Bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump. But hey everybody to one in welcomes. Especial holiday edition of Coffee was got Adams now, nor What we do at this time of day as we enjoy something called the simultaneous up? but others new word this under the vocabulary. They can be used in any context whatsoever. There seems no longer means something bad. The word is called impeach now. There was a time, I'm old enough to remember when a peach was a bad thing applied too bad people doing bad things, and it was a bad outcome, but ass he was to have changed and now the word impeach means something like a good fund raising technique.

At a bunch of bullshit, so you can teach anything this morning, I'm gonna him Beach, a cup of coffee, Yes, you can join me. You don't leave coffee, If you have your own derision, impeach the hell out of it with me simultaneously. Around eighty there's a couple of my glass lifter Stein. Shell is taken terms: flask Anti in Braille, goblet vessel of any kind fill with your favorite liquid, like my coughing, and get ready to him peach the hell out of it go. I can feel my fund raising increasing yes, yes, I was gonna impeach coffee right there. Now, as you know, I need the year. I've made the prediction that the word impede and the idea of impeaching would change because of Trump does Those two impeaching changing trump trumpet.

Change everything we ever thought about the word impeach theirs. Already there was a year I tweeted. This is born. There was a movie review of the New STAR Wars movie, the review or didn't like it in the title for his motion review He said the judge Abrams should be impeached, and so you are already seeing the word impeached me. From this? Also. I'm serious political realm into just a silly, were they use because his body in peace who has lost all of its power. The values common I heard was for a match. Mcconnell. He was giving you speech, I guess said it add hearsay and I have to paraphrase them, because I can't get this exactly. But the candles had something like this. I know where I dont know what kind of leverage nears he blows you think she has over us.

By not sending the articles impeachment over I guess the ideas that they're gonna not send us that. We didn't want in the first place, and I have to admit, that was a really good away. The couch it yup Nancy mrs leverage over mad cow disease. She's going to not send em something he doesn't want, which is impeachment articles. So that's pretty funny now the new wrinkle is that as you I think I talked about yesterday, one of the Democrats witnesses a legal scholar. What is his name Feldman's? I think said that in his opinion, until the impeachment articles are transmitted over to the Senate, impeachment has not happened so technically? There is no impeachment. According to this one scholar, but then

internally weight in and, as you know, Charlie's sort of a better expert than the other. Experts and he said here well, Here's every part of the constitution. I think there were five parts of the constitution. They have some mention of engagement, rising article goes well. You're here they are here's everything mention in the constitution about Impeachment Noah felt nervously Germany and jobs and surely says, show there were, it says, is not an impeachment until the articles, over to the sell so apparently the the constitution does not say. The European, didn't happen unless it's transmitted, but how could both of those experts be right? Is there a way that Turley could be right and fell back with complete opposite opinion?

I'll be right. Well, I don't know the Lenny propose this we have? It could be said that the house has voted to impeach, so watch my language carefully. They voted to impeach. I think everybody would agree. That's just a true statement. They voted to impeach, but the process of impeaching. Seems to have had a stall and if the house doesnt do the entire process, the voting being one part of the process and then the transmitting into the Senate. Being the other part, can it be said that the impeachment husband finalized, I would say now? I would say that you could say that the house has voted to impeach, but they didn't until

It has been, I would say this is just sort of the the non legal scholar way of looking at it, because apparently the constitution is vague. Enough, no surprise there. That's why we have a supreme court, because these super, the constitution has lots of room for interpretation, but my personal interpretation is that they voted for impeachment, but they didn't do it. Because until you until you send it if an impeachment Somebody said the sun socially they are probably less people said Anne impeachment falls in the four arrested nobody hears it did it happen That's it. That's not really prove anything. It's just a fun thought, but I think you can have it both ways. I think you could say that they voted for impeachment, but they did not complete the steps of impeachment and so therefore, if they do not transmit. I think you'd have an argument.

That all you had was about, but not an impeachment. So that's my non legal scholar, sense of it, but doesn't it isn't it a wake up? Call that a step that is so central to Our government has so central to the constitution so essential to checks and balances as one why isn't appeasement and how does it work and to the most qualified scholars that we know about have looked at it? The same question? It came to opposite opinion. Now, what's I'll tell you about experts and looking at the same stuff there looking at the same stuff at the same time and is not really even their complicated. It's not like climate science. Where are you really have to be? expert in a hundred different things to really know how office, together with its constitutional stuff, there were five paragraphs. Basically the constitution, that's it

and they're not even terribly complicated, and they still can agree what it says. So that was interesting. I noticed I don't know if it's because at the end of the year or what, but it seems that the president has a major I agree on the border Wall funding stuff, not in terms of getting all the money he wanted by getting Getting money that he could spend in the, in the fashion that he needs to- and I guess he's got some more flexibility about borrowing from other budgets. But apparently the only requirement that the democrats- maybe it's not the only requirement, but the one mentioned the Democrats put on their funding for the border security- is wait for it. The only way they can be spent is according to the priorities of the borders, security, experts and engineers

How long is I been telling you that you could get your border funding if you're the debt issue, the Republicans just say the words: I've been there, how long have I been saying this two years right just say the words We only want to do it where the engineers and the experts tell us the put worse. Where will start, Just got to say those words and suddenly money will come to you because you care you will putting the money where the experts say that these two go first, so so What was the final compromise? If you all call that the loud the president to get his money, and to be able to spend it where he wants. He just at the promise. Put it where the engineers said it was most important. That's it he waited two years to do what I Told you on day one was all you need to do

and leather enough people watching this periscope. The you can confirm that I have been calling for. There is a really scary story and the New York Times much much recommended it is talking about how the law, enforcement, or really anybody who has access to the data can track you by your phone now. Of course, we all knew that you could be tracked by your phone but some of the lies, which you ve been told that the New York Times exposes very well. I think, is that the data that you're sending to these various apps about location is anonymize, so they can't tell us, u turns out that's true and false at the same time, It is true that the data is anonymize when it sent the database than the True part about it, is that it's a trivial matter too

girl who you were, after the fact, for example, they can track your location without knowing who you are first, and they can say her. This phone goes from this house. This address to this work address five times a week. That's it, that's all they need to know who you are if they know. Where are you where you live and where you gonna work. They know who you are. I can also tell by who you were. You travel with everything else such that there's, no such thing as anonymous location in for me. Because your location does tell you who you are period and so pretty much everybody who's got. A cell phone is being tracked through one after another. Now this brings me to join

Mcafee. I told you before. I would invite the job Mcafee to be on this periscope Sunday. He asked the year referred. We knew were somebody on his user, Team or his family, I'm not sure what to schedule. I haven't you haven't, had a happy, but he's answer some questions on twitter about how it is that he hasn't been found, because I guess he's run from authorities in this country and doesn't seem amazing to you that the United States carefully, where John Mcafee, as he's on social media every day, he's doing videos that we care figure out where he and they, today that he and his, I guess his family or whoever is with they don't have cell phones. No Mcafee claims that if you have a son, found, there isn't any way to hide the location you can european. All you want, but there's nothing you can do.

There is no way to keep law enforcement from finding you if you have a cell phone. Now. I'm guessing he's right about that, because he's pretty smartness looked into it and he hasn't been quite yet. So I think he's making doing all this work and something like a laptop with something like multiples Europeans and not the kind. Grandmother uses like seriously be. Instead, somebody like back, if you could use it, you wouldn't you know how to find so that is very interesting. Yeah users, repeals real laptop said, is correct. Somebody asked him why you, when using burner phone and apparently those are not safe either Because, even if he ever burner phone Maybe somebody can figure out who you are by who you called in?

where you are and that that sort of stuff, so even a burger phone seems to be a problem. So what are you? How do you feel about that? How do you feel about the fact that crime is actually getting close to one hundred percent solvable because between the dna facial recognition. Cameras are everywhere and the fact that peril Ninety nine percent of all crimes are solved by cellphone location, did Now that I think there was a MAC, if you claim that the back, if you claim is that law enforcement just goes directly to herself out the there's a crime, they just look at the cell phones and they find you and it works basically every time so have I. Your feet on the ground to collect information is just useless. These days

Yet, every time with yourself on the leisure, leisure, Mcafee, apparently here's something else in the same kind of gender. General information CNN, which was running the democratic debate actually went, dark actually turned the tv. Off the channel anyway, when dark, when China was brought up as a as a critical question, China, actually just one dark, on the democratic debate, because I couldn't handle even the questions. Much Leslie answers and the questions were about the concentration camps for the weaker muzzle and China just turned it off now? Can China succeed in keeping that kind of information away from its citizens forever and I'm not even sure the citizens Frankly, you know. Maybe maybe of yours is in China. You just

worrying about your own business and if you're, not a weaker minority, it just doesn't bother but scattered chilling to think that they can just turn off the tv for the parts that they don't like. I am here's that our ears and update tells he gathered. I told you a ago that that Chelsea had damned me when I asked about having around the periscope. She said. Yes, her tables tried to schedule it. I mentioned again that had been scheduled and then her team got back to me after that. And then to see the end me this morning, just to say that I am sorry about the delay in she's trying to schedule. So you might see that interview.

Then the next week or to which our schedule it. I don't want to give you the date we're talking about, isn't my change, but we have a yes, so we ever confirmed. Yes, we just have to make it happen. I tweeted I tweeted provocatively this question. How many democrats have noticed the following pattern: there's the pattern. Their presidential trump is presidential first state functions so when his meeting with other leaders is meeting with the queen meeting, The pope he's presidential. When you were great and then when he does his rallies, which are basically stand up, comedy Things are different personality. That is hilariously inappropriate, in other words, part of his stand up. Comedies

Don recalls its its Howard Stern, its it goes too far and that's why we laugh at it because he goes too far, but that personality is very specific to the rallies. Then he goes on to and when he tweets Hickey comes into a completely different personality? Is also a little more provocative, but it's it's a twitter personality. President trumps, twitter, trolling and his twitter game is a perfect fit for Twitter, so he adopts his personality and his style for each domain, and I am he excels in every domain. I don't leave anybody who said that the president is now effective in states meetings, in fact, maybe he's the best, because even

The meeting was people that war are enemies, you ve enemies, guess long! then do you can argue that his state meetings you leave The two leaders are among the best. I think he can make that argument. People will say well what about? What about those Europeans who records laughing behind his back at the energy was whatever it was. The last big meeting. What about it. Does anybody here think that the leaders, though, all laughed about each other behind each other's back? Do let me ask you this. So one of the people who got caught laughing behind the backs of the present was just in Trudeau, who had what two or three black face. Handles this year. Let me ask you: do you think any of the leaders of other countries laughed behind just introduced back about all of his black face scandals? Now, nobody

Yet Europe think Angela Merkel had it forgetting all about that. Now you don't think so. Come on. Come on. You don't think they laughed about the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky these areas. Are you kidding me? Of course they did you can call it that the Reagan. You don't think that they made fun of Israel forgetting forget the things and is Alzheimer in his ears, astrologers tours advising him. You don't think they laughed about that behind his back come on. Of course, they did Do you think there are any world leaders? The tramp has not laughed about behind their backs. None, I mean maybe like some of them right, but don't you think they're Trump has made further Trudeau privately when talking to other leaders of

for she had us. Do you think, is made fun of mccrone in ITALY or even talking to other leaders? Of course he has. Of course he is The only difference is that the three dish bags were talking. But I don't got caught on the video phone as the only difference, they all laugh about each other. Is like every other part of the world, not just like you left you see YO it's the biggest, nothing in the world to say that some leaders laughing each other. So this is one of the funniest tweets, statistically speaking, sixty six percent impeached President's were impedes sure, humiliating Hillary Clinton. That, of course, would be Bill Clinton and President Trump, so six Six percent of Impeach presence were applied.

Four humiliating Hillary Clinton technically true. Wall. Street journal has an editorial today that every now and then I'll see if a piece of news there, just like a slap in the face, because is something that I should have noticed, but. Notice, so people point out something that I should have noticed and I didn t really although stores anyway, this please thing: the Wall Street Journal editorial appoints editorial points out. The robber Mothers dossier report didn't say was false. Let me say that again. When Mahler did his testimony indigenous smaller report, he did not conclude. At least he didn't put it in the report. He did not conclude that the steel Darcy was false,

and was known to have been debunked Well, before the Miller report came out. Let me say that again, the steel dossier was thoroughly debunked, Before the Mulder report came out and mother said it was beyond his purview to say whether it was accurate seriously. Are you fricking getting me. Their mother clearly knew the steel doc you steal does was bullshit by them. And he didn't mention that, like that didn't seem important. It was the most important thing. It wasn't the unimportant thing: it was the most important thing you know kind of comes out that right of the things that actually happened, it was the most

thing, other things people imagined might have happened. Those would have been more important, but they didn't happen. They there imaginary the longer that. The longer that, by the way that do you have the same reaction to that. Did you notice, because there's so much noise and in all in all this? morning. Did you even notice? The mother was silent on the The steel dossier, the most critical part of the whole, Where are you silo that? Are you kidding I'm an already not say about that, is just as much mine blowing, we weird there's continue speculation on the question of what the hell is. Nancy policies. Thinking with her strategy of delaying the sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate until the sun,

buckles down and changes are rules for the trial and, of course I am not going to happen. So people are asking. What does she thinking I? What does she ever? I watched the data Brito So this yesterday on Fox NEWS, what exactly is our strategy? Does he have secret knowledge that we don't know about? Is there some clever plan that only Elsie Pelosi knows, but none of us can see. Because it's not obvious now would not rule out, as as data Brito said, quite astutely, we're talking about me ass. He Pelosi, you not argue about. Use. Who is new to this? We're not talking about somebody you doesn't have a long track were track record of successful strategic thinking. So given those policy given that we know she's a strategic thinker at the highest order, she knows

do the stuff, she doing what she's doing is it is so clever. We can see it and nobody else get either are there no experts anywhere? Who can say I that's what she's up do you don't see, this move, but here's what she's up to nobody, nobody at her side Nobody knows it is literally nobody who has a good description of why this could be a good idea, so the speculation goes to a feud everything's one of them is, she doesn't happen, idea of how to make this right so she's, trying to think of one So the delaying tactic could be nothing but we'd better, better put our heads together. We better brainstorm maybe a little extra delay will give us some do strategic idea,

can be just a delay like a time out in an sporting things can be just a time out could be not to ruin Christmas. Think about because if you're, if you Nancy it- you remember your operating on a a high level of persuasion and strategy right so so give her the benefit that she's operating at the highest level. It kind of does vague sense. Then, if you couldn't, if you couldn't stop the Senate from overthrowing the cat, whenever they do a queer door or dismiss whatever they do you can't stop them from doing that, but you but you might be able to delay it until after Christmas, so everyone go home and have a better, a Christmas gift there, a Democrat because what they feel like this. It's going to Christmas.

The victory, so they will get to marinate in what feels like a victory for a few weeks before the Senate turns into the shed, so it could be. That is just something generous. Or the politicians, and the voters were out that site. Just eleven go to the holidays and they could be as simple as that would probably not only this, but not the whole story, and then there's the the theory that the only reason that she's doing is to get under trumps skin to bother. But he raised ten million dollars. He raised. Ten million dollars and if you look at the comments on twitter, The number of people who said I've never donated to a campaign before, but the moment the gap. Who came down for Impeach, I went the website. I gave him two hundred dollars so just person after personal and social values, common

That way, I never given money before but is not even about the candidates anymore. It's about the constitution. Now, it was basically a vote for the constitution and be Given a lot of money that so it could be that she's just making the holidays gotta could be she's just bugging trap, and then there's some speculation. She must might wanted just to sit there so that it seems more important as long as possible. Get into people's heads as etc, but I trump is successfully making impeachment turn into just a joke concept. You know I think people are gonna, be impeaching everything you know you, you're gonna, get together with your boyfriend, your girlfriend or lover and you're gonna teach each other. If you know what I mean I think impeaching is going to live.

Into the just pure drought joke category. So is just a small, but if you say Jesse's smollett in others coming as I do that you don't do that savings about it. Like you make a smile Jesse's moment and you're automatically in it like a joke. He moved, so they impeachment is going the Jesse, Smollett We're used to be this solemn, important, sad thing that you do for country analogies funny because the democratic just ruin the word ruined the concept. They have taken all the credibility out of it because of being partisan instead, a bipartisan it true changed. Impeachment may never change back.

You may find that may be familiar with a publication called the Atlantic. You might be familiar with it because it is one of the most strident anti trump publications ever is Pro more fake news in the Atlantic and in the form of opinion anyway, anywhere else in the world, so the Atlantic doesn't even try to be anything except an anti trump publication. Listen the political dense and even the Atlantic ran in an opinion. Peace today, marking Paul Krugman for having trumped arrangements and Now is not remarkable to hear a Trump supporters say that Krugman has trumped arranged Syndrome, but this is not only his own team, but this is. This is like the captain of the team, practically not really bad analogy, but the Atlantic is so deeply and completely anti trump there when they

all their own, most prominent economist and suffering from trumped arrangements in red. Being wrong about everything. Trump last notable makes you wonder it makes you wonder. If even Democrats are starting to wonder about their own approach. They remember, I told you that what's gonna be fine at the end of the year is Yalta lists, the list of all things. The trump accomplished gonna be long list. You see the list of all the fake news, I'll talk about moment and the list fake news

is really long like really long talk, not that minute minute am so. Yes, let us talk about that. So I tweeted today asking for people for the definitive list of fake news and people, then putting them in the comments were all just read you some of them Let's see what people have suggested, so in my comments so yuri there's some of the fake news that either originated in this past year, twenty nineteen- or it was still going so some of these originated earlier, but they passed into twenty linking so you ve just smaller case the Cavanaugh Allegations Covington KIDS, the Ukraine Hoax, the Russia hoax everything about the dossier, everything about,

Sheriff everything about the Nunez memo, thing about Afghanistan reporting that happen earlier, but we found out about it. Twenty nineteen, I heard Cheryl Atkinson Atkinson has a list of the figures, as she updates all the time. So if you follow Cheryl Atkinson you can find links to. That There was the the army Navy game envy. The kids who made the the ok the sign now are. You is bothered, as I am that without the story first broke and there were reports that the kids we're doing the what they call away power sign. That looks like the UK side that even the beginning of the story. There were credible people representative Crenshaw Dan Crenshaw

was one of the people who noted that that's just a game. People play where they make us sign and if somebody notices that you're making their sign below the belt you can punch him in the arm, apparently has been around for decades now. I didn't know about that, but the moment I heard Crenshaw Explain that is a common game. This been played forever. I looked it up and sure enough. It's called the circle game it is a common game. Lisbon been played by young people forever. I checked it with a few young people. Just do fact check and a eleven and fourteen year old told me. Yes, they were both familiar with this as a common game that mostly the boys play now here's my problem, I I agree with the military whoever's the administrators who said there were good, a researcher and look into it because was lacking then it was away power sign, but even

at the very beginning we had the alternative theory. The alternative theory that it was just that game. I watched further reporting to alight You say there is an alternative theory, and even Fox NEWS didn't do that now. I feel as though that was a gigantic, Media failure probably on the left and the right, because I can understand that maybe the the anti terrorism on the left with just serve not mention that that's a game or their people are suggesting this again. Maybe they just one mention it. But how do you explain? The Fox news ran stories about it and didn't even mentioned that there is another hypothesis that is just a game: the common game and you can go. Let me see that it's a to me that was a pretty major

whose oversight is one thing to say you dont know it's one thing to say: the accusations are that its way power? I guess that's. Ok, gazettes! But do not say there's another explanation and it's completely innocent yeah. Under the five. They did say that that is correct. So I'm talking about, I forget what the article was, but it was on the website for Fox NEWS, and I read it just a before for that, and the early reporting did not include that my thought then how do you do at least include that is positively oils rehire did you do? Do we get there. I'm just migrants forced to drink out of toilets. There was fake news right because I think the there were drinking the toilet water. I think there were drinking from

the thing that feeds the toilet water, which was clean water, so sorted true by sorting out the see what else the courage were abandoned. So somebody's calling that fake news that the Kurds were abandoned well as warm a matter of opinion, I think, but I think it is true. We are seeing reporting this. Is that Turkey is wiping out the Kurds and it did seem to force people into making some concessions. They didn't want to make. So I say that an open question still the thought, But the idea report found no bias when in fact they did find by us the the thought they could call me was vindicated by the idea report opposite

We're gonna just still give less troops deployed to Saudi Arabia without a story that I don't know the details that psyche aspect that looking when we get the children or say these children in cages and the children ripped from the hands of their parents, I would say, is true: without The context that what was the alternative, which was worse apparently, and that a bomb? I did the same thing. So I would call that fake news if it's only reported that trumpet tromp was doing it and its annex reported that there was a better option. If you report that there was a better and the fine people, oceans, the king of all hoaxes- is that Trump called the racist insurance, so fine people when the transcripts.

Exactly the opposite. Looking through small your suggestions here. Now there's some saying that the the ok sign But was never away power symbol, but rather it was a fortune and hopes that the media accepted, but here is that Here's the thing if the media accepted that there okay sign was a white supremacist signal, even if it wasn't would not lots of ways: supremacist read the news and say to themselves hey, it looks like we ve got a signal now and then start using it. So I would think that it could be both a hoax meaning that it started as a hoax. But if the media reported it s, true,

very rapidly become true, because racist, who never heard of it would say? Well, I dont use fortune, but glad than the news just told me. I have answered like us all start using, so I would think it's started as overturned proud only true for at least one racist somewhere. There was a fake news that small well past gas, but. That wasn't the most important story. There was the story of the show the shooting range that somebody said was the Kurds being killed, because I was where work So there's this discussion of two genders ILO. Let get into this! So there's this big left re controversy

about, are the only two genders or Arthur multiple genders in Trans genders and everything else, I haven't really talked on that topic because it feels like a dumb topic, because it's mostly word where people are just trying to win the argument somehow by just defining it's like. I define genders this way and therefore there only two Then the other person will say I define genders this otherwise, Therefore, there are lots of them There's no real argument is just people making up their own definitions. Words. If you wanted to bring that to the practical level, the practical level then what do you do about it? Given the people decide we was how genders roar It depends on the situation and I think that here's, my here's my opinion there are infinite gender,

meaning that people are infinitely different, so even within the last say, suddenly says that are completely heterosexual with her This probably love areas within that range. I think there's just a infinite variety of everybody and, if you're talking about where you personally wanted to, in the beginning and the end of those definitions, that's just tough happening in your head. There has no impact on me. Somebody says biology, so so up, yes, yes, biology, exists. Yes, biology for the most part determines what your genes are so. So what lay there's? No sir there's! No. So what that I hear what you say is just a fact. Now you hear other people saying that, for social reasons and for fairness is inclusion, there are people

consider themselves different things? There are people who were in grey areas. There are all kinds of all kinds of distinctions. I say those people are arguing for social purposes. And other people are just making a scientific case, and they're, not even in the same conversation. So it's a dummy there's one thing: the The people were arguing, it's already do well says you under what circumstances? For what purpose? When is a good ones, and not one is a practical one is impractical. You know the whole science to genders issues is so empty. You can be completely right and completely irrelevant and same type, so yeah? I guess you win. You am. I knows it mostly thee,

mostly things, I want to talk about Yasser incident species of human rights. In a sense, we are all infinitely different, Somebody says Scott totally up to the left block. That's how to get you saw blocked if you want to characterize me as being completely program or setting up the left or any those things? I'm just gonna block you and is not even just because you're wrong is because your boring me don't don't just literally the conversation about people being infinitely, different. Then somebody thinks this would be a good time to label me about. Don't

I was reading it hit piece about me the other day. It was actually a hit video by hit video, I mean nothing, it was popular but that it was an Anti Scott piece of video. Now the beer context was it. I can't hear West, I think, but it was usually is an example of why you bad black person. According to this video because, listen to anything I said, what's so here's the thing they they introduce me in this in this video and here's how I was described as a libertarian men's rights activists, each of those two things is true. None when have I ever been amends right activist.

This will give you an idea of how fake, not only the news is, but even the videos, the social media I was described as a men's rights activist detail how that started I once wrote a blog post and I'm not even making this up. I once wrote a blog posts in which I made fun of men's rights activist. That's it and because of that year returned into a telephone we're a guy repeated and reported in, directly and then somebody repeated the incorrect reporting until I became according to this either way the whole video about me in Kenya, western some other people. Might one blog post, making fun of Miss Miller, men's rights, people turn me into one literally the opposite there. Let me state the men's rice activists have really good points, but are now on. You can have lots of good points, but it does mean I'm doesn't mean it

join your team. Here. The array has less good points. I didn't jointly and array the Republicans have lots of good points, but I'm not a republican Democrats have some good points. Do but another Democrat so That was, of course renews. Then the second part was that he called me a libertarian, never been a libertarian. I have in the past, describe myself the following way: libertarian that's crazy parts! Do you see what I'm doing their compare these two things? I used to call myself and libertarian, but without the crazy parts. Currently, although it may have to change this during the election cycle for Trump, I started calling myself left of Bernie. Think about these two things left Bernie, libertarian without a crazy stuff. One of those two things have in common:

if anybody can get it in the in the comments. What do those two things have in common might take a while for your covers catch up, so I'm just gonna tell you what they have in common is that they are not real. I created to two political cattle praise for myself that are real. You can't even imagine what they are, because if you say the libertarian without the crazy parts. What are the crazy parts? most of the libertarian belief system are crazy because the libertarians was I get rid of the government? Let her body do what they want. They can't work. It's crazy stuff, so the libertarians. Are they like freedom? I like freedom. They like. We owe the government not to be too intrusive. I like best after, but everybody does

So if you say your libertarian, but without the crazy parts it doesn't mean anything because the crazy parts are the libertarian parts likewise. Well, I said I was left a Bernie there's nothing there when I said it, but now the squad and Elsie and Elizabeth Word and centre They state that the place left a burning sort of other nor more on Bernie than left the room, but when I first started sang it, it didn't mean anything which is what I tended I want people to see her. Not that needs, so I might have to make up a new category is simply for the purpose of allowing myself not be branded anyway. So this hippies, the disclosures, amends rights activists are not in a libertarian or not. Not even close, all right cuz. I have some other point on that. I don't think I did.

Somebody says I personally think you're illiberal I'm so liberal so that part's true, but on big policies. Tend to be complicated and I'd like to look at them one at a time? So I think the big mistake with being the Republican or being Democrat is that once you're on a team, you feel you feel some obligation to. Defend even the weaker parts of your team a natural human impulse. So I started avoid where possible anyway, be associated with the team select say. Well, I like your tax rates, but I don't like your healthcare whatever so here's a question for you: why did we stop talking about deficits? Why did we stop talking about the national deficits? Is it because

stop matter it? I don't think so. Did it ever matter before? Why don't we start talking about it. Do you know how you can solve every problem in this country, except one run of the deficit you can solve every problem. You can give everybody healthcare. Free College. You can solve it all you, don't One problem that you can never pay back, so Is it fair ever to say that everything is going right in the country while the desk going up at the same time it can you make? Could you honestly say that whether its trump were Obama does? What are you talking about? Can you honestly say government is doing well. If all of the things that are going well depend on this one thing, which is a tragedy waiting to happen, which is that or is it

because remember for those of you were not economists, you may. Not be aware that national debt is very different than personal debt. If you have personal that you gotta pay it back and you ve gotta pay back, not only the interest, but you ve got at least start paying back the principle or is very short term that the only way I can get get away with, not paying back. The principle is, if its it. Short term loan was a year, but long term loan and it's a person alone. You gotta be paid off some some principle. Probably you can get away with you can get away with putting it off, but eventually going to pay back the prince, the government. Doesn't the government, the United States could say you know what we'll just we won't make any more debt, but we're not going to pay back either. We'll just pay interest because overtime, inflation

shrink the value of that that until it's not really important and that even pay off the last little bit. So if you did nothing as a government buzz say, will slow down the rate of our debt increase and, as it were, just slow down. You'd probably get to the point where you, you can sustain a bracelet So I don't know that anybody who smart enough, not Nepal, Krugman, I mean anyway, I dont know if anybody is more enough to know where this debt stuff ends up my just on organs up now. One way to look at the dead is that it's a stealth tax when you all agree with that, would you agree that every time the government runs up the dad it has raised taxes on our future we're some some number of our future cells. Would we always that's true

driver you disagree with it. Then raising the national debt is a stealth tax. Somebody's gonna have to pay for and it'll be citizens. So it seems to me that I think it was Warren Buffett is, as you know, we can go. Inflate away our debt by just printing more money. If we need to do so, there's probably not a giant risk that will default, especially since we have the biggest military in the world.

But then, if it's a stealth tax, who is it attacks on here's? Your next bonus question: if running up the debt is a stealth tax who isn't attacks on answer is attacks on people? Have money does not attacks on poor people? How are the poor people get to pay back the dead? Were there no money that it is a day regressive, tax stealth tax well is probably progressive. Because I would imagine that the people have the most money are going to be asked to have the biggest impact on paying it back. So it seems to me that when you run up the debt, you were effectively giving people free healthcare, but not all of your effectively giving people free or inexpensive college education, but not all of them.

Your basically taxing the rich to in two I would say your narrowing the the wealth gap. I'm never going to talk about that, but I would like to hear more people say that the debt is really just a tax. So if you said to me as President Trump lowered you taxes or increase your taxes Scot, I would say he has increased. My taxes to different ways. I live in California, and because I lost the state deduction, my taxes or up. So they trouble illustration raised my taxes as a rich guy who lives and wanted They'd says a big state tax, so if you lived in New York, especially the city or California, and you're rich, you taxes went up the second way that Trump raise my taxes is by increasing the deficit. Now I dont know that's a good idea about it.

Vietnam, Russia. The economists quite understand all that stuff, but erased certainly raised how much I or my my airs laughed bay. I would think on Monday, good planning to have a special. We know how to be talking about some plans, problem and new and better cities, ideally more efficient and more I believe- and I have been saying this river- that the only way to address the national debt, is to make the cost of living in a pretty good life. Much less expensive way, We know how to do is just a design problem and So I imagine that you'll see lots of innovation there, and I would say that in twenty years, if Europe was a lower middle class person, you will find a way however, completely satisfying life with healthcare and education and job opportunities.

But maybe early make twenty five thousand year younger perfectly good lifestyle. I think we're heading towards a place where where the private industry will be able to offer those options, but you have to design a city from scratch, dared to make it work that way, you ve gotta design. Now all the annex, all the expensive parts you make it easy to. Get from one place to another. Make it easy food without necessarily having the kitchen Somebody says middle class pays eyes percentage of taxes so, I'm a little debate on line about fairness of taxes. But he said the wretch, my pay a lower percentage of their income, but they play more money because its smaller in short, a larger amount which one of those is fair,

that doesn't exist. You can only be unfair in ways you can get away with that set those here only options. Fairness is a subjective concept and because we all have a different opinion without looks like there is no way together. This is a destination with no roads to it. You can't get There is no way to design the tax there. Everybody says all this fair. For me, there is that doesn't exist. You can only be unfair in ways you can get away with that set those you're only options. Fairness is a subjective concept, and because we all have a different opinion without looks like there is no way together? Is a destiny was much lower years ago. Many years ago you didn't need have cable, because it didn't exist so that you didn't need big able. You didn't need to pay for your phone assign somebody says: wages were hired twenty years ago

I dont know their wages were higher twenty years ago or the cost of living was much lower. Yours remember years ago, you didn't need have cable because it didn't exist, so you didn't need to able you didn't need to pay for your phone, your smartphone. Doesn't it thus the need to pay for your internet access as it did exist. So there all the things that were just cheaper back then People are one card started to think back. If you can go back to those days, though you imagine the good old days, you wouldn't want to spend I've minister, because it was a terrible life.

Aren't you day were both parents have a car. Labels will have the opportunity to work and everything else. I hear the the flat tax would be just a different kind of unfair tax, because there's somebody would complain, censure sayin it which will more affair, interesting question, so somebody says: ok. If, if both of them are unfair, can you at least compare them and say That one of these is less unfair and there was no, no, you can't that's not a thing that there will always be people who think that whichever side is grossly unfair, no matter what you can't you offer a lot and the report is that there are killing prisoners on demand they stun Oregon demand. I believe that the experts say

currently the Oregon harvesting from effectively live people that they executed. In other words, they kill them, but keep them brain dead and live apparently to take out their organs and solemn because they sell for a lot And the report is that there are killing prisoners on demand they stand. Getting the country leave that the experts say. That's that's now confirmed that we just like it, How could we have an ongoing relationship with China said? I will using their minorities for parts amusing. It, because I was he China changing so they're just got to lose any new business, but I would imagine that companies are already there. I think decoupling is gonna happen, but it might not be the government who does it. In fact, the best way to decouple from China is still not have. You government endorses. The best thing would be if private interest just

Well, well. Well we're not going to build a new factory in the country this using its minority population for parts, so I think private industry will make their own decisions and decoupling, I think, is guaranteed. And was he China changing so they're just gonna have to lose any new business, but I would imagine that companies are already there that I've, a softer opinion of people have already put a lot of it other resources there are, they might need to unwind it much slower rate.

They see the year the preferred profiles in preferred pronouns in their profile and twitter, though just block up, and when I look at the people, I have blocked there's a very high percentage of those programmes. I don't know if that's a coincidence, but I've actually been thinking about doing that, because it is such a signal that it is a signal that you're gonna get a certain type of response. I probably won't do that, but it does signal that I'm not gonna happen with gentlemen conversation with somebody I don't know if that's a coincidence, but I've actually didn't thinking about doing that, because it is what is sends a signal, as it is a signal that you're gonna get a certain type of response. I probably won't do that, but

and maybe it does signal that I'm not was showing happen. Legitimate conversation with somebody. Ok. Just looking at your comments, I others and there's a rumour that this food who is essential to the full, Russia collusion story has disappeared and or maybe he's dead summits is your friend is only showing I tell you, it is it is. Somebody says there will be no decoupling, or I would argue that the decoupling is already happening. It will just be private companies, not the government telling us to do it.

Where's that beautiful, perfect Trump add well. I think you can see the each or bad my twitter feed from a few days ago, but you re just Google. It replied operator. I'm going to end right here, and I will talk you all later.