A (0:00)

You are. Hello, everybody. I was just checking your stocks and. Kind of flat and boring today, so maybe we have some more excitement later. But in the meantime, we've got a show to do, and I'm going to look at your comments to make sure I'm plugged in. We're going to do a little Levi, but podcasting. That's right. I used AI to help me. That makes it vi podcasting. Although I am completely normal, unless YouTube uses their AI to fix my look, I could use some help. All right, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you never had a better time. But if you'd like to take a chance of elevating your experience today up to levels that no one can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a tanker chalicer d canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go. All right, all humans and all pets who are listening, make sure your pet is listening. I do send subliminal pet commands, so if you watch this with a cat on your lap or a loyal dog on the couch next to you, I will be training your animals. At the same time, I'm entertaining you. Well, there's a scientific study. According to Science Alert, David Neild is writing that cannabis compounds are showing early promise for healthy aging. That's right, according to this one study. And remember, the majority of studies are not reproducible. So when I talk about science, just keep in mind that the overall theme is it's probably mostly made up. But as of today, the science says that you will age better if you're using marijuana. That's what the new study says. It'll be good for your organs and your brain, and you'll age better. Now, let me summarize the total state of science in 2025. You ready? It can't tell the difference between medicine and poison. Am I right? How many times have we seen that modern science literally can't tell the difference between medicine and poison? I would even include CO2. Is CO2 like a medicine from the planet that's good for the plants, or is it a poison that's going to heat up the atmosphere and kill us all? Science looks like guessing, doesn't it? I wouldn't trust any of it. Here's another good example all right, this is. This is presented as a serious article about a serious study. I want you to be the judge of whether this looks like a prank or a serious thing. All right, you ready? So this is from some publication called the Conversation Michael Vasquez and Michael Prinzing are writing about. They say that studying philosophy does make people better thinkers. There was research on more than 600,000 college grads. And now, interestingly this. The two people who did this study are themselves philosophy majors. Huh. So you're telling me this two philosophy major majors did a study that determined that being a philosophy major makes you smarter? Okay, hold that thought. Hold that thought. That it was performed by philosophy majors who presumably, if their research is correct and their interpretation of it is correct, would be the reason they're so smart. Yeah, the reason they're so smart is because they were philosophy majors. But. And they looked at the data and sure enough, the people who were majoring in philosophy were indeed smarter on other standardized tests than the average of other people. Now, here's why I can't tell if this is a prank, because isn't it kind of stupid to assume that the causation here is that the classes made you smarter as opposed to the more obvious explanation that people who thought they were already good at reasoning thought. Thought. You know what? I'm good at reasoning. Maybe I should be a philosophy major. And then two people who should have been good at reasoning somehow wrote an article without even mentioning that the far more likely way to. Or realistic way to interpret the data is that people who are already good at reasoning and know it are the only ones who sign up to be philosophy majors. And last, there might be some who are just wrong. They think that they might be good at it, or they think that they're going to learn how to be good at it, and then they drop out after the first semester so they don't get measured so much, do they? So I can't tell if this is some kind of a public prank where they're trying to see if you notice that they've done really bad thinking. And there's an article about the people who, including the authors, have been trained to be extra good at thinking. Are they serious? I don't think they even have a way to figure out if the training made them smart or if they were smart and that's why they got into that field. I don't even think they could measure that. They probably don't have that kind of data anyway. I mean, how would you do. How would you do a Control. The only way you could do a control test is you take a bunch of people who had declared that their major would be philosophy, and then you'd have to take half of them and say. Or some portion of them and say, we're not going to allow you to be philosophy majors. Wait, what? Yeah, we're doing a study. And the only way we'll have a control group of people who on their own had decided to become philosophy majors but didn't, so we can compare them to the people who did, we're going to have to prevent you from following the major that you would like to get into. Wait, what? You can't do that. It's for science. No, there is no way to measure that ethically. Did you know, according to Fox News, Ashley Demilla is writing that if you don't drink enough water, or I think they just mean if you're not hydrated, your body will not be able to handle cortisol and that your stress reaction will be much bigger. Do you believe that? Well, if it's the basis of a study, that would mean that the odds are against it. Just try to hold this wild thought in your mind. If I ever tell you there's a study and it decided that proposition A is true, it means that the odds are against it being true. Because the majority of studies are not real. The majority are not real. So anytime I tell you something's been discovered, it probably means the odds are against it. That's the weird world we're living in. But these study says that if you stay hydrated, it's probably good for your stress levels. And I say, well, maybe they should have just asked me, because I would have said, hmm, let's see. Your brain is part of your body. Check. I knew that part. If you don't take care of your body, you won't be taking care of your brain. Check. It's true with nutrition, it's true with sleep. It's true with everything we've ever measured that has an impact on your body. What do we think would happen if you don't have proper hydration? See, it'd be bad for your body. Your brain is part of your body. Yeah, okay. I think I would have guessed that one. All right. Science also says, according to something called your tango, Christine Schoenwald is writing that science says people with a good sense of humor are wired for higher intelligence. Well, I take back everything I said about scientific studies. It turns out the science is very, very accurate because I can't find anything to argue with this, yeah, people with a good sense of humor, they're much more intelligence. Intelligent. Intelligent. They have more smartitude. Their smartness. These smartastic, smart, smartass. I don't even have words anymore. But anyway. Yeah, that's true. Remember, I've famously said for years that one third of the public literally doesn't have a sense of humor. Do you know what the other way to say that would be? One third of the world isn't smart enough to get jokes. Just one third. Yeah, think about it, Think about it. Well, my experience, you know, as a professional funny man, my experience is that the smarter people are, the more they're going to get my jokes and the more they'll appreciate it. So, yeah, I think intelligence and sense of humor are related to. Here's another one from Science Mag. They just studied to find out that the children of adults who are very active themselves, you know, doing sports and, you know, outside activities and stuff, if the parents are very active physically, then the children are more likely to be physically active. And so they've concluded that if you model a behavior that children will follow it. You know what they could have done? They could have asked me and the first thing I would have said was a yes, children do copy whatever examples are exposed to. Yes, that's. You don't have to study that. I will just tell you that's true. Secondly, how do you rule out that there's a genetic thing? Were the people who were genetically predisposed to exercise? Because not everybody likes it the same amount. Not everybody reacts to food the same. Not everybody reacts to exercise the same. Personally, I am not genetically able to enjoy running a marathon or even training for one. It would just hurt. But there's a whole range of physical activities. You know, like I was playing aggressive ping pong yesterday. Oh, cat is missing me. And I seem to be optimized for, you know, that. So, yeah, how do you rule out the fact that the kids are just naturally more active because they came from parents who are active, you know, genetically, you cannot. So I do not trust that study. Another report says The American economy grew 3% in an annualized basis, I guess. And that would be amazing. So if you're not following economics, you wouldn't know that they were expecting something in the twos, the mid twos, as a percentage of growth by 3%. And that is really good. It's not so high that you'd expect inflation to go up and then interest rates can't come down. It's just almost perfect. You wouldn't want it to be too hot, but it's definitely strong. That's a good result. It's one of the best if it's real. I mean, obviously the macro theme today is everything is bullshit. So it may not be real, but if it were, it'd be great. There was a back and forth on the X platform today between Elon Musk and somebody named David Scott Patterson. I don't know anything about him, but he had a interesting comment that Elon weighed in on. And I'm just going to read it to you because they were both very brief and very interesting. So David Scott Patterson says that by 2030 all jobs will be replaced by AI and robots. All jobs. And here's his calculation. He says the U.S. labor force is about 170 million. About 80 million of those jobs include hands on work. So he's talking. So the rest will be about the whole 170 million. Because you don't need robots to replace every job. It could be the AI by itself that replaces the job. So you'd be replacing at least 80 million the hands on group. And he notice that automated systems, that would include robots, but even automated systems can work four chefs a week. So you don't need as many robots as you would need humans because humans have to rest. And it says replacing all physical labor would require about 20 million autonomous systems, meaning robots and autonomous vehicles. Vehicles would replace cab drivers, for example. And then he says that could be accomplished easily in the next four years. So the question is, could we make 20 million really good industrial robots and have self driving everything in four years? 20 billion. The answer is yes. That's well within the doable range. He says people saying it's not physically possible to build that many systems in four years are delusional. For comparison, 16 million cars were sold in the US last year. Interesting. And cars are 20 times the mass of a humanoid robot. Now that was a fascinating way to look at it, that the humanoid robots have lower mass, so therefore they'd be easier to build. That does seem true, but I never would have thought of it that way. That mass is a way to compare those things. And he goes on, if robots were sold at the same rate as cars, that would be 320 million robots per year. Wow. Even a tiny fraction of that would be enough to replace all human labor. All right, so the summary is that by 2030 it would not be difficult, given what we can already do in the world, to replace all human work with robots. Now that would be a little bit disruptive for the normal economy. If every single job had been lost. Here's what Elon Musk says. He weighed in. He goes, your estimates are about right. Oh, wow. He goes, however, intelligent robots in humanoid form will far exceed the population of humans, as every person will want their own personal R2, D2 and C3PO. And then there will be many robots in industry for every human to provide products and services. And then he says, this is still Elon Musk. There will be universal high income. Not merely basic income, but universal high income. He goes, everyone will have the best medical care, food, home transport, and everything else. And then he summarizes it as sustainable abundance. Now, of course, Elon Musk is in the business of making robots, so he wants to put the, you know, the best possible spin on it. What you're hearing is, my cat going wild on a box of Kleenex, man. He's having fun there. You can watch him for a while. There you go. Yeah, you're on. You're on. You're on the podcast now. He's looking at himself. Yep, that magic device. What is going on? He says, hold it, hold it. Don't start typing. All right, back to me. That's enough. That's enough, Gary. Oh, Gary. Anyway, I was going to summarize here that Musk is unusually good at predicting the future, but since his trillion dollars of net worth depends on the future being the way he describes it, you know, he might be a little biased about this, but that hasn't affected his predictions too much in the past because he's almost always predicting things that affect him personally. So that's good news. I don't know. Does your common sense and your gut instinct tell you the same thing? That robots will make us simply just not need to work anymore and that we'll all have everything we need and plenty of it? I don't know. The problem is, that would be true if everybody surrendered to that process, but if people said, oh, this transition to the old robot thing will take a while, so I'm not going to give you my, let's say, steel for free, you know, you're going to have to buy the steel, and everybody else would try to do the same, they'd be like, oh, okay, little catastrophe going on there. We'll clean that up later. Bad cat. Well, in other news, Bindu Reddy, I saw an X was talking about AI girlfriends and points out that both meta and X who understand human behavior pretty well very well. Bindo says they're betting on AI girlfriends. So as Bindo says, they're Working on AI that can one shot the human limbic system and give us a constant dopamine high, an addiction that is custom designed. So in other words, your AI chatbot will be different from mine. So it's custom designed and may be more potent than cocaine. It might be. And interestingly, she points out, Elon Musk has already warned us of said outcome. Well, I may have a, let's say, contrarian view of that. I definitely think that a whole bunch of people, like millions and millions of men are going to give the AI chatbot girlfriend thing a try. I think that almost all of them, maybe 80%, I'll say 80% are going to find, hey, this is pretty good. And even compared to human women, they're going to say, you know what, this is surprisingly drama free and yet it's still entertaining me. And they will be drawn to it and might even get some, you know, some dopamine out of it. But I believe that everybody is destined to be bored by it because you can't maintain interest in something that's not alive. We're just not evolved to do that. So once the novelty wears off and you realize that you're the one who has to initiate all the conversations, that's the story I talked about yesterday. I don't think, I don't think it's going to drive your limbic system. I feel like it's going to drive your boredom eventually, but, but I think it'll have a really predictable arc where a whole bunch of people try it and we get all worried about it and, and people are literally marrying them and, you know, and putting them in the robot. It'll be a big story and it will affect a lot of people for a long time. But I think it's self correcting. I believe that you can only get oxytocin from humans or maybe cats, but like an actual mammal of some type anyway, so as much oxytocin as I get from my cats, it's not like a human, it's not like cuddling up with some beautiful woman that you're in love with. It's not that category. So, and then the robots in the chat bots are going to be less than a cat, you know, it's going to be less limbic system than, you know, owning a dog. So I'm not too worried about the long run. All right, Trump is being hilarious again in true social talk about Chris Christie and some other people. And he did this long, you know, screed against Chris Christie and then he said about George Sloppadopoulos on ABC Fake News. And then he goes, parenthetically, by the way, what the hell happened to Jonathan Karl's hair? He looks absolutely terrible. It's amazing what bad ratings on a failed television show that was forced to pay me $16 million can do to one's appearance. All right, now, remember we were talking about sense of humor is related to intelligence. If you don't think that's funny, I don't know what's wrong with you. Maybe it's your intelligence, but to me, that's just hilarious. And here's why. If you were to look at it out of context, you'd say, really, Scott? You're saying, that's so clever. All he did was insult his haircut. Anybody could have done that. And it was inappropriate for his office. Why do you think that's funny? Well, let me explain it. It's funny because he's completely aware of the effect it has on people. That's the funny part, that he knows that it's making people who don't have a sense of humor really react to it negatively, and that makes the rest of us really amused. So he knows how most people who support him are going to react to it, and they're just going to laugh. And it's funny because the President isn't supposed to say that sort of thing about anybody. And then I imagine, and I don't know if you do this, but I imagine poor Jonathan Carl, who's just waking up in the morning. Imagine just waking up in the morning, you're like, oh, Oh, I wonder if anything's happening today. We'll. We'll check. X. It's about my haircut. And now every time Jonathan Carl goes out in public today, and maybe for the rest of his life, everybody's going to look at his haircut and say, what happened to your haircut? So not only as Trump made us laugh about Jonathan Carl's haircut, but he's. He's cursed and doomed Jonathan Carl to the end of his days, that everybody's gonna look at his haircut and go, well, he had a point there. All right, that's funny. But he did threaten to lawfare Chris Christie, which is not cool and is definitely authoritarian. Do you. Are you comfortable? Most of you are Trump supporters. Are you comfortable with Trump threatening to reopen the bridge gate thing that Christie had? You know, that. That drama to reopen it, to punish Chris Christie for saying bad things about Trump on television? Are you comfortable with that? I'm not. I'm not Comfortable with that. Let me say that as clearly as possible. No, that's fucked up. That is authoritarian. So I don't think he's serious about it. I don't even think he's a little bit serious. But I don't really want my president to threaten to do something authoritarian and absolutely out of bounds at this point, because it's not like the, it would be one thing if some whistleblower presented something that we hadn't heard before, but literally to reopen a closed case. No, that's, that's out of bounds. So this is where the people who support Trump have a important role. You need to say if you think that's too far, because that's, you know, he follows social media and he does adjust fairly quickly when things aren't working for his base. So let me say it as clearly as possible. That's too far. No, I don't support that. In other news, Israel has bombed Yemen's presidential palace, and now it's a presidential pile of debris. Apparently they hit Yemen a bunch of times. The Houthis in Yemen continue to send missiles toward Israel, and now one of them at least includes a cluster bomb. So missile with a cluster bomb, and Israel just isn't going to put up with it. So note to Yemen. Have you checked the news? Yemen? I'd like to make a little message to the Yemenis, mostly the Houthis. Have you noticed anything that's happened in the past year or so? It has to do with a pattern. You might start to notice that what happens to people who go against Israel and are trying to kill the people in Israel. Have you noticed that it doesn't work out? I mean, you may notice the not having a presidential palace. I mean, that's a little hint, but you know that this doesn't go your way in the long run. Have you noticed a pattern? Talk to Hezbollah and Hamas. Yeah, they might be able to straighten you out on this and save some time. Well, here's some advice for you. There are two opinions that once you hear them, you should ignore everything else you hear from the person who said it because it reveals that their brain doesn't work very well. And I may have mentioned this before, but when somebody says that they don't like some movement or organization because it's a cult, you know, like people call MAGA a cult and people call the woke people a cult. Basically, a lot of people call things cults. It's always dumb. And the same thing, when they say something's a religion, that's you know, not technically a religion. These are analogies. And when you run into somebody who's an analogy thinker, they. This whole MAGA is a cult is really no different from, oh, they're like Neo Nazis. It's just that there's something maybe in its exaggerated form, reminds you of something else. There's no thinking involved in that. So as soon as you hear W is a cult, they're in a cult. You don't need to listen to anything else that person says because if they believe they're using an analogy, a terrible one, I mean, it doesn't really, you know, Maggot doesn't fit the definition of a cult. If you made a checklist, most things would not be checked, right? But you can always find something that reminds you of something about something else. So it's not really thinking. And if you run into somebody who's unable to do that basic thinking, well, they're probably not philosophy majors, if you know what I mean. They probably don't have a sense of humor, if you know what I mean. If you've been paying attention, tying it all together, speaking with which, here's another prediction I made that has, as we say, aged well. I'm kind of proud of this one because it happened so quickly. I told you that Gavin Newsom's mocking of Trump by mocking his truth social posts that are often in all caps and stuff like that, I told you that that was well done and I would consider it successful. So if I'm going to be an objective observer, I would say, okay, that worked. It got attention for Newsom, and attention is the point of the realm. If you're going to run for president later, it looks like he might it. So that's basically what it did. It got him attention and it was funny and it was viral and it allowed him to raise some money as well. So that's all. That's all really well done. But what did I predict? What I predicted was that if they just kept doing the same thing, it would stop being interesting really quickly. And I think that happened that, you know, and I told you that yesterday I saw another one of his mockery posts and I wasn't tempted to read it, even though I'd enjoyed, you know, the cleverness of the first one or two. It's not. It's the same joke every time. So I'm not going to read just the same joke over and over again. So he had to. What they had to do was try to extend their victory by doing something that wasn't the same thing over and over again because people would just get tired of it and it would lose all its magic. So they had to extend it to something else and try to get another viral moment, which is so hard to do if you're planning it. Sometimes you can hit magic, which is what he did. He tried lots of things, and then he hit this one thing that worked, and he wrote it for a while, as he should. But there's no reason to believe that this is reproducible. And as proof, I give you that he now has a mocking gift shop online of, you know, MAGA related stuff. But it's mocking it, all right. And it's trying to be funny. What do you think happened when he tried to make magic happen a second time and get people to laugh at his mockery? Well, here are the products in the Make America Gavin again. The store M A G a Make America Gavin again. I see what he did there. Isn't that humorous? He replaced it. Great with Gavin. Ha ha ha. Okay. But then he had other merchandise in there. One is a hat that said Newsom was right about everything. Oh, ha ha ha. I get it. It's because Trump has a hat that says Trump was right about everything. Because that's something that people say a lot. So it made sense to put it on the hat. But how clever was Newsom to change it to newsom was right about everything. And it's a red. It's a red hat. But then another, there's a. What do you call it, Like a wife beater thing that says, Trump is not hot. He's not hot. Get it? Wouldn't you love wearing that to a party? Trump is not hot. Here's one. You know that Trump has that Trump 2028 hat, but of course he can't run for office in 2028. That's what makes it funny. Well, not to be outdone, Newsom now has a Newsom 2026 coffee mug. You can't run in 2026. Do you get that? And then one of the hats says real patriot. All right, Well, I think his. His brief time in the sun may have. May have lapsed a little bit. Yeah. Give it up. Well, South Korea is meeting with Trump today, and things are going well with the US And South Korea. So it looks like we've got Hammer down, for the most part, a trade agreement. But a big part of it, which is kind of exciting to me is that South Korea is the second biggest shipbuilder in the world after China, but actually is better than China because They have a more technological, automated process and they apparently are going to work with the United States to help make the US a shipbuilding power. Now that seems like a really, really smart way for the US to, you know, leapfrog our current, you know, completely bad at shipbuilding situation to, you know, get into the, at least onto the same field as the ones who do it well. So I like that. That looks very positive and also makes the Trump administration look smart because that, you know, when I look at that, I just think, well, everything about that makes sense and apparently South Korea is on board with it. So all good. You know, I was thinking about Trump solving the crime in D.C. apparently they've gone 10 days without a murder. Can you imagine bragging about going 10 days without a murder? I think we've lowered our standards. Hey, good news, 10 days without a murder. But, but it makes me wonder the, the minute the National Guard pulls out, because at some point they'll pull out because things will be under control. Will the murders just, you know, will there be like pent up murders and people like, oh, God, they're gone. Now I can finally murder. Carl, Carl, come here. Bang. Yeah. I mean, is that such a thing? Or are all the murderers sort of acts of passion? Or are all the murders just on the streets? And that's why. So, you know, there's so much law enforcement on the streets that they're just like, darn it, the place we like to do all our murdering, it's got all these law enforcement people. Well, it makes me wonder, now Trump is talking about getting rid of cashless bail in D.C. so it's got that. And to me that makes perfect sense because, you know, the Federal government controls D.C. and D.C. looked like it was out of control and so he moved in. But have you noticed that nobody did it before because it didn't really feel like the President's job. Even though, you know, technically the federal government should be taking care of D.C. it didn't feel like really his job. Right. And it makes me wonder, did Trump solve so many problems that he had to go look for new things that look like problems? Is he expanding his presidential portfolio? I mean, technically that's not an expansion, but in terms of showing it any attention, it's an expansion. Is it because he solved everything else? Now you might say, Scott, he hasn't solved Ukraine. And I would argue he kind of has, because the only thing I was asking him to solve for Ukraine is to solve the United States involvement. And he kind of solved it because we get now paid for Selling Europe these weapons. So the US GDP benefits from their war. We have no boots on the ground. We don't really have a risk of getting nuked because Russia, it just wouldn't be in their interest. And Putin's not crazy. So he did kind of solve Ukraine. Would we prefer that there had been a ceasefire? Well, sort of, but we wouldn't make nearly as much money as we will now. So he didn't solve it for other people, other countries, that's for sure. They've got a big problem. But he did sort of solve it for the United States that we're not putting out money and we're not really at gigantic risk. Not really. So, yeah, maybe he's just looking at cities and Chicago and stuff. We'll talk about that. Because he's running out of stuff to do. Well, I solved that. I solved the border. Now what? Well, along those same lines, Trump has signed today. I guess he's going to sign an executive order enacting legal consequences for people who burn the American flag. Well, I will give you my opinion, by the way, this is only popular with, according to Grok, 49% of Americans. So if this were an 8020 issue, then I would say, all right, you know, maybe it's not what I want to do, but if 80% of Americans want that, okay, you know, I mean, I live in a country where an 80% majority should get their way most of the time, you know, even if it's not what I want to happen. But it's 49%, less than half. Do you think that we should put a limit on free speech, which is what this would do? Because burning a flag is a form of speech. There's no question about that in my mind. You know, I wouldn't even debate that. It's obviously speech, and it's free speech. And if he puts a legal consequence on it, in my opinion, that is too far. That is unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable. And that would be quite a stain on Trump's legacy, in my opinion. Now, I know a lot of you have an emotional stake in the flag, and you say, but, but, but I kind of agree with that. I don't think people should burden the flag. We should, you know, respect the institution. But my take on it is that Trump is the one burning the flag, because to me, the flag is not a piece of material. It is a symbol. And as long as that symbol is indestructible, meaning that you can burn it all day long and it's still the flag, then it's valuable. The Moment he says, I have to punish you. If you don't show respect to this piece of cloth, then that piece of cloth has no meaning to me. I still love the country. You know, it's not about the country, but he's burning the flag to. To me. He's disrespecting the power of the flag, which is you can't destroy it. It's a concept so strong that fire doesn't touch it. That's what makes it great. And it's a symbol of free speech when somebody burns it right in front of the White House. Free speech. And it's not really hurting any people, except maybe your feelings. So let me go on record as saying no, that I would consider that authoritarian. Unambiguously, this would be a clean mistake, in my opinion. But I also acknowledge that a lot of you disagree, and you would be in that 49%, apparently. Trump has also said recently, is in favor of revoking the. The broadcast licensing for abc, NBC News. Now, the broadcasting license is for the network in general, but they also have a news part. So I don't know how that that would work. Because if you took away the broadcast license for the entire entity, would that look appropriate? I don't know. Now, his argument is that their news is 93% or whatever. The number is negative to Trump, and therefore it's not really news. It's just propaganda, and it's not even operating as news. Now, that's a pretty good argument. However, I would argue that, you know, that's kind of true for all the new sources. So if he just, you know, picked out these two for being, like, the extra bad ones for some reason, I would say that's going too far. That's too far. Now, if it's just, you know, part of his threat, so he's trying to browbeat them into giving him better coverage. I don't know. I wouldn't have a giant problem with that, because their coverage is propaganda, and it would be just another way to call them out for being a propaganda entity as opposed to a real news entity, which is fair game because that's free speech, too. But if he's serious about it and he actually revokes their licenses, Too far, too far, that would be authoritarian. So, unfortunately, in between the things which he's doing, which are, frankly, amazing and spectacular, actually, he's hinting at making Democrats right by looking like he's willing to go too far on a few topics. So. But, you know, I'm still, of course, a big supporter of Trump. And I feel it's useful that he gets honest feedback about what works and what doesn't work in terms of the public. So that's my feedback. He has gone too far and he needs to adjust. Fox News is reporting that there's a Make America Fentanyl Free campaign. It's a privately organized and funded thing. And I guess it'll be sort of like the anti smoking campaigns, you know, more informing people and telling them what the risks are. I like all of that. So, you know, it's privately funded. It's essentially, it's propaganda because you can't really reason people on a fentanyl. Yeah, you have to scare them, you know, sort of like this is your brain on drugs and that sort of thing. So, yeah, propaganda, I guess. Fentanyl better than not doing it, I guess. Gas prices for August are looking about normal, a little bit better than they were last year. This time we'd like them to be lower. But Washington examiner was talking about this, so. So the average price of a gallon of regular is at 3.16, which makes me mad every time I read the average price of gas. Because do you know what brings that average way up? California, where it's over 5, I forget what it is, but it's not even close to three. So Trump is talking about bringing his D.C. washington, D.C. plan to Chicago. That would be bringing the National Guard there to help curb the crime. But Mayor Brandon Johnson says citizens will, quote, rise up and fight tyranny. Oh, okay. It's tyranny to reduce crime in your city. He says that the city does not need a military occupation because there's been a 30% drop in homicides. Well, have you heard anything negative about data crime statistics? Do you think that the people in Chicago are feeling safe enough because crime went down or murder, allegedly, that went down 30%. And do you believe that? Do you believe murder went down 30%? It might be down 30% from the high of the pandemic. But is that where you would measure from? I feel like I would look at the. I've also told you that if you look at the percentage but not the raw number, it means somebody is trying to mislead you. If they only tell you one of the two things, either the raw number only or the percentage only. And he's doing the percentage only. That is almost always meant to deceive you. They leave out the number because the number would give you the opposite message as the percentage. If I say the percentage is down 30% and you didn't know from what the number was, you might agree with him and say, well, come on, they're doing great, down 30%. Let them keep doing what they're doing. It might go down even further. But what if the number of homicides happened to be a thousand a month? Would you say to yourself, sounds like it's going well because they're down 30%? Or would you say, oh, my God, a thousand people murdered per month. You know, we better move the military in there. So the percentage tells you a totally different story than the raw number. And I don't know what the raw number is, but it's not a thousand. All right, so this raises a question. Will that Chicago tyranny, is that going to be done by the oligarchs or the patriarchs or the white supremacists or the authoritarians? And will they steal your democracy? So these are the questions that the Democrats are raising. Are the tyranny people, the oligarchs, the patriarchs, the white supremacists and the authoritarians, are they all on the same team? Same, same bunch of people? I don't know. You'll have to ask a Democrat. They see them everywhere. I see dead people. Well, Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland, said that over 300,000 people have left Baltimore, Maryland, due to crime. So 300,000 out of what had been a city of 920,000. So basically, a third of the city, one third of the city said, I can't even live here. I'm out of here. I'm gone. Now, you know what I say about that? That's a lot of racists. So 300,000 people, probably all of them racists, left Baltimore and they need to be canceled. I disavow every one of those racists. Well, meanwhile, according to the Gateway pundit, Letitia James says that Trump is weaponizing justice in his fraud case. So let's see. Some people say that Trump is trying to get revenge. And if you heard that out of context, you heard that a president was trying to get revenge on an American city citizen, well, that would sound pretty bad, wouldn't it? Now, they also say that Trump is weaponizing the Department of Justice. Wow. If you hear that in the context, that's pretty bad. So two things I definitely don't want to see from my president are revenge. I don't want to see any of that. And using lawfare or weaponizing the Department of Justice, something I absolutely do not want to see. But you know what I do want to see is if those two things are put together, I'M fine with it. If he uses lawfare to get revenge. Well, if it's real revenge, as in somebody who has it coming. Oh, I'm completely in favor of that. Yeah. If it's somebody who law fared you and you're law firing them in revenge, totally acceptable. Totally acceptable. See, now that's full context. If you give me the full context, then I like the law faring and I like the revenge because I would call them mutually assured destruction. And if you don't actually do the mutually assured destruction, well, then it doesn't exist. To keep society together in the future. Is it a big risk that the other side will escalate and everybody will be just doing it like crazy? Yes, yes, that is a risk. And it's a better risk than not addressing it. There's a risk. We live in a risky world. Well, Trump has softened so much on TikTok, probably because TikTok helped him get elected by it turns out he was popular on Tick Tock, so that probably helped him. And they've got the official White House account on Tick Tock now that that's recent. And Trump's now saying that all the panic about the app's Chinese connection is, quote, highly overrated. So, so now that he's finding that TikTok just works to his favor, he's like, ah, you know, there's the risks that are highly overrated. He said he vowed to keep extending TikTok's deadline until a US Buyer steps in, which probably will be never because no US Buyer can buy it unless China says, yes, I'll sell it. And China is definitely not going to say, yes, I'll sell it. So he's just going to kick the can down the road and take the benefits of TikTok. So once again, Trump has taken a problem problem for the country, and he's monetized it because TikTok works so well for Trump because he's so good at social media that it allows. It definitely will allow him to raise more money for Republicans, wouldn't you say? Is that fair to say that he's monetized TikTok for the benefit of the Republican Party? I think so. So he monetized the Ukraine war, he monetized TikTok. He's on the sidelines of this fentanyl fund, but the US Government's not funding it. It's being funded by rich people who care. So he's very consistent. He just keeps monetizing things that are problems, and I don't hate it. He monetized trade. Right. The tariffs. He monetized it. That's a lot of monetizing. There was a Mexican senator who was on Fox yesterday, I guess, and actually accused her own government of being a narco. What is it? A narco state. Meaning that they were owned and controlled by the cartel. So a Mexican senator is saying it publicly and that that has to change now. It's one thing when we say it in this country, but I always wonder, I assume it's true. I mean, I'm really, really sure that the cartels are controlling the government of Mexico. But it really hits differently when, when the Mexican senator says it. And you know, I wondered if that Mexican senator is going to be alive in a year because can you say that, can, can you just out your own government as being a cartel run operation and then just go about your business and hope you don't get assassinated? I don't know. I don't know about that. So I hope she. He's got really good security. Even called her own president, a trader for working for the cartels. Wow.