Scott Adams (10:18)
See mintmobile.com Anyway, so the left has apparently attacked it for being white supremacist. All it was. Was a sexy young woman trying to sell some pants. And that's all it took for the left to say white supremacy. White supremacy. All right, great. Some thought that the campaign was tone deaf because can't you see all the white supremacy you're putting into it? No. But others say that Sydney Sweeney killed woke advertising because she proved, apparently the pants sold out. So she proved that pairing an attractive woman with a product might sell more product. Again, you could have just asked me. Just ask me. I would have told you that. Believe it or not, south park has a extended scene where one of their characters plays Charlie Kirk. So. And I didn't listen to all of it. Maybe some of you did. I just listened to a clip that I saw. It looked like it was cut off, but the part I saw was not making fun of Charlie Kirk. It was Charlie Kirk as one of their characters making fun of the person that was opposing Charlie Kirk. Do I have that right? Did they fully embrace Charlie Kirk on South Park? I'm not positive that I may have missed part of it because it was. It was edited. Well, I don't know. But I will tell you that the fact that south park has sort of given some attention to Charlie Kirk, it does tell you things are changing. So here are some data points we'll go through today. We've got Cindy Sweeney proving that Wokeness doesn't sell products as well as just common sense, which is if you pair some attractive people with your product, people will pay attention. Then Charlie Kirk, instead of being mocked, which you would expect from any kind of entertainment vehicle. Nope. Looks like they're fully embracing him as a smart debater of important topics. And then, of course, there's the Colbert Story. But Trump has once again decided he wants to dance on the grave of Colbert. At least the show's grave. It's not off yet, but it's already been canceled, effective in May. And Trump put out a truth social today that he said that Colbert's cancellation was not because of Trump, because that's been in the news. The left likes to say we have nothing to say and we have no policies. So we're going to say that Trump is the reason that Colbert was fired. But as Trump points out, it was a, quote, pure lack of talent. And also the fact that he was losing $50 million per year. So we've been talking about it as 40 million that Colbert was losing 40 million. It's just so Trumpian to bump it up 10 million. Let's round it up to 50 million. And if you question it and say, I think it's supposed to be 40 million, not 50 million, then you will reinforce it in your own mind. And Trump's messaging gets stronger. So this probably is one of those situations where he knows that being imprecise improves the messaging, because when you're done, you're going to say, well, it's either 40 or 50 million, but, yeah, money was the reason. But then Trump goes on, he says, Kimmel and Fallon are next. The only question is who will go first? Do you recognize that technique? How many of you need me to explain for the millionth time what technique he's using there? It's Kibble and Fallon are next. The only question is who will go first? That's called making you think. Think past the sale. The sale is that they're both gonna go, but he's making you think which one goes first, which is thinking into the future. So that's, you know, classic persuasion. Trump does that one all the time. I don't know how much. I don't. I really don't know how much thought he puts into it, but it's just part of his normal speaking pattern that he does that thinking past the sale thing all the time. Well, Chuck Schumer was allowed out in public again. I don't know why somebody doesn't tackle him on his own team and say, you kids, you've got to stop representing us. Sorry? You got to stop representing us because every time you do, we get embarrassed. So I made a little list of all the things that Schumer did when he was just talking in public yesterday, I think. And it turns out that the thing that Schumer did in five minutes of talking in public allowed you to see everything the Democrats were doing wrong. He was, number one, way too old. And, of course, the Democrats are bleeding young people. So do you want to put your oldest guy out there to try to attract the young people? Mistake number one. Number two, he was boring. Have they learned from Donnie and from Trump that you could have a lot of things that people don't like, but as long as you're not boring, you're going to get your share of attention. So he's too boring, too old. He has no charisma whatsoever. So it's one thing to not be boring, but charisma is an extra gear above that doesn't have that. You don't want to spend one minute listening to that guy. There is no charisma there at all. He raised no policy ideas while he was talking. He's using his precious time in public and doesn't even mention any policies. He reframed something as racist that didn't need to be reframed that way because it wasn't. And he made a weak generic attack that the Republicans, quote, don't believe in democracy. Well, that'll get you to the voting booth, won't it? Imagine those Democrats were sitting at home and they're like, ah, I don't know. I don't know if I'm going to vote in the midterm elections or not. You know, it's sort of a lot of work. And then he comes on, he's too old, he's too boring, he has no charisma, no policy ideas, frames everything as racist even when it isn't, as a weak generic attack. I don't believe in democracy. They don't believe in democracy. That's everything they do in five minutes. They can't stop making all the same mistakes. And there are reasons. You could find a reason why there's friction toward improving, but it's not looking good for the Dems. And so have you noticed that a lot of the way we talked about politics, even a year ago was, my team's good, the other team is bad. And it didn't matter who you were listening to, they both said some version of that, my team good, other team bad. But have you noticed that the Democrats, probably half of them, have completely flipped over to my team is bad, but, God, I hope you're worse. And so they're getting attention by skewering their own side. And that's how they get attention. Bill Barr gets attention that way. Charlamagne gets tension. So Charlamagne is calling out the liberal media, who in my opinion, is just the Democrats, and they're, quote, double standard over Epstein. He goes, it's just funny how the news networks, how the news works, because Bill Clinton wrote a letter to Jeffrey Epstein as well for his birthday, but nobody's talking about that. And Jeffrey Epstein had a picture of Bill Clinton in a dress in high heels, but nobody's talking about that. Now, you could argue that Bill Clinton is not the president. And he's not, you know, he's not exactly relevant at the moment. So I'm not sure that Charlemagne has a good point. However, my point is that Democrats are now trying to get credit and attention and clicks by criticizing Democrats. And that's new. That's only new since Trump won everything and then had the best six months of any president's career. Any more of that, well, we'll see in a minute. But Newsmax is reporting that Ghislaine Maxwell has asked for immunity before testifying before Congress. She's willing to do it, but she wants immunity. Do you believe that she would get immunity? She also wants the questions in advance. I think immunity just means immunity from being charged based on anything she says. It's not about her current sentence. Right. Immunity is just about keeping her from further trouble. So I don't know if she'll get that or not. Consult your local lawyer. They would know. But maybe. Maybe we'll find out some good stuff. Why is it so hard for somebody to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell and ask her what happened? How did we get this far with Ghislaine Maxwell just sitting exactly where we know she is in the cell and she has all the information we want to know and apparently no real restrictions on giving it to you. And it took until now. It took until now for somebody to just say, I got an idea. Why don't we ask Ghislaine Maxwell? Maybe she'll tell us everything. And nobody thought of that until this year, or at least nobody acted on it. Well, that's weird. Meanwhile, Cory Booker, Senator Booker, who I call the saucer eyed Cory Booker. If you would like to do a Cory Booker costume for Halloween, here's how you do it. You got to get the big eyes, because that's sort of his signature feature. Big eyes. The way you do that is you go down to your local gas station and then look for the air pump and then grease it up and shove it as far as you can up your ass and turn it on and watch what your eyes do. They're going to do the same thing. I'm not sure if Cory Booker was hooked to the air machine when he was complaining, I guess yesterday in the Senate, but. Oh, and by the way, don't do blackface if you're going to do a Cory Booker costume, because. Yeah, you want to do Spartacus. I would do a Spartacus costume and the air pump. And then you got a perfect Cory Booker. Eddie decides to use the F bomb because Democrats had been advised that they need to act more authentic, which apparently they believe involves cursing too much. So he uses an F bomb, of course, and he criticizes Democrats, as is my theme today. He goes, we're standing in a moment where our president is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States, and we're willing to go along with that today. No, no, not on my watch. So do you remember all the problems that I mentioned with Chuck Schumer? Well, at least Cory Booker is not old and he's got a little bit of charisma. He's a little bit more fun to listen to than Schumer. Everybody's better than Schumer. But still, he's got this generic complaint about Trump that nobody even knows what it means. It's like he's eviscerating the Constitution. Do the courts know that he's eviscerating the Constitution? Is Cory Booker's point that the entire court system, all the way to the Supreme Court, just stopped working or quit? How in the world could Trump be eviscerating the Constitution? And also there are, like, you know, 200 court cases pending where somebody's challenging him, and if they win, he'll have to stop what he's doing. And so far, he always has. So Cory Booker, same problem. He thinks that cursing is going to win him something, and he's got no ideas for policies. All he's got is he's stealing the Constitution. Trump is stealing our democracy. Meanwhile, Governor Tim Walsh, I love the fact that Tim Waltz exists and he's still in public because he does not sell the Democrat Party except down the river. I guess he's the worst. Well, they're all bad, but he might be one of the worst brand ambassadors. So here's what he just did. He just signed a, a law to give driver licenses to all. So if you're regardless of your immigration status, you'll be able to get a driver's license. Now, is that one of those 20, 80 situations where he decided to take the side of the 20? I feel like it probably is. I mean, I don't know if it's actually 80, 20, but wouldn't you think that a majority of people would be opposed to giving driver's license is to people who are here illegally? I'm not even giving you my opinion on it, so that's not my opinion. I'm just saying observationally, wouldn't 80% of people be against that? So there's a, there's a Democrat who's getting a lot of attention by doing things that the public doesn't really necessarily want them to do. So good job there. Well, as you know, Tulsi Gabbard and her newest revelations, which in my opinion, just gave a little bit more meat to something I think we already knew that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton and Brennan and Clapper and Kobe and all those guys were literally, definitely, no doubt about it, planning a gigantic Russia collusion hoax to try to change the government of the United States. That would be treason or a coup, whatever you want to call it. But it appears that it's completely well documented now, as in, I don't know if it would pass muster in a court of law. But it's definitely true. There's no doubt about it. We have everything we need to see that. It's very clearly, obviously true that there was a plot to come up with a fake, bullshit hoax to remove Trump from office. And they tried as hard as they could. That, plus a lot of other plots to do the same thing. But the real question is, will some kind of injustice ever happen? And it typically would not happen because they're too powerful. And it's just. It's easier on the country if you let it go. You know, if you win and you become the president, as Trump did. He talks about how he could have done it to Hillary Clinton when he won the first time, but he decided it wasn't good for the country, maybe it wasn't good for anybody and didn't do it. But now he's sort of floating the idea. He's got two memes they had today. One of them showed all those characters I mentioned Obama and Brennan and Comey and stuff behind bars. And then the caption over it that Trump just sat around on Truth Social. The caption was, until this happens, nothing will change. So he's basically saying that until they go to jail, that we won't really have a functioning country. Nothing will change. And then he sat around a second meme, also on Truth Social, but people copy it and put it on X. And I think the second one is, it's time to indict Obama the traitor for treason. It actually had those words. So it's a meme. It's not something that Trump wrote in his own message, but he's the person who sent it around. It's time to indict Obama. So he's calling Obama a traitor and thinks he should go to jail for treason. Now, here's my persuasion lesson for the day. How many times have I told you how sometimes it will be an idea that's literally unthinkable? And what Trump does is he makes you think about it until you're just sort of comfortable with it. I would argue that the tariffs and the trade wars were unthinkably impractical until Trump made you think about it a lot, but then also showed you that it would work. So he makes the unthinkable thinkable. If you had told me that he could completely close the border down with Any amount of work, I would have been quite surprised. But apparently he has. That was unthinkable. And now think about Greenland. Yeah, the idea of taking over Greenland, completely unthinkable. But now we thought about it so much that it's not shocking. If the topic comes up now, we can think about it. So step one in persuasion is you've got to make it a topic that people are willing to talk about. But on top of that, it seems to me he's testing public reaction. So if he can make the public talk about the idea of whether or not it makes sense or whether or not he would get a conviction, then he has brought us into his reality. And his reality is that this is an important question and we should be talking about it and working on it instead of ignoring it. So the more trouble it causes on the left, because they're going to say this is more evidence that he's trying to be a king. And then the people on the right will be, there you go. That's who we voted for. They should put him in jail. So I feel like he's doing his usual Trump thing where he's just testing reactions, but at the same time, he's getting you used to it. So you're. You. You went from. Well, I did. Let me just speak for myself. Maybe this applies to you and you can tell me, but even one year ago, I would have said it was unthinkable that we would have a serious discussion from the presidential office about jailing the last president. Totally unthinkable. Now it's totally thinkable. It's not only because Tulsi had new information, because honestly, that's all the stuff that I just assumed was true in the first place, because we had enough. We had enough information. I wasn't guessing. Now I think about it now, I think it's completely practical. And if the Democrats make the mistake, which they will, of talking about it a lot, it will become more feasible. The more they talk about how it's a bad idea and it's never been done and it shouldn't be done and we don't think the evidence would support it, the more they resist, the more the public is going to say, oh, this is just one of those things that we could do or we could not do, and it will depend on the evidence. And that's not where it was before. Before it was. We can't even talk about it. It's so, you know, it's so risky. It's so bad for the country. You don't even Talk about it. We're now past that. Now we're in the. Yeah, let's talk about it. Let's talk about it. All right. And Trump actually said in a interview the Daily Wire was reporting this, he didn't use these words, but he is indicating very clearly that although he did not have the. Let's say, did not have the motivation to go after Hillary when he was president the first time, he believes that he now has enough evidence that Hillary went after him and tried to put him in jail. If you count the entire Democrat machine that seemed to be coordinated then he's got a free punch. And he is indicating very clearly. He doesn't say the words exactly, but he is indicating he'd be willing to put Hillary Clinton in jail. Now, again, floating the idea, what he said specifically when the topic came up, he talks about how he squashed the idea of going after Hillary in his first term and goes, I was the one that killed it. And then they did the same thing to me. I just want to be fair. So the way people are interpreting that is he's willing to go after her now. All right, here is the weirdest story in the news. How many of you knew this? That the most famous of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers, Virginia Joffrey, she's the one who allegedly was with Prince Andrew. She's the one who recently died, you know, tragically. She's the one who I think she had. Is she the one who had accused Dershowitz but then later changed her story and withdrew it all? So of if you were going to say, let's talk about Epstein's victims, how many of you could have named even one extra person besides Virginia Joffrey? Probably not, right? She was the most famous one and became sort of the face of that whole thing. Well, yesterday I learned that where Epstein met Virginia Joffrey is that she was working for Trump at Mar a Lago in the spa, and Epstein saw her reading a book on how to be a massage therapist, I guess, and then made her an offer to go work for him. Now, Trump says that the problem was that Epstein was poaching his employees. I think he did it three times. He had been warned after doing it twice. And then when he did it a third time, Trump banned him from the property. Now, somebody said, but before you said that you banned him because he was creepy. Well, that may have also been true. You know, more than one thing could be true. But how in the world did I not know that Virginia Joffre worked for Trump? How in the world. Did I find that out yesterday? How many of you were aware that Virginia Joffre was a Trump employee at Mar? A Lago? Did any of you know that? Well, I thought I was going crazy when I saw that story. It's like, how, how did I not know that? That feels like the most obvious thing that people would talk about. How in the world did I not know that? Had no clue. I'm looking at. Yeah, I don't think so far in the comments, not one of you were aware of that. That is mind blowing to me. It feels like living in a simulation where the plot is writing itself in real time. It's like, all right, what is the most interesting thing we could add to this story? Well, that's it. That's the most interesting thing you could have added to the story. All right. According to Rasmussen Polling company, a majority of voters think that the Trump administration is trying to hide evidence that Trump was at some association with Epstein. That's more than what we know. So 60% of likely US voters believe it's likely that Trump administration officials are engaged in a cover up to hide Trump's involvement with Epstein. 45% consider a cover up very likely. Now, I saw. Was it Claire McCaskill or somebody on MSNBC? They all look alike to me, but I saw them say that they should use this Epstein thing because it's the only thing that they have any traction with. It does seem true that people are judging Trump to be covering something up. Now, I would agree with that. It seems very clear that Trump wants us to move on. And why else would he say that? Now, I don't think it necessarily means that he's covering up for himself. It's equally likely that there are other names on the list that he's doing a solid for and making sure they stay out of the news, which doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. They could just be a name that's in the file and they know their life would be ruined if that information got out. So I don't know if he's covering for himself or covering for people he cares about or anything like that, but it looks like he's covering up something and it looks like maybe he's decided that he should let the process uncover whatever it's going to uncover. So he may have changed his mind and he may be loosening up and letting people dig around. But what he has done, which I think is clever, is he's inoculated all of us. So he's already dropped the suggestion that there might be some fake things in the files that the Democrats put in there to embarrass him or other people. So he's got you thinking about that before you even know what's in the files. That's good technique. It may not be ethical, but it's good technique, persuasion wise. And he's also made us very aware, because we've talked about it over and over again, that just being a name in the file doesn't mean that you did anything wrong. So the more that's in the front of your mind as opposed to just something in the back of your mind, he's creating a situation where revealing everything in the Epstein files will work, where it might not have worked even a few weeks ago because he hadn't properly primed the public. But now the first thing I say, no matter what name comes up first, let's say some billionaire you've heard of, my first thought will be maybe it was planted. My second thought will be, it doesn't mean there's any crime. So I'm all primed. I'm all primed not to have a negative thought, no matter what, that those files say it can't be too damning for Trump. I agree with the idea that somebody would have already leaked it if it were damning to Trump. So it might be just by association, you know, it might be just some evidence that they were closer friends than you knew about, something like that. But that's the worst it will be. Well, you know that story about the Cincinnati Jazz Festival weekend? I saw Mike Cervich post? He says jazz festival weekend in Cincinnati, a local tells me, is so disgusting with low tips and fights that bars didn't open during the Jazz fest. Can you imagine being a bar and there's a music festival and you've decided to. It's better off to be closed during a music festival weekend. That's got to be some bad trouble. And the city officials threatened to pull the liquor licenses of these bars for being racist. And that the fight we saw on video where a. A group of black people were beating up some white guy and a white woman, that fights, not necessarily interracial fights, but fights in general are kind of common on that weekend. So there's that. And then we learned that the Cincinnati police chief who was telling social media users that they hadn't seen the whole situation because apparently the clip might be misleading. So there was some suggestion that the white guy who got his ass kicked may have. We don't know this. He may have been the One who hit first. Now, I don't have a confirmation of that, so I'm not going to assert that. But the police chief said something that suggested that maybe he started the fight. Now that doesn't make it right for a bunch of people to gang up and kick him to death. He didn't die, but it was pretty bad. However, I definitely would look at it differently if he started the fight. So that would influence my opinion of the whole thing. So I'm going to say I'd like to know more about that. We're still in the fog of war state about that story, but did you know that the Cincinnati police chief is a woman who is being sued by white police officers for having an alleged bias against them in their assignments? So she's allegedly a racist against white people and thinks there might have been a good reason that that white person got beat up? She didn't say that. I'm reading between the lines. Did you know that Baltimore was a crime infested hellhole and had a Soros backed prosecutor and that's when the crime really went through the roof. But that Soros backed prosecutor lost her job to a, a challenger and the challenger has already, you know, greatly reduced the crime. So violent crime has plummeted in Baltimore because they got rid of the Soros prosecutor and got a serious prosecutor. So if you're wondering, well, did all these Soros prosecutors make a difference? The answer is yeah, they did. Yeah, they ruined cities. They completely ruined cities. That's a pretty big impact. Well, UCLA is the latest, the latest college to admit they're a bunch of racists. So they've entered into a consent decree to settle a discrimination suit from Jewish students. So yes, the Jewish students sued, said they weren't doing enough to protect them. I guess there were anti Israel encampments which were allowed at ucla, which included a, quote, Jew exclusion zone. There must have been a sign that said you can't be there if you're Jewish. Anyway, they're going to pay $6 billion to settle that. So are there any major colleges that are not openly racist at this point? Like any, they all seem openly racist and they're all being caught and admitting it and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to make the claims go away? All right. Have you ever had a situation where you were pretty sure that one thing might be true and then you heard a better argument and you thought, oh my God, that is so much a better argument? Well, RFK Jr. Did that, had the better argument. He was talking to Chris Cuomo of News Nation. And Chris, Chris Cuomo was. He was speculating. Cuomo was. I don't know if he was saying that was his own opinion or, you know how hosts often say, well, people say. Or a lot of people think so I don't know which it was. But he mentioned that a lot of people think that maybe the uptick in autism is really only an uptick in diagnosis, meaning that maybe nothing changed, but we're just noticing autism more. So, you know, the statistics look like there's a lot more of it. And here was RFK Jr. S debunking of that. He said, quote, if it was just a matter of better diagnosis or better recognition, you would see it in older people. But you don't. The epidemic is taking place in a specific generation is kids born after 1989. That's what you see. You don't see autism. One in every 31 people my age. RFK Jr says, I've never seen somebody my age, 71 years old, with full blown autism. You don't see that. If it was anything other than an epidemic, why would you only see it in a single generation? To which I say, I've never seen an old person with autism. Have you? I've never seen it. Now, I hope it's not because there's a survivability problem. I mean, maybe that could be it, but why had I never noticed that? That's a really good point. There's something going on. But even Cuomo said, fair point. Yeah, there's not much you could say after that. That's just a really good point. All right. Speaking of Democrats who are having more fun mocking their own party than they used to, Chris Cuomo also separately gave Trump an A for his effort. Now, that was not a. An insult. A for effort. Sometimes that sounds like a backhanded, backhanded compliment. That's really an insult. But he pointed out that Trump is doing an amazing amount of work. And the fact that he golfs also doesn't hold it against him because everybody needs an outlet. And Cuomo compared it to the Biden administration and he's just being completely fair. You can't really compare those two. One of them is putting in the work and appears to make it look easy. He's always available. He's done an insane amount of different topics and policies, and Biden was barely able to leave his basement. So, yes, Chris Cuomo being quite bipartisan on that. According to Axios, this is a title of an article today, Tariff deals could reverse the Sell America trade and pull Investors back to US Stocks. So that seems to be an admission that that Trump's tariff strategy worked. So do you see the theme? I don't think it's only because of what news I happen to be selectively looking at. It does appear that even the Democrats are very overtly giving Trump a lot of credit for some of the things that worked. And the things they're going after are all these sort of side things like Epstein. The reason that they're trying to emphasize the Epstein thing is it's the only thing that polls well and that they have any traction on at all. They have so little traction on all the big policy things that they have to ignore policy altogether and say stuff like, oh, he's stealing our democracy and he might be hiding something in the Epstein files. Those are not really policy questions. It's just all they have. You remember ActBlue, the Democrat related organization that would raise money and allegedly they were raising small donations from individual donors and they were doing that for the Democrats. But then separate from this story, they've already been accused of maybe having foreign donors and then laundering it. So it looked like it was coming from individual individual donors, but it wasn't. But on top of that, there's this 15 year investigation of ActBlue and it was hard to understand the details, but apparently there's another allegation of massive multimillion dollar fraud with some kind of mortgage shenanigans. So if these accusations are correct, ActBlue would be the most corrupt organization you ever heard of and it would pretty much take them off the field. So if you assume that the amount of donations a party guess will influence how they do in an election, this Act Blue thing could turn out to be a big deal. Could be a big deal. But I remind you that whenever there's a large organization with lots of people and lots of money involved, that they will always be corrupt. Maybe not on day one, but if you have lots of people, lots of money and lots of complexity, the complexity will hide the fraud. So you always get fraud. You'll always, always. It doesn't matter what the domain is. If you just have people, money complexity, always fraud. Well, Trump is mocking the no Kings movement, which seems to have failed entirely. He had a post on True Social pointing out that there are a lot of people who have been in office longer than he has. His list was Grassley, 50 plus years, Biden 48 years, Schumer, 44, McConnell in office 40 years, Pelosi 38, Sanders 34, et cetera. And then Trump says that he's been working in the government for four years and five months and then he mocks him by saying, but Donald Trump is a king. Now, that's not really any kind of an argument. It's not really a logical argument because you could certainly have a king that's only been there five years. There's no law against that. So it's not really a good point, but it's good persuasion because it reminds you that there's a whole bunch of people who've been there too long and they're too old. And even though Trump himself is older, I got a cat on my lap here in case it looks like I'm squirming, it's because her little claws are going into my lap. Anyway, I saw a video of another young person, young man, who was in his car making a little social media video and he was complaining about how his generation is losing hope because he doesn't see any possible way. He's been applying for lots of jobs without success. He says he doesn't see any way he'd ever be able to buy a house, get married, have kids and retire, basically. So the basic things that people would want out of their life, he says he doesn't see any possibility of that. And he seemed to be a perfectly functional, ambitious young person, good looking. And Marjorie Taylor Greene waited on this and she said on X, my children's generation are losing hope and it's all I care about. My advice is to get into trade school and jobs and, and she says welding, construction, electricians, plumbing, linemen and more can earn over 100,000 per year and you will always be in demand and you can eventually work for yourself. And then she says, I own a construction company. So she knows what she's talking about. She owns a construction company and this is not bad advice. It's probably not the advice for everybody, but nothing is. So I would add to this when she says you can eventually work for yourself, you can eventually work for yourself and hire other people to do extra work and you as the boss get the benefit. So, yeah, every one of these skills is something that once you got good at it, which would take several years, but you could form your own company and then hire and train your own employees and there's no limit to how much money you can make. Well, Apple is opening a manufacturing academy in Detroit. So it's going to teach people how to manufacture people in Detroit, and workshops on manufacturing as well as artificial intelligence. And it's going to be marketed to small and medium sized businesses. Well, I gotta say, this sounds like something they're doing because it sounds good and not something that's going to change the world too much. It sounds like Apple just knows they have to do things that would sound good to Trump so that they stay on his good side. So I'm sure he would love to hear that Apple is training people how to manufacture and be capable with AI. But why would you put that in downtown Detroit? It doesn't seem like the right place to put it, does it? If what you wanted is what's good for the country, you would put that wherever there is the most capable people, because they're the ones you want doing all your manufacturing and AI. But we'll see what happens when they put it in Detroit. And then I guess Australia is going to ban children under 16 from using YouTube. You. You won't be able to sign up to YouTube at all if you're under 16. That might not be a bad idea. I don't know what Australia is doing with other social media, but YouTube isn't the worst, so I don't know what they do. Maybe they ban everybody under 16 and then YouTube separately. YouTube. The company is rolling out an AI feature that will determine if you're underage. And you should not be looking at some content on YouTube. So it won't know your age and it won't ask your age and it can't check directly, but it will know your age by how you act. So know what you've looked at before. And if you're looking at things that only kids look at, but then you go look at some naughty stuff, then the AI will say, ah, no, you wouldn't have looked at this other stuff unless you were 12 years old. So you can't see the naughty stuff either. That sounds like a good idea that's worthy of testing, but boy, are some people going to be annoyed at it if it doesn't work. They can always take it away. Trump's putting a 25% tariff on India, he announced. Did you know that India is Russia's. Russia's largest customer for energy, even more than China? And did you know the India buys a lot of Russian military equipment? So I'm pretty sure that Trump wants to tariff them until they say, you know, I wouldn't buying, wouldn't mind buying a lot of American LNG for energy and maybe we could buy some more American weapons. So Trump is very pro India, but they are, they, they do seem to be helping some of our enemies more than they're helping US So we'll see what happens. All right. Remember I kept telling you that any news that comes out of the Gaza situation, you should not trust because any, anything that comes out of a war zone is automatically sketchy. Right? You know, just really anything. And perfect example, the New York Times did an article that was alleging that Israel was blocking food shipments or something like that to Gaza. And they showed a picture of a young person being held by his mother. And the young person appeared to be starving. And then the point of the article was, here's a picture of a child who's obviously starving. And then they generalized the point to say that must be other people starving. And now they have confessed that they've learned that that child had a pre existing health problem, which is why the kid looked like he didn't have long to live, because maybe he didn't. So it wasn't starvation that made the kid look like a starving kid, it was whatever health problem he had before the Gaza thing happened. So the New York Times has admitted that they made that mistake. But I will take credit for telling you that every time you hear anything about the starvation in Gaza, there's no credibility. It doesn't mean that there aren't people who are starving. Whatever is happening over there is so awful that one assumes that there are some people starving, but it doesn't mean that it's any kind of a strategy necessarily. So I don't trust anything that comes out from either side or from any platform about what's happening on the ground in Gaza. Just don't trust any of it. Perfect example. Trump says, well, I like, and I do like that Trump is focusing on feeding the kids because it gives them a little distance from Israel. So Trump is playing it like Israel does need to do more to feed the kids. The kids. So he's not dealing so much on whether it's true or false. He's just saying, top priority, feed the kids, which is a real good way to go. He's very smart about that. He says they got to get them food and we're going to get them food. So that's just good framing. Trump was asked about whether he would pressure Israel for a ceasefire. And Trump said, if you do that, you really are rewarding Hamas. And I'm not about to do that. But the UK and France apparently are doing that. So, UK Prime Minister, I think I told you this already said that the UK would recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel takes, quote, substantive steps to end the war in Gaza. Now, this story says that that's what France also said they would do. So what happens to Israel if some of these major countries recognize a Palestinian state? Does that change anything? Is that enough pressure on Israel to make them act differently? And I'm not saying they should act differently. I remind anybody who's new here that I'm not taking sides. I'm observing because Israel is not my nation. And every country does what's good for their own country. So if you observe that Israel is doing what seems to be good for only Israel, I would say that's kind of what everybody does. That's just called being a country. Countries look out for their own benefit and maybe they have to shade the story a little bit and do what they got to do. And some of it you would not approve of. But it's not up to you. Not up to me. So we can observe it and we can ask fascinating questions like if we were in that situation, what would we do? But it doesn't matter. My opinion and my ethical and moral stand, it doesn't matter. We're just observers. All right, anyway, so Israel will get a little pressure. I don't think that'll make a difference to him. Breitbart is reporting, thanks to Ildefonso Ortiz and Brandon Darby that there's a new scandal linking Mexico's, some of their top political people to the cartels and to the president. So the new reporting, I won't give you all the details because it's boring, is that somebody who is a real good, close friend of the president of Mexico has been revealed to have a big cartel connection, to which I say, duh. Was there anybody who didn't know that the government of Mexico has a deep cartel connection? I mean, I don't know what the total situation is, but not really a surprise. And then over in Ukraine, the reporting is that Ukraine is going to allow people over 60 into the armed forces because they're running out of people. And so I reiterate my prediction that that will become the first all robot war. Once. Once you just run out of people and once the robots are fully battle capable, I feel like Europe is going to be buying a bunch of American robots to give to Ukraine. Trump says that Air Force One that was gifted by Qatar or Qatar could be flying and he could be in it as soon as February. But you don't believe that, do you? I thought it was going to take years for that plane to be retrofitted to be an Air Force One because it requires all kinds of special equipment. And at the same Time. Hasn't Boeing been trying to build two new Air Force ones for years, and it's going to take years more. I don't believe that Cutter 1 is going to be ready in February, but we'll see. I saw a story on Fox News. Kurt Knudsen is writing about this. A really clever way to add electric power to big rig trucks. Now, if you're a big rig truck, it will take a long time to charge up your gigantic battery if you were an electric big rig truck. So it's a little bit impractical just because there aren't many charging stations and it would take forever to charge. But also, you know, the loads are heavy and they've got a big infrastructure already, and it would just be hard to suddenly go to electric big rigs. But there is a company that very cleverly came up with a. A way to make it work almost instantly. So a big rig is a cab with an engine where the guy sits or the gal, and then the part that carries the goods attaches to it. But now a company has invented a middle component that goes between the existing cab and the existing, you know, cargo place. And that middle part can be powered by electricity. So your truck would still work fine if there were no electricity. It would just have to drag that new component as well as the cargo if you had diesel fuel. So you don't need to stop necessarily and recharge, but it would just give a boost to the. To the efficiency of the whole thing. It's an excellent idea because it doesn't require much retrofitting, if anything. That's what I like. Very clever. Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say today. So I'm going to talk privately now. To the beloved subscribers to Locals and the rest of you, thanks for joining, and I will see you same time, same place tomorrow. Oh, thank you, Lynn. That's very nice of you. And we'll have some more fun then. You ready for that? I have a cat in my lap right now, and I gotta say, doing this podcast with a cat in my lap, it's the best. She's napping right now. In my lap. All right, locals coming at you privately in 30 seconds.
