk's America Party, which we think will be formed because Musk says he's going to form it, the. The demons. The Republicans would lose the midterms. So if Elon Musk does not create a third party, Republicans have a narrow advantage in the midterms. I. I think other pollsters have it the other way. But whatever it is, it's going to be close, you know, narrow advantage one way or the other. But if you throw in the third party, the America Party, it looks like that gives the Democrats closer to something like a clean win in the midterms. So do you believe that Elon Musk would finalize that party and knowing that it would cost the control of the Congress, would he do that would there be a principle involved or some bigger risk, reward, benefit that I'm not aware of? I have some trouble believing that he would really do that, because I don't think he could recover from that reputationally. If Elon Musk, personally, through his own efforts, created that third party, and what the public came to believe is that that's the only reason that the Democrats had a great midterm. Even if it's not true, that would be very bad for Elon Musk's brand going forward, because everybody can see it coming. If it were a surprise and nobody could have seen it coming, then you say yourself, all right, well, he gambled. He got that one wrong. We wish it hadn't happened. But if you know what the impact is, you're going to have to own that impact. Do you think he wants to do that? I'm going to bet against it. You know, anything's possible. But I'm going to say 65% chance that he decides it would be too much of a cost to the country, as well as to him and his colleagues. If you were a stockholder. Well, I am a stockholder in Tesla. And you knew that the head of Tesla was going to do something that would permanently piss off at least half of the country, would you be okay with that as a stockholder? I'm not okay with it. I'm not okay with it. I mean, he's got free speech and he has the right to do it, but I'm not okay with it. Not even a little bit. All right. I saw an article by Daniel Greenfield, who talked about some polling in Gaza, and let me see if you can guess what the answer is before I tell you. You ready for this? How many. How many palace? Well, actually, how many residents of Gaza? And I guess resident means that you had lived there or you are living there. I don't know how many people are still there, but how many residents of Gaza, the Gazans believe that Hamas is winning the war? So far, believe that Hamas is winning the war. Right now, 23%. 23% of the residents of Gaza believe that Hamas is winning the war with the idf. How. You know, we always joke. There's, you know, if you're new to the podcast here, there's a running joke that doesn't matter what the topic of the poll is. Roughly one in four people will have the wrong answer no matter what. Now, how in the world could you be a resident of Gaza that's completely leveled and. And Hamas is hiding underground and getting wiped down a little Bit, you know, every day. How in the world do you conclude that they're winning? Amazing. But apparently 58% of people in or from Gaza acknowledge that October 7th was a mistake. And that's way down after October 7th, when it was fresh, 72% of the residents thought that the Hamas attack was a good idea. What? What you would think at this point, it would be obvious that was a bad idea, but no. All right. Zelensky said that Biden couldn't end the war with Ukraine and Russia. But he says, quote, I'm confident President Trump can. To which I say, oh, Zelensky, finally figuring out how to play this. Zelensky, you don't go to the Oval Office and try to embarrass our president. That's not going to work out. And it didn't. Here's what you need to be doing. Biden couldn't get it done, but I'm confident President Trump can. All right, now we're talking. You should be flattering him. You should be complimenting his successes so far. You should be saying that nobody in the world but Donald Trump would be the right person to end this war. Why? Because that's what gets you some cooperation. You know, show some respect. You're going to get some back. And at the moment, he's going to get a bunch of weapons that's the US Is sending him. And he also, he also uses the, the Trump idea. Remember when Trump would threaten Xi and threaten Putin and say, well, they only have to believe there's a 10% chance they'll go through with it. And Zelensky is borrowing that technique, talking about the offensive weapons that Trump is going to give him. He says any offensive weapons provided by the US could force Putin to come to the negotiating table. Here's the important part. Even if those weapons are never used, that's a Trumpism. Trump is the one who says, I don't have to do the threat. You just have to think, there's a 10% chance I might. And then you're going to get real serious about negotiating. Zelensky's borrowing his technique. We don't have to use the weapons. It might be enough that Putin knows we could. There you go. Yeah, he's pacing Trump in just the right way. At least. At least. That day, Trump was asked about the report that he. He seemed to be in favor of Zelensky bombing Moscow. Use it. Not bombing, but sending missiles into Moscow using the better weapons that Trump and America are planning to provide. But Trump says, no, there's less. He should not bomb Moscow, despite the fact that Trump did say he wanted Putin to feel some pain. So the Daily Mail. Emily Guden is writing about this, but there was a conversation in which Trump may have asked Zelensky if he could bomb, if he could attack Moscow with the American weapons. And I think that Zelensky said yes, but it was more of a what's possible, you know, what's doable. It wasn't a suggestion to do it. So Trump does not support attacking Moscow. But if Zelensky did attack Moscow, I don't know if Trump would be unhappy. Woody. He's just saying he's not in favor of it. But if somebody did it anyway, could it put enough pressure on Putin that he'd want to end the war? I don't think so. I don't think that Zelensky could destroy enough of Moscow that would do anything except increase Putin's support. Because once you attack somebody's capital, well, people are going to back whoever is in charge of their country. So it's not going to. I don't think it's going to hurt Putin even if Zelensky took out part of Moscow. So probably a bad idea. Putin responded to Trump's threats that they would put 100 tariffs on anybody who was doing business with Russia. Trump's or Putin's response to that was that a Kremlin official says Trump's threats of tariffs are serious and Putin will comment if necessary. He'll comment if necessary. Isn't that really Putin just dismissing the whole risk of tariffs? I'll comment if necessary, but honestly, it doesn't look like it's going to be necessary. So he's sort of brushing that off. And then Oan was talking about how the chief Pentagon correspondent. Oh, looking at my own notes here, apparently the Department of Defense has contracts with some AI companies, at least three of them. So Google, OpenAI and Xai and I think Anthropic. So they have these gigantic contracts for AI that I believe is tied to their Jerome plans. So remember I told you that within three years, the Ukraine front line with Russia will be an all robot war. There won't be people because the people will be killed instantly by all the drones that have AI and are making their own decisions about who to attack and when. So apparently the US is trying to sort of leapfrog the other drone makers, where you need a person to control each one. And if we could build a whole bunch of drones in the US and provide them to Ukraine and those drones had AI built in, so you didn't need the human operator for every moment of its flight. That could change the war. Now, what I don't know is if Russia, with the help of China, presumably, could match all of the unguided AI drones that the US Is likely to provide, they could probably beat us in quantity. But could they beat us in AI plus drones? And that's where I think we might have an advantage. And that's why I think it'll turn into just a drone war. So that's my prediction. Within three years, no humans on the front lines, it'll be the first robot war in the history of humanity. All right, people, that's all I have to say today. I'm going to talk to the beloved subscribers on Locals, because they're the best. You're pretty awesome, too. But the local subscribers, oh, man, they're the best. Don't be jealous. All right, the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. Thanks for joining. I hope you got something out of it. And Locals, I will see you privately in 30 seconds.