Open pom, pom, pom, pom, pom, favors everybody, oh there, you are hey Harry about in good to see you the rest of you come on in. He seemed a little slow this morning what's going on what's going on, but I do notice that you all look a little bit sexier than usual. I think that's probably just from the exposure to coffee with Scott Adams. You can have that effect, but before we get going, I think you know what you need. You need a little thing called the simultaneous sip and you can do that without much preparation at all. All you need is a copper, mug or glass. Snifter Stein, cellist, acre third, is flash, can't

grill goblet vessel of any kind shell with your favorite liquid, I'm partial to coffee and joining me now for the simultaneous up the dopamine end of the day and the thing that makes everything better go better than ever: whoa whoa. Let's talk about a few things I mentioned in the title of this periscope that the simulation is talking to us. Every now and then I feel as though we're just in sort of a simulation where the writer is writing. Hackneyed, sort of obvious plot parts where you say

Yeah that part's obvious I saw that cover. That's exactly the way I would have written it. Here's an example. Kim Jong owners decided that the resort that he built with the help of South Korea some some years ago is too shabby. It was a tear it all down and start over and build himself a new, better resort. Do I have to even finish the rest of this Kim Jong on needs, help building a luxury resort. Oh, come on. Are you telling me that this stuff is randomly happening? There's gotta, be somebody writing this this reality, because what could be more perfect as an opening for president Trump than to say you know, I know a guy.

Let's just get together and talk about you resort. Would it be the coolest thing ever? This is not going to happen, but just you can imagine it in this weird world. Would it be the coolest thing ever if the President invited Kim Jong on over to the White House just to talk about the resort and then just then that's it yeah. We just wanted talk about the resort, see if we could help now, you saved yourself wait, wait, wait! That would be a waste because what about nuclear weapons and everything but here's the thing you don't have to worry too much about a company or a country that has nuclear weapons. If they like you, that's how it works. People point their weapons that people they don't like. So if President Trump just

continues to like Kim Jong Hoon as long as he is president, we don't really have much of a problem now. The next president might be a problem, but what are the odds of Kim Jong Moon needs to be wants to build out a quality resort? That's just too perfect Steven Crowder Youtube personality. I don't want to call him, but he's got a youtube. Show with a lot of lot of followers and he claims that he has discovered that Google is restricting search. Does for Tulsi Gabbert, but only in the United States. So, apparently, if you search in Europe, you get lots of results. If you search the United States, you get fewer here's. My problem with that. I do not for a moment out that the allegation

that is true, but is that the only way this could happen- and the answer is maybe not. This is one of those situations where the other explanation could fall into that big grey category of things you couldn't have imagined things you never thought of things that are caused by other things. You didn't know were things, so it certainly completely feasible. With fits all observed, everything the Google would be intentionally suppressing some candidates. None of that would be surprising. None of that would, I think, even be new, but is this one of those cases? The trouble is that for every one of these situations, where you're sure you use you've caught them, got you now

now. There's there's no way you can explain this away. Sometimes there are ways to explain it away. There's just not obvious. Now I don't know if there is one in this case, I'm making more of a general statement that when you see some specific claim about a social media platform might be true. It might be true, but you don't know all the variables involved, so it might not be true. Let me give you an example where I can't imagine anything but bad behavior being a reason. I recently got a dm from somebody who follows me on Twitter. Both of us are, let's say names you might be familiar with. So the

The dm to me is somebody you may have seen on twitter or would know of the person from that person's other work, yeah and informed me that he or she had to that just keeping some privacy in the conversation room and told me the here she has had to repeatedly follow me on Twitter, but I think three or four times now and each time I guess Aug fall Automatically now I say to myself: well, first of all, this same thing happened to my brother and my brother only follows one person, My brother only follows main, I said, is the only reason is on Twitter just to follow up his one person. He follows, and, after months of following main one day, got automatically Unfall and now do you think there's any chance. But that was a fluke or a random accident with Twitter.

Maybe yeah maybe, but I can't I can't I see as being possible and then, when the the newer one reported, it is the same thing when I add a little twitter poll sometime ago, which I asked some of the people of. I have been the automatically on followed from me, and I think I had an assist in other people or something well whatever was was big number, so is seems to Maine the twitter automatically unfollowing is thing, but I don't know why it doesn't necessarily mean everybody's intentionally, doing it because, if you've ever worked with software, you know that unintentional consequences are the most common thing in the world. So, for example, let's say the algorithm couldn't handle. I don't know a certain volume of things.

You would only notice it with some users who have high volumes of activity because it's a volume related bug, so I could. I could certainly see this. Somebody like me, was, I guess, three hundred and forty two thousand followers, and maybe if I've got a tweet, that's getting a lot of attention. This is just a hypothetical I'm not saying this is likely, I'm just giving you a hypothetical. Could it be that there could be a bug that would only affect larger accounts and because I tend to be looking for problems and people reporting them to me because they're looking for problems, could it be the conservatives here about the bug while it's happening at the same rate with large left leaning accounts but they're not looking for it 'cause. They don't expect, there's a problem. Could it be just selective attention that is a universal bug that affects some people?

there are some circumstances, but the people on the left have no reason to suspect the platforms are doing anything wrong. So I'm just never noticed. Is that possible totally possible? It's a it's completely possible that what looks unambiguously like it has to be bad behavior could have some other explanation, so to avoid loser. Think always remind yourself that the most likely explanation for an event- you can't explain, is something you haven't thought of is just something beyond your experience, but it's not that unusual.

By the way, if you have not ordered my book, lose you think it's available now for pre order, and it would help me a lot if you do that. So please do because sooner is better all right. Let's talk about Germany, so here's the here's more of the the simulation winking at us. I I thought this was a fake story when I first read it, but I think this is a real story. 'cause, it was on a real news site. Was it on Fox news? I think Germany's German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that the countries attempt at building a multicultural society have utterly failed.

Can you believe that so Angela Merkel, one of Trump's biggest critics and, of course everybody in the world, is a critic of Trump for wanting to limit the amount of of or at least amount or even types of immigration, because it's a drain on the it's a burden on the country if it takes too much stimulation takes away from jobs, etc. You know the arguments, but Angela Merkel has just come right out and said that the immigration and the multicultural society utterly failed. Is that the most mind blowing thing you've ever seen now she does go on and say that they are committed to continuing immigration,

and their continued and they are committed to making it work, even though it is not worked yet so is Shea said fairly unambiguously that I mean utterly failed is as clear as you can. Say something she's, saying that the thing that has been my primary policy, one of my biggest differences with the president was doing it the other way, my biggest policy, almost a signature or you know a vent. Is it under failure and I'm gonna keep doing it? That's actually what you said it's mind blowing and the thing is that with Trump

I think Trump supporters have always had the following feeling that Trump will be excoriated eviscerated and criticized more than you've ever seen. Anybody criticized for most of his decisions in the short run, but that time would vindicate him. In other words, he's making trump often makes what I would call adult decisions that really really hurt when they happened. But the whole point is that later you'll be better off, so I would say that Trump is indicated on read the Goshen Asians, with China, for example, when you say it's been in the can, meaning that every the critics said don't know you can have a trade war of the economy will plunge, it happened. Trump was right, I mean it. It had a big effect on some statements which we can do what we can do to help ease such as

farming segment, but apparently it didn't hurt our economy at all. Trump was right and, as we learn more about China's bad behavior, the country has been purse did by Trump from a lease tried alone. It's just business two, oh my god. China is a real problem, a lot of different levels from Fenton role to you, name it and is to stealing r, I p, to bad bad trade negotiators. So now I think Trump has been completely vindicated, no matter what happens with China if we get a trade deal, he'll be vindicated, and if we do a couple, he'll also be vindicated because remember. The starting point is that we don't want those old deals which I know they're, not a good partner. He's right, I would say it's been totally vindicated when Trump became president

even before he was sworn in. The expert said the economy is going to crumble. Crumble I say: did it no, it did not. The all. The experts who are anti Trump were all wrong. Here's another one! Just to blow your mind uh, it looks like things are going to workout in Syria, as of this morning, so maybe that'll change by tomorrow, but as of this morning, it looks like Russia and Turkey have decided to work together to patrol the the safe sounds which will allow Turkey to repatriate people. It will create a much more stable situation. It killed exactly zero american troops to get it done, none how many curds got killed. Have you heard because my news sources

don't tell me I don't know if even one has died, do you I mean? I assume people have died because his military action bombs are going off. I don't know how nobody would die, but why, if we heard zero estimates with reliable ones, you know from some kind of entity that you would trust zero estimates of deaths. Maybe there were many, maybe there were many because it looks like they've worked it out and it looks like the president is going to be totally vindicated again, meaning that shaking the box. I just saying alright we're out if you can't make a deal with us in make a deal with us out, so he took his out. I think history is good love him for this. Let me ask you another question. This is for the historians historians please weigh in.

Is there any american president who has had fewer military troops for our country die during his first three years, as in president, had fewer military deaths from his own country? In his first three years, probably actually some periods where we weren't fighting much, but he might have the record yeah. You might have to go back to the Sony said Van Buren Kelvin, college you might have to go back a while, you might have to go back a while and if you do go back, you end up with a lot of accidental military deaths. I mean my guess, is that if you go back, you know a hundred years, you had military people dying from all kinds of things that they didn't need to be dying from that were not necessarily

military related. So so this is Jimmy Carter. I don't know maybe tell that second simultaneous up without the simultaneity was great too. So it looks like we're heading towards situation where the truck might get impeached. At the same time, he may have the best record of any president for preserving life. You know military life on in our country. He might have the best economy of all time. The best policy about trade negotiations- and then I talk,

about this before. Even the left is agreeing that Trump made Mexico pay for the wall. Even his critics agree that he made Mexico pay for the wall now. What I'm talking about is actually paying for their own troops to guard the southern part of Mexico to keep the caravans from coming up witcha definitely is a big explanation- is a big expense. So I don't know it just seems like one thing after another, Trump is being proven to be correct in the wrong in the long run. What do you think of this story that Hillary Clinton's email server? There were a bunch of improprieties by a bunch of people, but none of it raises not level illegality. I guess so there won't be any legal anything for Hillary Clinton Base

on email server. Now, let's all check our predictions. What was your prediction about the outcome of the Hillary Clinton Dale situation once you knew that Republicans were going to be looking into it, sort of it's not Hillary's own insider team that was looking into. It was Republicans and Democrats too, but what did you think was going to be the outcome? Well, I'll tell you what my prediction was. Does anybody remember what my prediction was for the emails. No big deal, that was my prediction. My prediction was it's no big deal. It will never turn into anything 'cause. There's enough there. There are some things that should have been done. The way they were done, but there just isn't enough. There that are well would become illegal.

Now was that your prediction, because one of the things I recommend in loser think is that you track your predictions, even if you didn't make them, even if you didn't make them in pub as I did track, how many times you're right and how many times you're wrong 'cause. If you find out that your predictions are consistently wrong, maybe do some Differently, I would say that this is the situation in which my prediction was exactly right: yeah, it wasn't perfect. People did some things, some things categorized wrong, but not much there. Just nothing. There. Now. What do you think will come of the the Ukraine phone call situation? Well, for those of you who say, I never criticized the president or this administration. Let me criticize them

and and the administration right Now- and this will be a pretty big criticism- so again store this away. When you are tempted to say Scott only agrees with the Denton says whatever he does is right and it's all good. I am starkly going to disagree with how the president and his staff have handled the Ukraine phone calls all right. Here's what they're doing wrong there should be going directly at it. They almost did uh. The president has said it was a perfect phone call and then Mulvaney did his confusing thing. Sorry. I thought he was talking about one thing, but then he tried to clarify it and made it worse. So I would say that the administration has completely blown an easy lay up, here's the layout number there will be. It might be some lawyer who tells me that this is a bad idea, but this is my opinion for

The president should have said and still get, and his administration should have said and still can and the pundits who support him should have said this and still can that it was absolutely the president's job to look into any problems with the Bidens and Ukraine's it's his job and here's the here's. The key part, is his top priority, so you need to throw that it, don't don't just say: well, it's the dozens job to make sure that there's no foreign interference of our political system Biden is still leading in the polls, not just against other Democrats but against Trump according to all objective measure measures, if you take your subject of the end of it for a moment, Biden is the most likely next. President. Does Biden have some things which need some explaining

not be illegal, but certainly we need some visibility on it with his connections with Ukraine. Yes, on ending useful. Yes, there's no question that, because Hunter Biden had an association, there was a lot of money, for we can't tell what presumably political connections that alone the stuff that we know the public knows is by far enough for the president to say, can you look into Joe Biden? Is there any Joe Biden anything that we need to worry about with Ukraine and look into his son?

Take it off now. Have you heard the president say that somebody said he said it? I have not heard the president say these two things, it's my job, it's my top priority. That's the key part. The top priority part is the making you think past the sale part. If you just say it's my job, they'll say I know it's not, maybe that maybe the FBI should be doing that. They'll argue it even if their argument is bad. So if you just say yes my job to look into these things, it's not enough. Take it to the next level level? Two. It was my top priority 'cause you want them to argue, not whether it was your job, yes or no 'cause. You know, they'll say no, it was his job, but they'll say no. You want to you, want them to argue past the sale of whether it was his job and into the sale of was it his top priority, or just something important top priority

or just something important top priority or just important. If you can bring their minds there, then you have them exactly where you want them 'cause, it's either a top priority or just something important, but to hear them. Let me say I've got a little quote here from somebody on the other team talking about this in the worst possible way, so Who said this was it in some political piece today somebody said that a bomb doesn't matter who that the Trump supporters are being forced into a fall back argument right. So this is what the the anti trumpers were saying saying that what he did was inappropriate. Talking about the

rain phone call and asking them to look into buying agreeing that it was inappropriate but fall short of the standard for high crimes and misdemeanors needed for impeachment. This at the fall back argument to say: yeah: ok, he did it, but it's not that bad. It's not impeachable bad! That's not the fall back argument. That's a terrible fall back argument. How 'bout using the argument. Instead of a fall back argument, it's not a fall back to say it was his job to look into foreign interference. There was plenty of evidence that says that should be looked into and this is top priority. It's not a fall back argument is the argument. It's never been made. Why am I the only person saying this, but does anybody by the way I've said this now a number of times in public? Maybe not as clearly as I'm saying it now, I've not seen anybody arguing

what I'm saying. Is there any legal reason that he can't claim the keeping the country safe from foreign interference, especially when is so blatant in the sense that there's enough there that you need to look into it, which is diff from saying it's blatantly illegal or it's problem, don't know if it's problem do no. I want to look into it um. It is a job to ensure the foreign aid is not wasted in corruption, correct but off point, so those people were saying, but he was doing his job by tell them to look into crowd strike in the twenty sixteen election. That's not the part anybody is arguing about. So you don't need to defend the part that nobody's talking about that part's fine, it's only the part about looking into bite and that the left has been allowed to define as digging up dirt on your political.

As long as you allow them to define what happened as digging up dirt on your political opponent, Well, let's never right right, then, he's going to be in favor of that. But there are some words that mean exactly the same thing and are one hundred percent accurate. He was protecting for and against foreign interference, he was doing his job and it was a top priority and we have a deal with with Ukraine that we cooperate on this stuff. There's no way that my approach isn't the kill shot on this, and I am puzzled why the Trump administration doesn't take it unless there's some kind of legal reason. That's not obvious to me. I don't know how it would ever be illegal to do your job and also work on your top priority.

With an ally who has an explicit agreement for this, that we have a coordination agreement on judicial, so it blows my mind that the administration has completely, I would say, completely messed up on their response to all of this stuff. They had a clear kill, shot still do not using it they're letting the kill shot, just lay there how bad it was my job and it was my top priority and you would be mad if I didn't do it um, I'm loving the Republicans response to this guy Taylor. Who apparently was one of the.

Secret testimonies, so secret, meaning that some of the Congress people know what was said, but not the public. It's all secret secrecy kit, so because it's secret, the bad people can define it anyway. They want. So the Democrats can say: oh ha, you would not believe the secret stuff we heard about the president today I can't tell you, but man he's so impeached. Based on what I heard that I can tell you now. What are you going to do with that? There's nothing! You can do with it, because you can't prove your case. You can't the facts. You just have somebody making an opinion, so the Republicans have gone with this they're saying that his his testimony was totally dismantled by somebody else's is questions

is that true is a totally true that the witness Taylor and the case was totally dismantled by a few questions from a Republican who knows who knows we weren't there, so it's actually diabolically clever to simply make up live the offsets their life, because I'm pretty sure it's a lie. That something was said that that's you know just as impeachments is sure. Thank I'm sure. That's a lie from the Democrats.

It's probably a lie from the Republicans to say that the testimony was so dismantled and discredited. It's all done. That's probably not true. It's probably some gray area in between that's exactly what you thought. It would be a big gray area in between, but it's a good strategy. 'cause, nobody can check it all right. The president started calling the Democrats. The do nothing Dems and people have asked me- is that good, good branding, Is that effective, good persuasion, bad persuasion and it's sort of a mixed bag? Do nothing Dems rolls off the tongue really well easy to repeat. You know what it means it's on target. It looks like they aren't doing anything, except

just in the president, here's what it doesn't have it doesn't have a visual. It is not scary. You're too strong guest persuasion techniques are sphere. This doesn't really have any fear that the last year, the less the Congress does, you know maybe the better off. We are right. People are not afraid of Congress not do and stuff. That's just business as normal. Maybe they prefer it and there's nothing visual about the concept of Democrats. Doing nothing. Doing nothing is literally the opposite of a visual there's, nothing there. So the president's usual persuasive genius, I would call it often has something in There- there's some fear or a visual the wall Center. If he doesn't have that in this one, but it does have it's got a good sound to it

rolls off the tongue and do nothing Dems. Do nothing dams. It's just that. I don't know what you would call that musical sense, but it the just the words work well together. Now, that's something he does really well. I've talked to the belt that was make America great again make America great again, almost almost as a precaution beat to it make America great again. It almost has drumbeat I mean that is seriously good stuff make America great again. Do nothing. Dems do nothing dams. It's got a good precaution, but I'd say it's not it's not his a plus material because it needs a picture for some fear doesn't have either Joe Biden. Is. I don't know what to make of this, but he's a he's going up in the polls Joe Biden is actually going up in the polls. Is

basically a walking advertisement for dementia and he still the top Democrat now one way to look at it is well he's got good name recognition. Another way to look at it is gosh. I I guess they really want to win, because they think he's the one who could win and that's all they care about. That's one way to look at it. Here's another way to look at it: how terrible or the sixteen or whatever people running for the democratic nomination. How bad mostly be the Joe Biden who I don't even know if you'll survive the primaries I mean, God knows you, may you may just fall apart? What does it tell you that he's like has a commanding lead and, and what's the what's, the other news? The other

news is that even the Democrats don't think that bind can win against Trump. They just don't think he has. The basic capability of you know showing up in performing and so they're talking about all these speculative people, jumping in, like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, MIKE Bloomberg and some governor, if your team is talking about, is she kidding every person who actually is running in favor of someone who hasn't even decided to run? You are in panic mode. The Democrats are clearly in maximum panic mode. What would be the worst possible thing for the Democrats, Joe Biden, getting the nomination?

Can you think of anything worse for the Democrats, because, first of all, even if he wins they get an old white guy. Who's got some troubling racial comments in the past. He's not a racist, but still you know he's he's got a little baggage there. What would be worse for them losing? I don't know if he'll play winning or losing that one carry the way they're both bad, so the Democrats have to be in panic. Mode is gonna, be in panic mode. So I've said before that none of the top three he are viable candidates against Trump, certainly not Warren. Certainly not bye, birdie birdies keeps falling. So what happens if one of the top three drops out? Let's, let's get this okay, let's say one of the top three drop7. It depends

who it is. It went right. Let's say that Bernie's poll numbers keep going down, let's say: Bernie decides that he can trick. Number from his lower poll numbers people are too worried about his age in his health and let's say you decide to throw all of his support to Elizabeth Warren. Would that put Liz with more than the lead. And if it did, would that be enough for the Democrats to completely panic and say: okay, we got it. We got to get somebody else, so there is no way Elizabeth Warren can win. So what might they do? Well one thing: they might do they ready for this. The my talking to Joe Biden, Ann Arbor running they might get him to quit because of Joe Biden quits his

A more middle of the road supporters are going to have to go somewhere. Will they go toward? I don't think so. I think they're going to go down to Buna. Judge in Harris And, depending on whether Democrats think that either booty judge or Harris have some chance of winning or maybe clover char, but she's, even down at three percent or something I feel as though eh possible path is that Bernie goes first, that puts warned in the lead because she would pick up owners and one Warren is in the lead over by and he's no longer the the presumptive winner that he will find some excuse with the help of other Democrats, to leave the race and when he leaves the race, all of those voters have to go somewhere. If they wanted Warren, they would already be there

if they wanted Bernie, they would already be there. So I think all those votes go down to the fourth and fifth players and suddenly they're going to be strong number two one of them will so could become lyrics. You never know. This is something that Matt Lewis is an anti chopper. You said that you guys think of it. Even for a professional spin meister. There is no intellectually honest way to defend pressuring a foreign government to dig up dirt on the domestic political rival.

Did you see what he did there? He said, there's no intellectually honest way to defend pressuring a foreign government to dig up dirt on the domestic political rival, to which I say well, that's true. You could not intellectually defend digging up dirt on a domestic rival through a foreign entity. Could you defend, I president doing his job and pursuing his top priority, which involves finding out more about binding through a foreign entity? Sure you could. Could you intellectually support that not too hard, since that would be the president's job so every time somebody says he can't defend digging up dirt on Biden, you should stop them and say, but could he defended doing his job.

Is that defensible about doing his job? Can somebody ever defend just doing their job? How 'bout everybody can defend those easiest thing to defend? Alright, here's some more word thinking of the day. Quid pro quo were all talking about what it means and whether it applies but you're seeing more people start to say I think, did MARC Thiessen said this today see more people start to say. Um quid pro quo is every conversation that leaders have the quid pro quo. Part.

Is ridiculous because there's never not a quid pro quo, there's no situation where leaders talk to each other and there's not some implied, or at least and or at least indirect quid pro quo. So the whole quid pro quo thing is trying to win lever latin words, because if you can convince people that, because it has some words, because what the president did falls into the category that those words describe, he must be guilty. That's a word thinking, so the logic was not. What is his job? Was he doing his job? That would be good logic. The bad logic is: We're going to label it with these at latin words, were going to say what he did. Has these three words quid pro quo and then, when you say that the words themselves indicated something bad happened, there's no logic. There

they're trying to use words to replace logic? Did you see that we're just going to label what this is as quid pro quo quid pro quo and then we're going to use quid pro quo as something that's clearly, obviously bad and then says bad because the words we use to label it or what you use for bad things. So thinking there, but the public is letting them get away with it. I saw it at a word today. They made up words from user lurch, spun, L, U r c h s p, you and if you want to follow birch on his clever calling the impeachment a sham peachment, it's a sham impeachment, it's a sham peachment, it's pretty good! Isn't it sham peachment, because remember people

very influenced by words. We don't have a word to describe an impeachment process, that's illegitimate! Well now we do sham peachment hashtag, share impeachment and giving words to things actually is good persuasion, as you can see with the quid pro quo example is not logic. Using word thinking, but it can be persuasive. That's why people do it. Let's talk about the word Lynch. It's all in the news, so President said that Lynch mobs were after him to try to impeach him, and then his critics said. How can you use such a racially charged word? Don't you know the bad history of lynching of african Americans.

In this country, and so they accuse them of his racist dog whistle whatever- and I feel as though I need to make a ruling on this- are you ready here is my rule with a little context, if there's a group, whether they be an ethnic group or any other identifiable group- and there are some specific words used to describe them- that they object too. I believe we should listen to that. For example, the n word is offensive. It's a word used to describe a group of people, and I think that we should all honor that that people hate that word there's a good reason for it.

I accepted that I will not use that word in any kind of a you know, any kind of a way. What about other words, here's another one run dissenters once called his opponent, who is an african american man, as still as by the way You still have african american man. He said that he was articulate now when you school and african american citizen articulate. Would you know that that's an insult and the answer is Some people would lots of people would so it's considered a backhanded compliment because you, rarely hear it used with anybody else right. So it's like suspicious, like huh, I don't hear anybody saying he put. A judge is articulate.

But I just saw somebody say it just yesterday, literally that Cory Booker was articulate. Do you see it I got in there? I got a minute. You know when I first heard people saying you shouldn't use. The word articulate my first reaction. Was it's just a word. You should be able to use words that are just common words that describe an observation. But it is a fact that people tend to gravitate toward it more often when they're talking about an african american public figure, and I he did not notice that so my ruling on articulate is the people who use it usually are doing it accidentally. I think 'cause. They don't know that it sounds wrong to other people, so I think there's a genuine lack of knowledge that other people are offend

by that word, but I agree that you do know that it could be offensive, don't use it so don't use the word that is associated with. Basically, an insult 'cause articulate is used as kind of an insult in a roundabout way. Now, let's talk about Lynch, Michigan is a common word, meaning everybody knows what it means, and it applies to a variety of situations of which means, most recently, of the the worst possible situation with african american citizen who's being lynched in this country, horrible stain on our history bye. It's also a common word, and I think this is where I'm going to draw the line.

I don't think you get to reserve words, because this word was very clearly not being used in any sense, directly or indirectly about black people. The president's use of lynching was about himself. I believe that in all cases you should be able to use common words about yourself. Had president Trump called himself articulate. Well, people might argue that point, but would anybody say it was racist? No ' 'cause he's talking about himself. If he uses the common word Lynch in any kind of a context that would suggest that even somewhere in the topic are black people wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

I would not support that and anyway because then you know you should have known better right, but if we use a common word about yourself and there are no black people in the story whatsoever. My ruling is approved so of course, it's just a fun little thing and, of course, the Republicans that took them all of the few hours to produce endless video of Democrats using the word exactly the way Trump use the word right. So it turns out everybody uses this word, but not everybody gets in trouble for it. So people said well it's because the president has this. You know this reputation, I've trying to stir up trouble racially. I don't think that's enough 'cause! That reputation was assigned to him. It's not something he went out and got

so. My ruling is that you may use if you were a white person, any kind of white person- and you use the word Lynch about yourself totally approved. If you were to use that word in some other context, talking about other people- and there was any connection to the black population of this country not approved, that's my ruling all right. This see what else we got. So the Hong Kong government formally withdrew its controversial extradition bill. Do you think that'll stop anything fairly, not that that was the thing that got things rolling in terms of the protest, but now they have other demands. So the protesters of kind of got a little taste of blood, and now

they're not going to be happy with just that one thing being changed: 'cause they want. They want the people who were arrested to be released in a few other things, but in the long run I said it before China will win. They didn't win right away, but they'll win and they will get what they need, Anna funk on, because there's there for one thousand years uh, let's see what else we got here. Alright, I see the critics of President Trump's decisions about Syria saying some version of this- that the big winners are Turkey, Russia, IRAN, ISIS and Syria meeting Assad now. Does that does that feel true? Would you say that the big winners

of the US pulling out of that safe zone are these other countries that maybe you don't love so much? Russia, Syria, ISIS, not quite a country, and then Turkey, who's, sort of a friend of Maine. These days does that sound fair, that there are the big winners. Well, let me ask you this: it's not exactly free those countries are going to be died, so their citizens will die. Ours won't they'll, be paying a lot of money. We won't and they will have endless entanglement issues that might last forever we want. Does it look? Do you like their wedding? That's a weird way to win the, so it turns out that the winners are getting everything we didn't want. We don't want entanglement expense

and dead soldiers, but apparently they do for some larger strategic reason. Now I don't see ISIS thriving in a situation where Russia and the Turks are doing patrols in that region and I'm pretty sure Assad is no fan of ISIS. I've got a feeling. The ISIS is going to be in worse shape, not better, especially since we're still sort of over there you know, will still help Temple them down. So to me it looks like a big victory. It was preliminarily we'll see I was laughing. I was just watching a clip on Youtube. This is pretty random in which a comedian, writer, actor Larry David, was telling the story about his mother. I was suggesting he'd make a good mailman when he was young, so she was trying to talk Larry David into becoming a mailman.

He thought he should should go down there and take the civil servant test get himself a proper job. That's what he was saying that maybe you wanted to be a comedian in that didn't look like much of a Greer. Why this is funny is that my my father also gave me the same advice at the same age. So when I was about the same age, my father was telling Maine, maybe take these civil service test and work for the post office as he did, because I always have health care and the hours are good and the pay was ok. So I asked myself what is the value of parental support because it many ways I got plenty of parental support, certainly educationally, and

it is wise and otherwise, but I also have a father who suggested I go work for the Post office same as Larry David and a mother did, and so just makes me wonder. You know what: how much does the invite affect people's trajectory and how much of it is just some people are going to make it happen, and some people are not ' 'cause. I always felt like I was going to make it happened. I don't know exactly how, but I figured I'd, make something happen and so far so good. Alright, that's about all I have for today. It's another fun day.

The anti trumpers are sure that President Trump is on the verge of impeachment. I'm going to go all the way to say I favor impeachment, not for the reasons that maybe the critics do. I favor impeachment, because it will give Republicans the power of investigation and that my friends will be more fun than anything you've done in a long time. So impeachment sure, if you want to impeach the most successful president of all time, good luck with that, I'm good, I'm good with that. I don't mind, he gets impeached. He still is going to be if nothing changes he's already on a trajectory to be the best president we've ever had. By far that means not even gonna, be close. My guess is, if you could fast forward today to the historians assuming nothing new happened.

Right. Yeah there's always going to be surprises, but if nothing new happened he would be the best president we ever had by far historians will will say: economy, war, trade deals, border everything, you'll just be the best president. We ever had that's it for today, and I will talk to you later