Loading summary
Transcript137 lines
- [00:00]
A
Have I? Well, once you all stream in here, we'll give you the show you deserve. So if you're wondering what's different, I'll give you a little background.
- [00:13]
So I'm temporarily broadcasting from my garage slash man cave, and I've got several devices down here that are a little bit challenging for my electrical circuits. So yesterday I had two heaters, and two was too much. So I got rid of one of them, you know, because it blew a circuit. But I couldn't do the coffee maker and the heater because that blew a circuit.
- [00:46]
So I've got a whole bunch of GFIs and circuit breakers in this room, quite a few of them, and it's very difficult to figure out what's wrong. So I don't have full power in the room. I've got one outlet that works, and everything's running off it at the moment. And I'm using the overhead light because I can't get the other light to work. So massive technical challenges this morning. Then on top of that, I had a little technical challenge I wasn't expecting at all, which apparently the new. I don't know if it's the meds I'm on. I assume it is. I assume it's the meds. I fell asleep five times while I was trying to prepare the notes, and I would say that I'm not prepared.
- [01:41]
So we're gonna see what happens. I'm gonna. I'm gonna tread water here. All right, Most of you are coming in here, and I think you know by now that you found the highlight of human civilization. That's right. The highlight of human civilization. But if you like to take it up a notch. Do you know how to do that? Yeah. It's written right here on your cup. To do that, all you need is a cup of mugger, a glass of tank of chalice, 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Jump in.
- [02:32]
Perfect. All right. Everything's going to go well now from now on. And I finally figured that if I watch your comments on my phone, I can. I can pause them so I can really see what's going on here. The show will just get better and better every time.
- [02:53]
Did I leave something out?
- [02:56]
It's going to take me a while to get back on. Back on plan. All right, here's here's the real secret of today's show. You want to know a behind the curtain secret?
- [03:09]
I don't know if it's because of the meds, but I had plenty of sleep last night, you know, relative to what I usually get. However, I am very aware that my IQ is down about 40% this morning. And you probably have asked yourself, Scott, it must be difficult to do a podcast because you have to kind of quickly catch up on all these complicated stories and then summarize them and put them in order and then make some kind of a, you know, interesting observation. It's really hard. I don't know if you've ever taken the time to think about it, but it's not like I have a team of writers or anything. I do this myself. So in order to make this work, this podcast, I need every bit of my mental capacity. Do you know how much I have available to me this morning? Not every bit.
- [04:09]
I'm not even close to being smart enough to do the thing that I'm going to attempt to do right in front of you. I am really mentally degraded at the moment. This morning, while I was putting my notes together, I woke up five times, which means that without trying, I was just working away. And the next thing I knew, I was asleep. And I think it happened five times this morning. Now, it's not unusual that it would happen once, but.
- [04:43]
I would say my estimate is that my IQ is down 40% this morning. So if you always wondered what would happen if I did my show, but I was stupid. Well, you're going to find out. You're going to find out right now. All right, here's some stories that I know will delight you. You will be delighted.
- [05:06]
I always tell you there's a. There's an account on X called Massimo M A S S. Imo it's got real good tech stuff, futuristic stuff, but Massimo's writing about how there's a new fusion reactor that allegedly could power the entire planet by 2030. Now, I suppose that's pretty optimistic. How long have we been talking about? Fusion is right around the corner, but a Munich based startup, Proximo Fusion, have come up with some new concept that they think can change everything. So optimistic thought number one, maybe we figured out how to have cheap or free energy and that will give us AI and then we will enter the golden age of, of abundance. And all we really needed was some really good, really good fusion reactors. And it looks like they're on the way. Speaking of that, the Google CEO was just on another Show. And he mentioned again how data centers in space might be the secret to getting enough power. If you didn't hear me talk about it the other day, the reason you would want to put a data center in space and it wouldn't have to necessarily be in one place, so it can be distributed across satellites, I guess. But the reason you want to put it in space is that you don't have to cool it because space is pretty darn cold. And you.
- [06:46]
What else? The, the other natural advantage is that you have all the space you need. Oh, and then the other advantage is that you can place a satellite or a data center where it's always in the sun so you don't have to worry about clouds. There wouldn't be any in space and you wouldn't have to worry about it being on the wrong side of the planet because you just wouldn't put it there. So what is interesting is that the Google CEO seems committed to that being the future. But Elon Musk commented on Google CEO's comment and he just said interesting. Now you probably have heard, because I've mentioned it too, that Elon Musk is saying essentially the same thing, that we're going to have to take our game to space and we have to do it pretty fast because that might be the only way we can get, you know, all the AI and all the power we need. So the fact that the CEO of Google and the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX.
- [07:55]
Both have this super ambitious view of the world, but it seems doable. I believe pretty much all the parts exist. You would just have to engineer them together. And who better to engineer Google and Tesla? So it looks like that's going to happen. Data centers in space.
- [08:18]
So Senator Josh Hawley is introducing a bill.
- [08:23]
To require companies to track layoffs. He specifically wants to track layoffs that are caused by AI. So he'd have a better idea what's happening as it happens. But they would also track non AI layoffs. So you have a pretty good idea now, don't you think, that there was something missing, that this is even a bill? How is it that we didn't know, we didn't know why people are losing jobs. Feels like that could have been some, some kind of basic thing we should have known. But if Josh Hawley is talking to the right economists in the, in the government, and I know we got some good ones.
- [09:12]
Then he might be doing their bidding and tracking the thing that the economists in the government want to have tracked. So we'll see. So that could turn out to be a good thing.
- [09:25]
Here's some science for you. Did you know that fewer than 8%, just 8% of the couples.
- [09:35]
Of successful couples consist of a Democrat and a Republican as a couple?
- [09:43]
Does that surprise you that only 8% of couples are opposite politically? That feels just about right to me. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying, yeah, that sounds about what I'd expect, about 8%. It would be pretty hard to have a marriage with somebody who disagreed with you on the real basic stuff. That would be tough. So I think that's a, that's good.
- [10:12]
And according to this, this study, most individuals do seem to screen for political alignment. How many of you, how many of you did that? How many of you said, I better get some political alignment here? Did you do that when you were looking for your mates back whenever it was.
- [10:37]
Well, I don't think I ever have. I can't think of any time where I explicitly had that thought.
- [10:47]
But I've also been lucky that in my relationships, the people I've been involved with were not super political, you know, in preference. So it just sort of doesn't come up or didn't come up. And so it worked for me to just sort of ignore the whole political thing. But I would expect that's probably a, that's probably an exception. All right, here's another little piece of science. Let's see if we can do this. University of Montreal is talking about this, that young adolescents, especially boys, who participated in organized sports between ages 6 and 10, are less likely to defy their parents, teachers, and other authority figures. Does it track with your experience in life that the young boys who play sports are more, I don't want to say obedient. That's sort of what it is.
- [11:46]
They're less likely to defy their parents and teachers and authority figures. Does that make sense? That makes sense. But what I don't know is if the participating in sports is what causes them to, say, be more compliant with authority figures or did they start that way? And the thing that makes them interested in sports is whatever the same thing is that, you know, makes them the way they are. So I don't know if this is real science. They may have cause and effect backwards, but I, whenever I see, whenever I see a young boy who is very involved in sports, I always assume that, that they've got their other act together. Don't you? Not every time. I mean, it's not 100%, but if you see somebody who plays three sports and they can organize their life well enough to, you know, make it to practice and figure out what position they want and, you know, try to optimize it. And then they're making friends and they're learning. Learning how the game works. I think there's a really high correlation between people who are successful in navigating life and people who are successful in navigating sports. So, again, I don't know what. What causes what, but the correlation is pretty high.
- [13:13]
All right, how about this?
- [13:16]
There's a new study that finds the political differences predict lower relationship quality.
- [13:26]
Oh, that's the same one I was talking about. I put my notes in two places. If you're just joining. I was explaining that I don't know if it's because of the new meds I'm on or what, but I fell asleep five times this morning just putting my notes together. And so I probably put 20% of the time I normally put into this. So I don't know what you're going to get this morning. Yeah, it could be anything. All right, so Representative Jasmine Crockett has decided to raise her sights, and she's going to run for a Senate in. In Texas. What do you think? Is Jasmine Crockett the next senator from Texas? Maybe. I mean, I'd have to see the. I'd have to see the polls, but I don't know. Why not? I mean, if you say to yourself, but, Scott, that's crazy, because she's clearly not capable or competent, and she proves it almost every day, why would she ever become a senator? To which I say, have you been paying attention to anything in the world for the last 10 years? It doesn't matter how smart you are. It doesn't matter if you have good policies. Nothing matters. You just have to be interesting. Then people like you, and then they vote for you. That's about it. And is she interesting? Yeah, she's very interesting. She's. She's a difficult one to.
- [14:57]
Assess, wouldn't you say?
- [15:04]
She's a difficult one to assess because on one hand, she acts dumb, but on the other hand, she keeps getting good results. Have you noticed that? So how do you explain the fact that your impression of her is like, oh, that's. That's so dumb. And then Trump calls her dumb, and you're like, yeah, I knew it. We both agreed she's dumb. And then the next thing you know, she's running for senator and has a good chance of winning. So is that dumb?
- [15:39]
You know, remember that people said the same thing about Trump. When Trump first ran, let's say, 2015, people were calling him dumb. But why did he keep winning? So it kind of challenges your notion of what dumb is. If somebody keeps winning and it's not a coincidence, are they dumb?
- [16:04]
So I have to say she's very interesting. And I'm gonna. I think I'll probably refrain from, you know, challenging her on IQ because, you know, she did go to. I think she went to law school and, you know, graduated from a decent college. So my guess is she's pretty smart. But part of her act might be acting like, let's say, acting like her. Her voters might want her to act. Is that a good way to say it?
- [16:38]
So keep an eye on her. She. I suspect that she would be very competitive because, remember, it only matters if the Democrats like her, and I suspect that they're going to like all the fight she puts into it. You know, the Democrats keep saying that what we're doing wrong is we're not fighting hard enough. We gotta fight. And then she goes out and says a bunch of crazy stuff, and you say, yeah, that's some fighting. She's got some fighting. And then you feel like, oh, something's happening.
- [17:11]
Yeah. None of it looks genuine. It looks performative, but it's politics.
- [17:18]
Well, Trump is trying to navigate the fact that people, Voters seem to care the most about affordability lately. Of all the various things that they could care about, that's at the top of the list, I think, and it makes sense. I can see why it's at the top of the list.
- [17:36]
But he's got a tough time navigating it, because it's not like there's one magnificent thing he could do to change affordability. He would have to sort of peck around the edges for a whole bunch of things. You know, there might be a thing with beef and there might be a thing with tariffs, and it's just going to be complicated and distributed and, you know, it's going to be small gains, if any, and you'd have to add them all together to even notice any difference. So he's got quite a challenge to turn whatever he decides that he can do to turn it into something that people would understand and that they would say, oh, yeah, Trump did that, and now I'm paying less at the gas pump or wherever, so it's going to be tough. So I guess Trump is doing a affordability.
- [18:30]
Tour. So he's sort of getting ready for the 2026, you know, midterms, and he'll be traveling around talking about Affordability. Affordability. So we'll see. I, I would say that if you put Trump up against Jasmine Crockett, as in they're both talking about affordability, but she's got a plan, he's got a plan. I feel like his plan would look like it made sense. Even if it doesn't make enough difference. It would make sense at least. Like it wouldn't be ridiculous. Whereas I don't know what she has in mind for affordability. Do you? Are the Democrats really getting away with just saying affordability is good, but we're not going to tell you what we're going to do about. Feels like that's what's happening, right? That, that if they use the word the most, they can get elected. But what exactly are you doing? You know, Trump is doing things that are well reported and covered and you know, he's, he's trying to do things with Argentina and beef and you know, I could go down the list, but you could make a whole list of the things that Trump is doing or has done that go right to affordability. Not enough. We would all like maximum affordability. So they'll never be enough, but at least it's real. And I wonder if that's the weakness. Maybe that's where Trump has a, as an opening because he could say, you know what, affordability is really hard and it's never as fast as you want, but I'm doing 12 things to get you more affordability. Jasmine is offering you nothing but some stupid ideas that would never work because that looks like what's happening. I mean, that actually looks like what's happening.
- [20:24]
Anyway, how many of you are watching the drama.
- [20:30]
Between Candace Owens and Tim Pool? Is anybody paying attention to that? It's kind of heating up. I'll try to give you. You know, I wasn't really following it because I tend not to follow the individual drama stuff, but it finally got big enough that it's hard to ignore. See, if you don't mind, I'll just give it a quick.
- [20:56]
Quick look.
- [21:04]
So.
- [21:06]
So here is the basic idea. So Candace has a number of.
- [21:12]
What would I call them, I don't want to say conspiracy theories because that would be an insult to her ideas before actually looking at the ideas. So I don't like that phrase. I will say that she has some non standard, provocative ideas about what may have happened or may be happening around the Charlie Kirk assassination. So they were good friends, Charlie Kirk and Candace. And there's some, some kind of drama with the executives of Turning Point USA and Who knows what's true? So I haven't. I haven't really been paying attention to that because. Because you can't tell what's true. You know, there will be competing versions of what's happening and what's going to happen, but, you know, how are we going to know? But you may have heard that Tim Pool, who has one of the biggest podcasts in the country, especially for the conservative side of the world, apparently somebody took some shots at his physical facility. You know, one of his. I don't know how much real estate he has, but one of them. Nobody was injured, but imagine how you would feel if somebody drove up to your house and put bullets in it or up to your workplace. I don't know if it was one or both of those things, but how would you feel about that? So.
- [22:41]
I was watching Tim go off on Candace, not in person, but he was talking about the situation, and, oh, boy, he's not happy about the situation that she and maybe some other people have put him in because he's physically in danger and more to the point, the. The people he cares about around him. I don't know what the family situation is or the friend situation, but he's got to be very aware that he may be putting his friends and family at risk. And I can't even imagine how mad that would be if that happened to me. So however mad Tim seems, he's. He got there the honest way. You. You are allowed to be very mad at. At a situation that maybe somebody else ginned up that could put you and your friends literally in a deadly situation. So that's what he's having to deal with. He's actually talked about maybe discontinuing podcasting. Now, that would be pretty extreme given how successful he is and how much impact he has on. On the. The debate in this country. So we don't want to see him do that. But I don't think he's joking when he says that that might be something he has to consider. Just retiring.
- [24:06]
We don't want to see that. And that would. I would consider that just a really bad outcome. But I also think he has. He deserves to be safe. And if he's not feeling safe.
- [24:21]
He'S got to do whatever he has to do. And I'm not going to judge him for what he thinks makes him safe. That's completely his decision. Obviously.
- [24:32]
He'S married and has. Okay, I don't. I don't want to go any further than that. I'll just say he's married and Anything else you want to assume about that, go ahead.
- [24:44]
And. Yeah, so he's got a young child, and imagine how you'd feel if that were you. So he had some choice words for Candace. He used the C word about her several times in one. In one rant. And it's kind of shocking to see that language being used, especially on the conservative side of things. I don't know if he calls himself conservative, by the way. I think of him as independent.
- [25:16]
But you may have a different opinion. So.
- [25:21]
I'm going to try to not take sides. You okay with that?
- [25:27]
I don't like.
- [25:30]
Where it all went. And if I had to take sides, I could, but I don't have to. I just don't have to take sides. So I would like them to figure out how to work it out. I think that Candace.
- [25:45]
I think that Candace does have a responsibility to make sure that there's no extra or unnecessary risk that's being pointed in Tim's direction. That's not going to be good for anybody. It's not going to be good for Tim or his family. It's definitely not going to be good for Candace. I mean, if something happened to Tim or his family.
- [26:08]
I don't want to speculate where that would lead. But, you know, you can fill in the blanks yourself there. There's a risk. There's a very big risk here, and it's not just the Tim. So.
- [26:23]
I choose to like both of them and find value in both their. Their entertainment, but I don't choose to believe that one of them has all the right answers. And let's. Obviously, I'm talking about Candace when I say having the right answers. I don't know if she has the right answers. I. I don't know if Brigitte Macron is what she says. I don't know if anything she alleges about Turning Point USA is true. I don't know. But it's also not. It's not my biggest concern.
- [27:00]
So my biggest concern is that the. The pro Trump people don't tear themselves apart and that the country stays whole and that we focus on the things that might make a difference and not the things that are just sort of people being mad at each other. So, you know, on top of Tim having to run this business, which is a big enterprise, is a podcasting business, and on top of having this drama where he's cast into the, you know, the. The spotlight, then on top of having a young child, so he's probably not getting nearly enough sleep as he needs to he's got a lot going on. So. And Candice seems like she's just having fun.
- [27:51]
And I would, I would hope, and I assume this is the case, that she's completely aware of what kind of impact her opinions have on his family and on Maggie and all that. So I'm going to trust that she's going to act appropriately, even if it's not as quickly as you think she should. I feel like she'll work it out. Because they're both unusually smart, right? I mean, we're not talking about one of them is a dummy and one of them is not. These are two really capable, smart people, and they would be completely aware of the impact they're having on their audience, the impact they're having on the country. So I think they'll work it out. And I'm not going to take sides. I'm just going to say, you two know what makes sense. You know, you know what's a good thing to do and you know what's going too far. So I don't need to, I don't need to advise anybody.
- [29:02]
Now, some of you are going to say, but, Scott, she just wants to get, you know, the most, the most traffic. And, you know, she's not really interested in what's good for the world. I don't believe that. I believe that she does care about what's good for the world, because most people do. It would be very unusual if you didn't. To me, that would be unusual. Especially if you spend this much time in the public domain, you end up, you know, caring a lot about how your impact is. Anyways, that's enough about that. They'll work it out.
- [29:40]
Did you know, according to another study, that swearing, cursing may boost your strength and endurance according to Frontiers in Psychology? How many of you didn't know that?
- [29:53]
Have you experienced how much stronger you get when you're cursing at the same time? Now, I don't know if women know this, but doesn't every man know that, that if you're swearing, you can literally lift. You can lift more, you can throw a rock farther, you can punch harder. Every guy knows that, right? I don't feel like that's something we just discovered on a Tuesday. No. So when I see that Tim Pool is calling.
- [30:28]
Is calling Candace the C word, I say to myself, well, he's just, he's getting stronger. Otherwise, it's between them. Did you know that there's a new statistic that says any of the roughly 220,000 people have been arrested by ICE so that would be people who are getting ready to be shipped back to the country of origin. That one third of them have no criminal records. Does that seem like too much one third? Because we always knew that if ICE went into a room and they were after one person specifically, you know, let's say they knew somebody was in the room, that they'd probably check everybody in the room. So does it surprise you that people who are not legal citizens, at least in terms of, you know what I mean? Does it surprise you that they're often found with people who are also not citizens? And then ICE doesn't really have an option that they don't get to use their own judgments like, oh, this one seems nice. No. Yeah, you seem nice, so we'll leave you alone. They don't really have that option. You know, if they're in the room with you and you've. And they've proven that they're not legal residents and it's ice, they kind of have to move. They kind of have to move on that. Now, I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm saying that if one third of them don't have a criminal record on top of entering the country illegally, that wouldn't surprise me. That feels about right. NBC News is reporting that.
- [32:08]
Well, the Supreme Court is debating whether the president in his executive capacity can fire experts and scientists in the. In government jobs. And.
- [32:25]
Apparently some people think that the president should not have that power, and some people think he should because he's the head of the executive branch. But Justice Katanji Brown Jackson seems to be one of the people who, if we can judge by the way they're asking questions we don't know for sure yet, but seems to suggest that she doesn't want the president, whoever the president is, to overrule the experts. Because then you would have all these experts in the government that you hired because they're experts, and then you would have some president who's not an expert at whatever that domain is, and they'd be overruling experts. Does it ever sound like a good idea for a politician to override an expert? Go ahead, in the comments. See, this is a harder question than you think, isn't it? You thought this was a layup, right? Easiest question in the world. Is it a good idea for the politician to override somebody that everybody would agree is an expert? Not. Not even any question about it?
- [33:41]
Well, it's 2025 people, almost 2026. And let me tell you, if there's one thing you have. If you haven't noticed.
- [33:51]
There doesn't seem to be that much advantage in being an expert because the number of times the experts are just absolutely full of is so high that it looks to me almost random. I mean, I don't even see that the, you know, in a lot of domains. It doesn't even feel to me that the experts give you, you know, a 5% chance of getting a better answer. It looks like there's no chance at all. Because be you an expert or not, you're probably going to be influenced, you know, by whether you can give a speaking deal. You know, it, it you, you don't want to say something if you're an expert, that would destroy your chance of getting a speaking gig because the speaking gig could be, I don't know, 10, $20,000 just for showing up and saying some expert stuff. Do you want to give that away?
- [34:48]
No, you don't. So politicians also, of course, are not experts. So that's a problem. And also they may have their own, you know, political reasons to lie. So you've got experts you can't trust versus politicians you can't trust.
- [35:10]
So I'm not sure we live in a world where you can trust either one of them. But what I definitely don't believe is it's obvious which one's going to be right. Because, you know, how about the, you know, we could talk about climate change and 10 other things where the politician guessed closer than the expert. Guest.
- [35:34]
So.
- [35:38]
Anyway, so we don't know how the court's going to rule, but I think the smart people are saying that you want the, the executive to be in charge of the experts and not the other way around.
- [35:54]
Don't look at the bullet. I don't know what that means.
- [35:59]
It's in the comments. But who else is weighing in on this? Well.
- [36:08]
So Boo Kelly, the president of El Salvador commented on this topic on X. He said fun fact checks and balances don't truly exist unless the judicial branch can also be checked and balanced.
- [36:25]
Meaning that you, you need to be able to get rid of corrupt judges or else you can never have a proper country. Elon Musk commented on Bukele's comment and said, the only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges. No one is above the law, including judges.
- [36:47]
Now, how do you feel about that?
- [36:51]
Isn't it scary to you if the executive can fire all the judges or whatever judge they want to fire? Because that would put the executive.
- [37:02]
Really in charge of the judicial branch of the government and that was never what was intended. So I mean, whoever formed the government doesn't want that or didn't want it. So I feel like there's no right answer here because on one, on one hand I completely understand why you need to be able to control rogue judges. On the other hand, if you had complete control over rogue judges, then there's no point in having a judicial system. It's just going to be a slave to the executive. So I don't know which one works better. I suppose your best situation would be the executive is as independent as you can make them. But if you really try hard, you know the way impeachment is supposed to work, if there's really a strong reason, then you can put together this big, awkward, expensive, you know, time intensive process to maybe impeach somebody. But you don't want it to be too easy. You don't want the president to be able to call up and say, all right, get rid of that katanji, you know, Jackson, you don't want that.
- [38:18]
All right, we'll see how that goes.
- [38:23]
Trump has threatened a 5% tariff on Mexico because Mexico apparently is reneging on some of their agreements for water rights. So I guess the U. S. Farmers get some significant amount of water from south of the border and apparently Mexico has the ability to dial that up and dial it down. And they currently have it dialed down. And Trump is doing what I've never heard Biden do this. Is this a problem that we've always had but no prior president even dealt with it? Because what Trump is doing is saying, no, you're going to give us the water you agree to or we're going to give you a tariff. Now will that work? Maybe, maybe it goes from 5% to 10% if it doesn't. But it does seem like at least he's acting on it. And that feels like a better president than one that isn't acting on it. So we'll see. I'm in favor of Trump getting tough with Mexico over water. We can't mess around with water rights.
- [39:35]
Water rights, especially if you have an agreement, you're going to have to, gonna have to push that hard. You, you can't be flexible on that once we've got the rights.
- [39:47]
Well, interestingly, Trump has given the green light, according to Reuters in the New York Post, for Nvidia to ship their powerful AI chips to China despite the fact that people are worried about the, the national defense and national security risks. So I'm a little bit unclear. It's going to allow Nvidia to export its H200 chips to China. But what are those? The top ones in the comments? Can you give me a fact check? Are the H2 hundreds the most powerful chip at the moment.
- [40:31]
Or is the H100 more powerful? Feels like 200 would be more powerful than 100, but I don't know if that's the case. So there's a little delay in the comments, but somebody will tell me. One of you knows we got a lot of. We got a lot of engineers in the. In the audience here.
- [40:52]
No, no clue. No, no, won't help me. You need a sentence. H300, the most powerful. Are you joking? I can't tell if you're joking. Is there a H300 chip?
- [41:07]
All right, well, whatever it is.
- [41:10]
The interesting part of the story is that Trump is going to allow Infinity to sell these to China, these H200 chip. But 25% of what they would make would be paid to the United States government.
- [41:27]
So, once again.
- [41:29]
Trump sees a pile of money sitting on the table, and he says, as he always does, hey, is this pile of money going anywhere? Does anybody own this? Well, we. We kind of own it. Would it be okay if I said, you can't sell to China unless I get 25% of this pile of money? Well, we don't love that, but, yeah. What are you going to do? So, once again, Trump just picks up the free money. It's not exactly free, but it's about as close as you can get to free. All you have to do is say, I'll say yes, if you give us 25% of this pile of money. That's pretty close to, you know, free money. So, you know, until we saw Trump do this the first few times, which is make a deal with an American company like intel, where if the. If the US Government helps the company, then the US Government gets to share some of the upside potential. When it first happened, you probably thought to yourself, oh, no, you know, we're. We're gonna. We're gonna turn into a fascist country where, you know, the. The economy and the government are now merged. Well, I. I could see why people would be worried about that, but.
- [42:54]
Is it bad?
- [42:56]
Again, I. It makes sense to be worried and to watch it carefully, but it doesn't look like it's a problem yet. And if Trump can put together a. Some kind of a future where the government is making, you know, a percentage of our biggest companies, and we're also cleaning up with tariffs.
- [43:22]
Maybe. Maybe we have some way out of our debt problem. Now Elon Musk has said the only way, and I do believe him. The only way. The only way we survive our gigantic government debt is if robots and AI just goose the economy to a level we've never seen before and suddenly it just creates wealth like we've never seen. Now is that possible? Do you think it's possible that AI and robots and maybe self driving cars and maybe space stuff, you know, that the biggest things that are happening, if those, let's say, four or five things and maybe, maybe fusion in a few years, if those four or five things just completely change the game, even to the point where you don't need a job anymore. It's like everybody has everything. I mean, that's going to take a while to get to that point. But is that our only way to survive?
- [44:26]
All right, I have to look at this comment. Somebody's saying.
- [44:31]
Did my IQ drop more than 40%?
- [44:36]
Where's that comment? It went away. There it is.
- [44:41]
All right, you're. So Sam says your IQ dropped more than 40%. Scott, what responsibility does Candace have? I wouldn't give my opinion if you didn't listen to her podcast. Okay, that's a stupid comment, so I thought I would highlight your stupid comment. What part of that do you. Do you think I disagree with? I don't even know what topic you're on. I mean, other than the people you named, you're not even making a smart point. There's not even anything to disagree with. It's just so stupid.
- [45:19]
So if I were you, I wouldn't talk in public if that's the best you can do.
- [45:24]
So you start with a ad hominem and then you ask this question. What responsibility does Candace have, which has never been a topic and is not one that I'm interested in, so I'm not interested in the topic and it's not one we're talking about. And you said I wouldn't give my opinion if you didn't listen to her podcast.
- [45:46]
Really? Have you ever heard of what podcasts are? You know that sometimes we're well informed and sometimes we're just catching up. Do you think I should not talk about it because I'm just catching up now. I'm not interested enough to dig into the details of what Candace's opinion is. You tell me why that matters. Why does that matter? Does it matter that I have a well informed opinion about Candace Owens opinion? That doesn't matter. In what way? Am I better off or the world better off? Or are you Better off if I've done a deep dive on Candace Owens opinion about Turning Point usa. It doesn't have any impact on me. I don't think it has any impact on you. So why don't you grow up a little bit and stop being an idiot.
- [46:42]
And that would be cool.
- [46:47]
All right. Probably. If you're as dumb as Sam is, you should not say things in public. I'm gonna leave. I'm gonna leave your stupid comment up there, Sam, so that everybody can mock you for how dumb you are.
- [47:06]
All right, let's see what else we got. Well, Ukraine, of course. We have to talk about Ukraine. Ukraine. So Zelensky says that the recent U. S. Talks were constructive. I never believed that. When you. When you're talking about peace deals. And until it's a done deal, I don't believe anything that anybody says when they characterize these negotiations.
- [47:36]
Anyway, Zelensky thinks that Europe is the obstacle to peace. Well, maybe Bright Bar News is writing about this, but apparently he said an interview that negotiations with the US to find an end to the war were constructive but indicated that questions remain regarding the position of Europe. Well, do you believe that there's anything like an agreement of where the borders should be if. If they stop shooting? There's no agreement. I don't believe we're even close to an agreement. I have no idea what they're talking about. Just. I feel like maybe they're just trying to act like it's closer than it is.
- [48:23]
All right. And then one of the questions is how can. How can Ukraine get something that's NATO like protection without being part of NATO?
- [48:39]
Yeah. So is that even an option? What would you do that wasn't NATO but looked and acted like NATO and would keep Russia from attacking Ukraine? It would sort of just look like NATO with. But a little bit crippled. So what good is that? Anyway, I don't think anything is close with Ukraine and Russia. So, you know, I said that it was going to be like a year before anything got serious. I think it'll be a year because Russia is just going to be grinding them down and they don't seem to be in any hurry, so they'll just keep grinding. All right? So I told you, those of you who joined at the beginning, that my IQ is about 40 lower today and I fell asleep five times just getting my notes together. So what I'm going to do, which I haven't done before, but I always wanted to do this, is I want to look at X.
- [49:46]
And then see what's.
- [49:49]
See what's new on there and then comment on it live.
- [50:00]
All right. I don't want to do the ones where somebody's mad about somebody's race or ethnicity.
- [50:09]
If you don't. Okay. Actuators. Well, I don't think I'm seeing anything that's super interesting. Honestly.
- [50:22]
Trump reversing Humphrey's executor is not priced in. Okay, I'd have to read that. Don't feel like it.
- [50:31]
China says no thanks to Nvidia's H200 chip even after Trump said go ahead. So here I am, I just Talked about that H200 trip and China's like, no thanks. All right. According to Mario Nofal, in a plot twist no one saw coming, Beijing is now restricting access to Nvidia's ultra powerful H200 chip right after Trump cleared the way for them to get it. Why are they doing that? Does it say why? Why would Beijing block its own companies from buying it? And the answer is control, paranoia, strategy. Maybe all three. Well, we don't know. Maybe. I'm going to put a idea out there. Do you think that China has, they're getting close to making their own chips and we don't know about it. If I had to guess, I would say the reason that China would restrict access to for its own companies to get these chips is that they have a some other source but it's not quite, quite ready yet. So they want to delay until they can get the source that they want and not have to rely on Nvidia. That's what I think.
- [51:49]
Oh my goodness. Now I'm not going to read that.
- [51:54]
China just killed the Silicon tax. I don't even know what that is.
- [51:59]
How about.
- [52:03]
How about, let's see what else is big.
- [52:08]
A wise man said Marine Corps should pay for Marine Corps branded pull up bars at every airport gate around the country. So when you're waiting for your flight you can do pull ups.
- [52:21]
Okay.
- [52:27]
All right. Steve Malloy is always fun.
- [52:31]
So Steve Malloy is one of the climate doubters and he says the real inconvenient truth is this says Big Joe bastard I guess does somebody on X. After 30 plus years and more than 10 to 12 trillion spent globally on the climate emergency that Al Gore and the laris megaphones told us was already upon us. None of the short term catastrophic predictions came true on the timelines given none is zero human well being, life expectancy, poverty, all those things improved faster than at almost any time in history. Okay. The people who actually risk their own money and that would Include banks, insurers, developers, home buyers, keep voting with trillions of dollars that the doomsday version is not imminent. That's a pretty good point, isn't it? That the people who are putting their own money on the line are acting like climate's not going to stop them. Yet the policies, taxes, bans and surveillance systems being rolled out in the name of climate are more intrusive and permanent than anything we accepted, even at the height of COVID.
- [53:45]
All right, good point. How, how much do you think that everybody agrees with the statement that none of the predictions came true? Because if you turned on.
- [53:58]
Let'S say, Real Time with Bill Maher and let's say he had a Democrat guest, do you think that the Democrat guest would agree with the statement that none of the predictions of climate disaster have come true? Just none of them? Would they agree with that? Because I saw just recently somebody in that category who claimed that a lot of the predictions were true. Are you aware of any predictions that are true in terms of doom? Are there more, More accidents? Does the. Have the ice caps melted, you know, beyond what we'd expect? Maybe. Did the. Some kind of animals die? I'm not aware of anything that happened that was true. But it could be that I'm in my bubble, right? I might just be in my bubble, but it must be fun to be Steve Malloy, because I believe he's been, he's been making these points for 10 years. And now when he makes makes a post like that, I look at it and I go, well, you were, you were 10 years early. I didn't doubt him, by the way. I didn't doubt him, but I didn't know how accurate it would be. He was very accurate.
- [55:22]
Eric Doherty on X. He's got a post here about Caroline Levitt, spokesperson for Trump. She nuked Democrats as, quote, the greatest con artists in American politics. So she said they're pretending to champion the issue of affordability when they themselves created the worst inflation crisis in a generation. You can't create the problem and then, you know, act like you're the one solving it. Now, I'm not a big fan.
- [55:53]
Of trying to attribute blame because that feels like living in the past.
- [56:00]
You know, it's worth understanding how we got here. But if you're trying to solve it, I'd rather just focus on the solving it part. You know, I realize politics is politics, but it doesn't really help me to, to hear the attributions of blame. All right.
- [56:20]
Let'S see.
- [56:26]
David Axelrod says Judge Grants Justice Department request to unseal Ghislaine Maxwell's records in the sex trafficking case. What are we going to learn if Ghislaine Maxwell's records get unsealed? Probably nothing. Like usual.
- [56:48]
He says. I hope POTUS reads them before he pardons her. Well, I, I think I can agree with David Axelrod on this, that we never know why somebody gets pardoned. So, you know, whatever we know isn't what they.
- [57:10]
Isn't on the New York Times. Okay, looking at your comments.
- [57:15]
How about.
- [57:19]
Oh.
- [57:23]
Yep.
- [57:28]
Mass shootings. All right, this just people defending themselves against other people claiming things.
- [57:36]
President Trump was in, I guess he was talking to Politico. He said, so Trump said that Maduro's days, the head of Venezuela are numbered before refusing to provide Politico with a plan of action. So Trump just says, quote, his days are numbered. Reporter, can you rule out an American ground invasion? Now, is that the dumbest question in the world? Since when does Trump ever rule something in around if it's military, he doesn't. How many times has he told us, I'm not going to rule anything in around. It just limits his own options. But Politico has to ask, can you rule out an American ground invasion, Trump, Why would I talk to you? An extremely. An unfriendly publication. So he just attacks the publication for asking the question? Basically, and I agree with him.
- [58:36]
Ooh, interesting. There's a show called Pluribus on Apple tv. Have you heard of that? Glenn Greenwald says, I've never seen a show as polarizing as Vince Gilligan's Pluribus. Well, now I want to watch it. Many people I like, hate it. Boring, slow and insufferable, some say. But I guess Glenn says it's one of the best, most thought provoking TV programs ever. Can't recommend it enough. All right, Glenn, I am in. You have convinced me.
- [59:14]
All right.
- [59:16]
Kamala Harris. Rich Barris, the people's pundit, says Kamal, Kamala Harris, one of the most disliked and least consequential VPs in history, usurped her boss unduly, blah, blah, blah, before losing the election. Okay, I don't know what he's getting to. You have to get to the point faster than that.
- [59:40]
All right, all right. That's all I need for today.
- [59:44]
Ladies and gentlemen. We should watch the show Pluribus. I'm going to watch that tonight. I am sold.
- [59:55]
That's some really good writing. Good.
- [60:04]
As ruled, illegal, blah, blah. Talked about Pluribus a few weeks ago. Tim Pool did all right. Some of you like it a lot. All right, I'll watch it. I'll give it a try. All right, everybody, I'm going to say a few words privately to my beloved subscribers at locals. The rest of you, thanks for joining. I enjoyed it with everybody except Sam. Sorry, Sam, you failed today.
- [60:34]
But the rest of you, I'll see you tomorrow. And beloveds.
- [60:40]
I'm going to be coming at you in 30 seconds. We will be private.