Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Climate Change, LA Fires, Senator Fetterman, President Trump, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
I started 30 seconds early and you're still here on time.
Let me get my comments working and then I'll give you the show you've been craving.
Well, maybe not craving, but expecting.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalice, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and you're going to love it.
Go.
Well, I'm right again.
and It was terrific.
I knew it.
All right, you ready for this?
There's going to be a P. Diddy documentary coming out telling us some of the bad things he's done.
I don't know if you've heard, but this guy named Diddy has done allegedly some bad stuff.
I won't give you any hints about it, but I will warn you that the documentary effect is an effect.
I warn you often that if you see a documentary on any topic, It's going to be non-stop, you know, at least an hour of things on one side and not the other side.
So, I hate to say this.
This is going to be hard for me.
I'm going to say a sentence that I almost can't get out of my mouth.
You ready?
Despite the many claims you're going to hear about P. Diddy, under our system, he's...
Innocent until proven guilty.
I did it.
I stayed American.
I stayed American.
That's a tough standard, you know?
By the time you're done with the documentary, you're not going to think he's innocent until proven guilty.
That much I know.
Is that fair?
Not at all.
It's not at all fair.
Can you imagine being arrested and have charges that might be leveled against you?
And next thing you know, there's an entire documentary about all your crimes.
That's not exactly fair.
Is it interesting?
Yes, I'm going to watch it, for sure.
Do I think he's probably guilty of a lot of things?
Well, I do.
But you're going to have to prove it.
And if you ask me, is it cool to have a documentary about somebody who's in jail with charges?
I would say no.
No.
A direct attack on free speech.
I can't think of a way.
But it seems like if a court can order, let's say, a gag order, a gag order is a routine thing, right?
Judges do that all the time.
And is that not telling somebody that they can't use their free speech?
So we have some precedent that the court, at least during the limited time of a trial, can tell people to shut up.
But then they can do a documentary.
You know, I hate to be defending Diddy, but I think we need to all defend ourselves, right?
Because if you or I are ever in jail and somebody does a documentary about how bad we are while we're in jail waiting for trial, that's not cool.
That's never cool.
It's free speech.
But it's definitely not cool.
Anyway, here's a cool thing.
They might have an application to the fire recovery.
So Fox News reports that Kurt Knutson is reporting that there's a shape-shifting AI transformer home.
So I'll let you imagine it.
So imagine a mobile camper.
So it's that size.
But there's no part where the driver sits.
There's no engine.
So it's not really a camper.
It doesn't go anywhere.
It's stationary.
But it can be towed.
You know, by an ordinary truck.
So an ordinary truck tows this little mobile home looking thing.
But here's the cool part.
It's not as big as a mobile home.
It's only that big when you're towing it.
As soon as it gets there, you can push some buttons and it expands to a 400 square foot, very well designed space.
Now the well designed part is hard to say without looking at the picture, but trust me.
They worked with not just a tech company, but they worked with a design company.
What's the name of this company?
AC Future.
So they partnered.
And if you can trust my judgment on design, it's really well designed.
Like I looked at it and said, oh, I would love spending some time in that thing, if you can imagine that.
Now, imagine this.
Imagine you own some property in Pacific Palisades.
Everything's burned down.
It might take years to rebuild.
But suppose they got utilities working and they cleaned up the toxic stuff.
That could be sooner.
So that might be six to nine months.
So by the way, that's the current estimate, I believe.
Six to nine months to get utilities and the toxins removed.
Now that's the government's estimate.
I don't know if you believe that.
But let's say it's six to nine months.
And then we'll follow a lengthy building process.
I think it's reasonable that the residents might put up with being displaced for six to nine months.
But if you add on top of that the two years it takes to get a place approved and built, even if they speed things up, you're going to have trouble getting labor.
It's never going to be fast.
Could you imagine that some of the residents would say, you know what, let us get one or even two of these things, put them on our property, put it in the backyard, and we'll be there while the construction happens.
Now, it'd be hard to work while the construction noise is going on, but on the other hand, if you have house construction, you really kind of need to be around if you've ever experienced it.
If somebody is rebuilding your home, you kind of need to be there all the time, almost every few days at least, to make decisions and see if it's going in the right direction.
So, now you say to yourself, but Scott, how god-awful expensive would it be to buy one of these cool mobile things?
Really expensive.
However, if you play your cards right, and here, I'm just spitballing here, I don't know if this would work, wouldn't it be true that they would have a resale value?
When you're done.
So could you buy it for, I don't know, a quarter of a million dollars?
I didn't see the price.
I have no idea what the price is.
And then when it's done, maybe it's two years later, you sell it for something like a quarter of a million dollars.
Because it might not even go down in value.
People might want them.
So it's entirely possible, not probable, But maybe there's some temporary way where you could have a pretty cool life.
Now, let me give you a little best-case scenario.
My understanding, and this is the only reliable estimate I've gotten, eyewitness, of how bad the destruction is.
It's something like maybe 20-25% of the homes in Pacific Palisades survived, but they have smoke damage.
And all the rest.
So if you imagine that maybe 20% of the residents have some capability of getting back into it faster than others, what would that be like?
And would you do it?
If your nearest neighbor was the only other burned house a street over, would you want to live there?
Your first impression would be no.
Let me give you your second impression.
If you moved in there and everything was just a few people, you would be friends with James Woods because he would be one of the few people.
So suddenly, all these people that maybe you didn't know but were kind of cool, they're just cool people.
It's not that they're rich, not that they're famous, they're just cool.
Yet you'd be able to hang out with all of them because James Woods would say hi to everybody.
He'd probably come over to your place.
Because there's nothing else to do.
So you would end up being friends with this weird combination of people that were not your direct neighbors and probably you wouldn't have met otherwise, but they would gravitate toward each other because they were the survivors.
I contend that although that was described as heaven on earth, just the best place in the world to live, they're not going to get back to that right away, but they could get back to something that's amazing, like actually just amazing.
And it could happen in a year.
So, if you want the good news, probably one year until 20% of the residents have something like an amazing, just an amazing situation.
Because they're going to get the weather back, they're going to get the climate back, and they're going to get a social structure back somewhat instantly that is beyond anything that you and I have seen.
Now, I've had an experience with that.
And here's why I think it's possible.
I used to stay a little extra long in college, so there'd be that last day before the holiday, before Thanksgiving or Christmas.
And I'd stay the extra day when almost everybody else would go home.
And what would happen would be there'd be maybe 25 students left on campus that last night.
What do you think we did?
It was 25 people that I didn't know.
We would all find each other.
And we would have just the best time.
Just the best time.
Complete strangers.
Because we were the ones who stayed behind.
So, there is some hope.
Anyway.
Here's the weirdest news.
And I'm going to call this a simulation alert.
That if we did not live in a simulation, I don't believe this could ever happen.
Alright?
Now, I'm not going to have to make the connection to the simulation.
You'll see it yourself.
I'll just tell you the story and then you connect it to the simulation.
According to the Daily Mail, there is now some science that shows that injecting a common household disinfectant into your body could help cure cancer.
Injecting a household disinfectant.
Now, be careful.
I'm not suggesting that anybody inject any...
Disinfectants.
It's a very specific, special case, and it's not every disinfectant.
It's just hydrogen peroxide, and I guess if you, they found out if you give a little injection into a tumor or a cancer cell, it weakens it so your other treatments can work.
So don't do it yourself.
Do not inject anything into yourself, ever.
It's just a test.
But what are the odds that there would be a headline?
As Trump is going into office, there's a headline about, you know, it'd be a good idea sometimes to inject some household disinfectant into your body, cure some cancer.
Come on!
Come on!
You think this is a real world when you see stuff like this?
This couldn't possibly be real.
Anyway.
Senator Fetterman.
And his wife went to visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
Washington examiner Selena Zito is talking about it.
And how do you think that went?
If you haven't heard the news, do you think Trump said, well, he took the knee, or do you think he insulted him?
How do you think that went?
Well, here's how it went.
Here's what Trump said afterwards.
He said, quote, it was a totally fascinating meeting.
He's a fascinating man, and his wife is lovely.
They were both up, and I couldn't be more impressed, Trump said about Fetterman and his wife.
They had an hour-long meeting, and Trump said, he's a common-sense person.
He's not liberal or conservative.
He's just a common-sense person, which is beautiful, Trump said.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
You know, I've been saying good things about Fetterman and getting slapped around on social media because the thinking is, you can't say anything nice about the other team because winning is the important thing.
Now, I understand that, and I'm completely on board with the concept of winning is the most important thing if the alternative is complete destruction of your country.
I get it.
I get it.
Winning is the most important thing if evil is the alternative.
But sometimes...
You've got to put a little nuance on this.
The fact that Trump can call out somebody on the other team as being a paragon of common sense improves Trump's messaging.
Because if Trump had said, I love common sense, and when the most famous common sense person on the other side came to talk with him, if he had somehow rejected him or dismissed him or insulted him or even played it off as not important.
That would have been a huge mistake.
Because his most central message is the thing that brings us together is common sense.
And so when he sees somebody coming together over common sense, he's got to call that out.
Because it looks like Trump complimenting Fetterman, and he is.
But it's really Trump complimenting the concept of common sense, which amazingly has to be championed in a day where there's so little of it.
You know, it's just remarkable that you have to even mention it.
But yeah, that's the secret sauce is the common sense.
And it is the unifier.
And Trump is playing it exactly right.
Speaking of Trump, so the inauguration is coming and security is very important, but a couple of things about that.
I don't know if this is true, but it was reported that the major drone maker...
That is a Chinese-owned company.
DJI, is it?
So most of the drones everywhere are made by one company in China.
They're basically the big drone company in the world.
And what they had been doing, China, is making their drones geofenced, which I thought was a requirement, but maybe it isn't because they dropped it.
So geofencing means that since the drone has a GPS, it knows where it is.
It would be prevented.
Even if you tried to fly it there, it would be prevented to go over a Navy base or military base or some government facility.
So even if you wanted to fly your Chinese drone over the White House, you couldn't do it.
Until now.
Allegedly, China just dropped the, at least the company, just dropped the geofencing barrier.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll take a fact check on this because there's part of my brain that says, I'm not sure this is true.
Well, all right, I'm going to go harder at it.
I'm going to say that if you're looking to spot fake news, you know, I always say the two on the nose, something's a little too perfect.
This one's striking me as a little too perfect.
That just days before the inauguration were the biggest risk, at least in their minds.
The biggest risk would be an aerial drone-like attack, especially if there's more than one of them.
At the very time that we're thinking of it, the one company that makes the most, I would say, dangerous drones, if you happen to be in America and you're sort of the hobbyist-level drone, the most dangerous ones drop their defense and become weaponized at exactly the time it would threaten Trump.
Does that feel a little too perfect?
So let me say this.
I'm going to say I don't believe it.
It could be true.
But it's so on the nose that I'm going to say put a pin in that one and give me a fact check in a few days, okay?
Get back to me on that and tell me if that's true.
It's not smelling right.
You know what I mean?
A little too perfect?
And then I hear that Netanyahu canceled plans to go to the inauguration, which some people are interpreting as a sign that it needs more security because maybe Netanyahu thought it wasn't safe enough.
But that's speculation.
I don't know if you've noticed that Netanyahu has a few things to do this week, as in they're negotiating the hostage release, etc.
So Netanyahu has all the reason in the world not to come.
There's nothing surprising about that.
But he got invited, so that's like a win-win for him, I would say.
All right.
There's some fake news about TikTok.
I think it's fake.
That Chinese officials are talking about allowing Elon Musk, and for some reason only him, to buy TikTok.
So TikTok will be not available in America unless something happened like just the next few days that would allow an American to buy it.
Now, if China and the Chinese-owned company don't want to sell it, it doesn't matter if anybody wants to buy it.
But I'm not sure anybody put together an offer that would look like it's acceptable.
So I think China...
The government said this was fake news and that China is not allowing...
There's nobody who's in power who says that Elon Musk should buy TikTok.
So Bloomberg said it was unnamed sources.
So how often have the anonymous sources of any story been correct?
When was the last time they were correct?
I don't remember a time.
I can't think of one time an anonymous source was right.
Not once.
Now, whistleblowers, yes, but they're not anonymous.
As soon as you say anonymous source and Bloomberg, I don't believe anything that comes after that.
I mean, those are two red flags for not being real.
Bloomberg, red flag, and then unnamed source, red flag.
So I'm going to say that's fake news.
That's my judgment.
There's also some fake news about Julia Roberts.
The news actually is accurate.
In this case, I think I saw it in the New York Post.
So the New York Post had it exactly accurate, but by the time social media read it and reinterpreted it, they turned it into fake news.
So here's the real news.
The real news is that Julie Roberts, actress Julie Roberts, said on Instagram, F you to looters as $10 million homes continued to be robbed during the L.A. fires.
Now, that got interpreted on social media as the home owned by Julia Roberts that was worth $10 million got looted.
That did not happen.
She was not talking about her own home and, indeed, doesn't seem to live there anymore, but nobody knows where she lives, but it might be in the Bay Area.
So she might be my neighbor, literally.
She might literally be my neighbor if she's in Northern California.
So that's...
Accidental fake news.
But the New York Post got it exactly right.
Interesting engineering publication and article by Abhishek Bardwaj is that there's something called a fire dome that's been invented.
There's a company that it's an Israeli-based firm called Fire Dome.
Now, my understanding is it's not physically a dome.
But what it is is a combination of AI and cameras and drones, I guess, and defensive tactics so that you could spot, or a town or a house could spot, a fire before it gets to the house.
So you'd somehow see the fire when it was small, send out your drones to stop the fire right away.
Now, that's not going to work if the wind is 100 miles an hour, but...
And it would even work if it's off the grid.
So it monitors the property and then responds.
It has some kind of anti-fire suppression stuff, too.
So it does wildfire detection, protection, and suppression.
Now, I think that's probably not something that LA cities can implement tomorrow and isn't going to work that well if the wind is 100 miles an hour.
But it's nice to know it's out there.
Here's something cool that also relates to that.
So Rice University has this new innovation where they used a dialysis machine for treating wastewater.
So dialysis, what you would do to purify blood, they ran, I don't know how much, if it's modified or just exactly a dialysis, but they ran some dirty salt water through it, and it did a good job of cleaning the salt out.
At much more effective technology than current technology.
So, not only could it maybe clean some of the waste, but the bigger part is that it does desalinization, which would allow you to use the ocean as your water source if you could do it inexpensively.
So, it's not quite ready for use, but that looks very promising.
Also, according to the Financial Times, the U.S. Natural gas industry is poised to expand like crazy when Trump lifts a number of Biden-era restrictions on it.
But how much could that change the economy?
That could ramp up our exports by $1.3 trillion over the next five years.
Wow.
I hate it when they give numbers over five years.
Because your brain wants to make it one year?
And it's sort of a trick.
If you're trying to make the number look big, you say over five or ten years.
If you wanted to make small, you say, well, it'll be no more than a billion dollars in the first year, or whatever it is.
But 1.3 trillion over five years, that's pretty important.
We'll take that.
Thank you very much, Trump.
Well, the Fed and Mike...
Johnson are looking at some relief for California, which would be probably a big dollar thing.
But Johnson is concerned, as all of us are, that anything the federal government gives to California will be wasted on bullshit or just stolen.
So the state does not have the credibility required to receive money.
Let me say that again.
My state is so poorly run that it is not credible.
As a place to give federal aid.
That's a big problem.
Okay.
How do you solve that?
Well, in the past, I think it was 9-11, maybe there are other examples, there would be some kind of a czar to oversee the government funding so it doesn't get stolen and given to the wrong people.
And so I saw Mike Sernovich saying we need some kind of a czar.
And I agree.
I'm 100% on board with We need a czar.
Now, how in the world do you find somebody who would be credible and competent and not already doing something else?
Where do you find these credible, competent people who are not already completely busy doing some other credible, competent thing?
Well, it's pretty rare.
Pretty rare.
But an interesting suggestion from Cerno.
It was Naval Ravikant.
If he hears me talk about it, he might hate it, because it would be the worst job in the world.
I can't imagine taking the job of Doge.
I mean, just all credit, all credit to Musk and Vivek for taking that on.
I mean, would you take that on?
That would be, you know, I like challenges, but I would look at that and go, ah, maybe not me.
Now, likewise, the job of making sure that the funding coming into California is not a fun job.
You're just going to get destroyed.
So you need somebody who's invulnerable to criticism, that they've reached that point in their life they're invulnerable.
Somebody who's obviously capable, like really obviously capable.
But here's the important part.
You want somebody who is famously nonpolitical.
How are you going to find that?
Somebody who is brilliant, capable, nonpolitical, and willing to work on something.
Well, Naval has actually said that he's given the right situation.
If it fit his talents, he'd be willing to help out the government in some hard places where maybe he just needed a little help that was suitable to his talents.
Sorry, Duval.
You're perfect.
I apologize in advance.
But you're kind of perfect.
If this is the thing, maybe this is the thing.
Maybe.
Just consider it.
All right.
Talk about timing.
So, a month ago, I would have said something like, you know, I don't think Democrats could...
Possibly look more incompetent or more evil.
Just sort of watching how the Biden administration has come together in the elections and the lawfare and everything else, I would have said, there's no way they can top what we've seen.
Then the fires, my God, I don't think Democrats could find any way to look more incompetent or more evil.
Here's an update on how wrong I was, according to the Daily Wire.
As the fires are raging, Which is not funny, but Governor Newsom and the Democrats have agreed to set aside $50 million to fight the Trump administration and defend illegal immigrants.
Now, I feel like the Democrats don't have any kind of smart people.
Because, read the room, the state's on fire.
Based almost...
Entirely on the incompetence of the people who should be doing the fire suppression in the first place.
If at the same time, you're failing in a way that we've rarely ever seen the depth of the spectacular incompetence.
Something that will last the ages.
We're talking about something that's not the headline this week, but it's going down in history.
As the worst managed state of all time.
And during that context, they thought it would be a good idea to put $50 million away to defeat the will of the American people who voted by a majority to have the Trump administration do what it said it would do.
Can you be any more incompetent than not being able to even get the politics right?
Okay, okay, fire suppression is pretty hard.
Pretty hard.
They should have done it.
But it's not hard to read the room when the state's on fire.
Maybe we should back off on some of the bullshit?
Maybe a little less bullshit when the fucking state's on fire?
Well, there goes my New Year's resolutions.
Anyway.
Do you remember that there was the client scientist, Michael Mann, and he was in a lawsuit with Mark Stein over claims of climate change.
So Mark Stein was criticizing this one scientist as well as climate change.
And the scientist, Michael Mann, decided to sue him for the things he said, and he won.
The scientists won.
So I guess Stein owes him a million dollars or something for something that the court decided the scientist was right and Stein had gone too far.
But the National Review, which is where I guess Stein had made the offending comments, had also made their own comments about Stein's comments.
Not criticizing him, just weighing in on it.
They were also included at one point in the lawsuit, but they'd been removed because what they were doing was more like free speech and not so much defaming somebody.
So they got dropped, but now the scientist who got a million dollars from Mark Stein is being ordered to pay half a million to the National Review to pay their lawyers, and that's only a partial payment.
That could go further.
So let me get this right.
Stein allegedly defames the scientist.
Scientist gets a million from Stein.
But the scientist may have gone too far in defaming the National Review.
So now the court is saying that they have to give the National Review half a million.
And then there's more coming.
Was that a 13-year waste of time?
So basically, it was just Mark Stein paying his own employer's legal fees by the time it's all done.
When you see what the lawyers did to the situation, it made it so much worse.
It's just no sense of anything that's right or wrong.
It's just a legal morass.
Anyway, that's fun to watch.
My take on this whole story is, why do we let the courts decide what science is correct?
Doesn't that seem like a mistake, to let the court decide who got their science right?
Because I'm pretty sure that, you know, I'm sure the case was more about what an individual did or did not do, not just the science.
But here's something that, according to this report that's in the...
Daily Caller News Foundation.
According to them, during the trial, there was a testimony from a tenured statistics professor and the chair of the undergraduate stats program in the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School.
All right, so keep in mind, this is the statistics professor.
And I think at the same school that Michael Mann is at, or was at, and the Wharton School.
At least in Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania.
And so I don't know if they were in exactly the same place, but both in Pennsylvania.
Let's just say both in Pennsylvania at the time.
Anyway, this expert in statistics testified that at the Mark Stein trial that Mann, the scientist, engaged in, quote, improper manipulation of data such that his signature model was, quote, misleading.
Now.
What do I always say about scientists?
Let me remind you.
If you're a really good scientist at, say, biology, are you also really good at statistics?
Probably not.
Probably not.
If you're a really good scientist at anything, are you also good at statistics?
You could be, but probably not.
That might not be your expert domain.
But this guy is a statistician, and if he says, you know, I don't know anything about climate change, but I'm looking at your numbers, and you didn't do the numbers right, that would be quite meaningful to me.
So here's somebody who's good at numbers, and he's a tenured professor of statistics, and he says you did the numbers wrong, and those numbers are driving your model.
So, Michael Mann, in case you're watching, I don't know what's true.
And I'm not blaming you of anything, since I don't want to get sued.
But I think the whole situation is funny, and I find it hard to take any of it as credible.
But speaking of climate change, the Wall Street Journal had a pretty funny editorial.
Apparently there's a new term that the Democrats are trotting out called hydroclimate whiplash.
And it's caused by climate change.
It means that in California, for example, some year it will be extra dry, but the next year it could be extra wet, and then the year after that could be extra dry.
Now, this is something that's happened in California since the beginning of recorded records.
Sometimes extra dry, sometimes extra wet, and sometimes extra dry, and I don't know if I mentioned it, sometimes extra wet.
But the climate experts have decided...
That they're going to call it a cool name, hydroclimate whiplash, and try to sell you on the fact it's caused by climate change.
Have I mentioned that in the entire history of California, sometimes it's extra wet, sometimes it's extra dry, just like the last few years.
So if the last few years are exactly like the history of California, that's clearly caused by climate change.
What?
So it's the baseline, the way it's always been.
But it must be caused by climate change.
So when it's dry, it's climate change.
When it's wet, it's climate change.
And when it changes from dry to wet or wet to dry, it's climate change.
May I give you one of the best ways to spot a scam?
Here's how to spot any scam.
Not climate change specifically, but just any scam.
Hey, I've got an idea that if you take this pill, Your hair will regrow.
Test, test, test.
Nobody's hair regrows.
Did I say hair would regrow?
We really found out it makes you taller.
Test, test, test.
Doesn't make you taller.
Doesn't make your hair grow.
Well, while you were testing it, I found out that it makes your breath smell better.
Okay, do you see where this is going?
If the claim stays the same, Even while all the assumptions and the facts change, the claim was never true.
If you're sticking to the claim, no matter what you see, it's not data-driven.
And climate change might be true, but we don't believe it because it's data-driven.
We believe it because we've been told to believe it.
Now, could there be data?
Yes.
Could humans be influencing climate?
Yes, they could be.
Do I know how much or how dangerous that would be?
Nobody does.
Nobody does.
But it's not very high on my list of things to worry about.
However, what would be, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board goes on, what would be some of the things that California is doing to battle the wildfires?
You're probably thinking, oh, they're going to do lots of fire mitigation.
Remove all those burnable things.
Maybe have better resources nearby.
Stuff like that, right?
Well, maybe.
But they've got a climate bond, which partly I'll be paying for, that has $36 million for sequestering the carbon and reduced emissions from ranches and farms that I don't think we need.
$47 million for expansion of green streets, parks, and schoolyards.
Okay, that would be nice, but...
I don't think we need it to stop the fires.
$80 million for climate action through nature-based solutions to improve equitable access to nature.
Yeah, I like equitable access to nature.
But I feel like everybody can walk outdoors.
$80 million.
$190 million for parks in the state's most disadvantaged communities.
Because when the state's on fire, I'm thinking, if only we had more parks.
And the disadvantaged communities.
And $228 million to build for port upgrades so we can support offshore wind generation, which is the worst idea in the world.
So in order to support the worst idea for energy, we're going to spend $228 million to just get there.
So that's my state.
Now, let me ask you again.
Do you think we need some kind of a czar?
Watch the spending coming in from the feds.
If the feds gave California spending for fire mitigation, they would spend it on climate change.
Wouldn't they?
If the California Democrats say climate change is the problem, and the federal government says, here's billions of dollars to go fix your fire problem, what the hell are they going to spend the money on?
The Democrats will spend it on climate change and equitable parks.
And ports for windmills.
Right?
What would stop them?
Nothing would stop them.
And then, of course, they'd steal a lot.
Now, would Naval...
I'll just pick a name.
Sorry, Naval.
I hate to do this to him.
But do you think Naval would have taken that money and said, yeah, let's put this into the ports for the windmills?
No.
Wind turbines.
You can call it wind turbines if you want to be non-Trumpian about it.
No, I don't think he would.
Meanwhile, Jack Smith, special counsel, as you know, has resigned.
And he was the one bringing the January 6th related charge against Trump.
And in his report, he said, quote, I can assure you that neither I, well, not his report, or he said about it anyway.
I can assure you that neither I nor the prosecutors on my team would have tolerated or taken part in any action by our office for partisan political purposes.
Come on.
Can I read that again with the proper attitude?
I can assure you that neither I nor the prosecutors on my team Would it have tolerated or taken part in any action by our office for partisan political purposes?
Come on.
That's ridiculous.
And what was it that he was charging Trump for?
Lying.
Well, in a sense.
He was charging Trump because the most important part of his charges are, wait for it, That Trump knew, knew, not assumed, but knew, that the 2020 election was fair.
How does anybody know that?
That's not knowable.
You can know that nobody proved it was unfair.
That's fair.
But is that the same as proving it wasn't rigged?
How could anybody know if it wasn't rigged?
It's designed so you can't know.
The design of the system guarantees that the public and even the president can't know who won.
There is no way to know who won by design.
Now, you can challenge me on that, but you're going to lose.
The design makes it impossible to know who won.
We know who has declared the winner, and we know if any big problems were found and concluded by the court to be big problems.
But we don't ever know who won.
Our system cannot tell us that.
It can only tell us what they want to tell us.
That's all we know.
But Jack Smith has used the standard that Trump made some, quote, obviously false claims about the 2020 election rigging.
Obviously false.
What would be an example of something obviously false?
Well...
I can assure you that neither I nor the prosecutors on my team would have tolerated or even taken part in any action by our office for partisan political purposes.
That's obviously false.
You know what's not obviously false?
That the election was rigged.
Maybe it was rigged.
Maybe it wasn't.
It's not obviously false.
Now, he's had some parts of the claims were obviously false.
Now, there might have been some that kind of stood out as, well, that doesn't look likely.
But if you tell me that half of the country thought it was obviously rigged and half of the country agreed with Trump, if half of the country thinks the same thing as Trump, calling that obviously wrong, obviously?
What is the definition of obvious now?
In my definition, if half of the country can't see what you think everybody can see, it's not obvious.
It's the opposite of obvious.
So the fact that we can allow that reframe to haunt us this far, the reframe that somehow you could know who won in our system.
Amazing.
Just amazing that it got this far.
That is pure hoax.
Pure hoax.
And you don't even have to research to know that that's a hoax because you can't know what you don't know.
Unless you have a system that was designed to make sure that you could know all things.
And it's not that.
It's certainly not designed that way.
Anyway, and then Smith, in his report, by the way, he released his 176-page report, even though the trial is canceled.
So you're going to see all the bad news about Trump, but it's a 176-page report.
Most of which, I guess we knew.
Nobody's going to read his 176-page report.
Nope.
Nobody's going to read it.
But Smith said he blamed the violence of that day squarely on Trump, who, quote, engaged in unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results.
The legitimate results?
Wait a minute, this sentence has another illogical part in it.
The legitimate results?
Well, they were legitimated by the system.
I guess that would be true.
But is it legitimate?
Because that's sort of up to me, isn't it?
It's up to you and it's up to anybody looking at it.
Do you think it's legitimate?
I wouldn't call it that.
It was legitimized by the system, but I don't trust the system, so that's not legitimacy.
In order to retain power.
Do you think that he did it in order to retain power?
Because there is no evidence to support that.
So his main claim...
That the reason he did it was that he knew the election was good, but he only did it to retain power.
There's no evidence for that at all.
What, did they read his mind?
Is there some evidence that he told somebody directly, yeah, you know, I think the election was fair, but I just want to retain power.
Is there any evidence to that?
No.
The primary claim that he's summarizing has no evidence whatsoever.
None was presented.
None was proffered.
There's none.
This is just his own weird assumption.
How did he turn his own weird assumption into something that looks like proof when it's just based on his own weird assumption?
Do you know if...
By the way, I'm going to be totally demonetized.
I expect to be totally demonetized for even questioning that the integrity of the election could be known or not known.
That would be enough, I think, to...
I'll be completely demonetized.
Watch.
Just demonetized for the episode, not for the whole channel.
But here's what Trump says on True Social.
He did a rant against Smith, and he called it fake findings at 1 a.m.
Well, it was released at 1 a.m., I guess, for some reason.
He called Smith deranged.
And he said Smith is a lame-brain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election.
Now, whose messaging are we going to remember?
I have a 176-page document in which I claimed was not political, but everybody knows it was, and there's nothing in it that you don't know.
Versus Trump.
A lame-brained prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the election.
Now he was unable because Trump's lawyers did a really good job of dragging it out.
Anyway, that's happening.
Michael Schellenberger is on Tucker podcast, and it's amazing.
It's amazing.
I haven't watched it all, but watching Michael Schellenberger just explain...
Things you're watching in the news, but you haven't heard the right context and you don't know exactly the stuff that you should know, but he does.
It was really good.
And I'm glad to know Tucker introduced him by saying that in Tucker's opinion, he was the best in the business, Schellenberger.
I think that too.
I think we haven't seen a Michael Schellenberger that I can think of.
I mean, he's so good at explaining the complicated stuff.
See, the complicated stuff is what the lesser journalists...
I'm not even sure if Schellenberger calls himself a journalist.
I don't know what he prefers to go by.
But he does the job the journalists should be doing, and he does it amazingly.
And it's so valuable to get the full context.
Anyway, he tells us that half of all fires put out by the LA Fire Department are started by homeless.
So Tucker asked the obvious question, why do homeless people start fires?
Now, I thought the answer was going to be something like, crazy people do stuff.
But Schellenberger had actually an insightful take on that.
He said, turns out that meth heads love to start fires.
So I guess within the people who understand the drug world, which again, is yet another thing that Schellenberger has done a deep dive on.
So when he does a deep dive on the fires, He already has done a deep dive in a different time on the drug homeless problem.
So he's one of the few people who can say, well, let's put these together and see what we see.
So when he puts it together with the homeless, suddenly any of the conspiracy stuff disappears because he can tell you there's something about people on meth.
They like the fire.
Their choices are different.
But there's a very consistency that meth equals starting fires.
So, I didn't know that.
That certainly is interesting.
And then there was a more interesting point.
I'm not going to say I agree with this, but I'm going to say it's really interesting.
That the theory, and I'm going to do a bad job of explaining it, so watch Michael Schellenberger explain it.
You'll do the good version.
But when people don't have religion, as many Californians...
Would fit into that category.
That people don't just get rid of a religion, they replace it.
Now that's the part which I'm willing to believe, but I need a little more convincing.
Kind of makes sense, so I'm not debunking it whatsoever.
I'm just saying, I love how interesting this is.
And the thought is that since religion has built into it, there's an invisible person watching you and you better not do these things.
That that gets replaced with some kind of internalized guilt that even though there's not an invisible God watching you, you're bad and you need to improve.
So it becomes kind of self-destructive and you can end up doing things that are not in your best interest even if your plan is not to do things that are not in your best interest.
It's just that you're led in that direction by some kind of guilt.
And so that that would cause something like the LA fires, according to Michael, are an emergent property of abandoning religion and inventing your own source of guilt.
Now those are my words, but essentially he calls it an emergent property.
So nobody planned it.
It's just that once you've abandoned religion, you replace it with guilt, you start working on your guilt, and that might not be where you should be fixing problems.
If the problem you're trying to fix is your own guilt, you do DEI. If the problem you're trying to fix is that it might burn up your state if you don't do fire stuff, you do fire prevention stuff.
So it could be that the lack of having a religion to take care of the conscience caused people to change their focus to look for a way to get that same religious feeling without the religion.
Do I buy that?
Not entirely.
But it's fascinating.
And it could be completely true.
So I'm willing to say that's a great hypothesis.
Let's keep it open.
Let's keep that hypothesis open.
I'm not sold.
Not sold.
But it's sellable.
It's very sellable.
Meanwhile, on CNN, Jim Acosta was talking to the potato-looking guy.
I can't remember his name.
Or somebody.
I can't remember.
But he was saying that, talking about Zuckerberg and the Biden administration censoring, Jim Acosta says, all they were doing is asking for COVID disinformation to be removed.
That's what they should be doing.
Really?
All they were doing is asking for COVID disinformation to be removed?
Does Jim Acosta not know how the whole free speech thing works?
You're allowed to say things that aren't right.
You can say it all day long according to our Constitution.
Does the government have some responsibility and or right to tell you you can't be wrong according to that?
No, of course not.
It's a total ridiculousness.
So they're redefining free speech as agreeing with the government.
The opposite of free speech.
So if you watch CNN, just hold this to your mind.
If you watch CNN, you wouldn't know what free speech was.
Isn't that wild?
So if you didn't learn it and learn it well, you know, in some kind of educational process, it's the first time you came into discussion of what does free speech mean?
Because it's a little bit complicated.
It's not as obvious as it looks, right?
Who can say what?
Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?
Can you defame somebody?
Can you say things that are wrong about an important medical issue?
It's a little bit complicated.
It gets simplified when you say, you know, as long as you're not doing it with the intention of harming somebody or it's not ridiculous, you can do it.
Even the ridiculous part is too far.
Anyway, here's what I wouldn't mind the government doing.
I wouldn't mind if the government or even the social media said, we're going to pair any...
Any statement that looks non-factual to the government with what the government says.
Now, even if the government's wrong and the person's saying the criticism is right, I don't mind seeing both sides.
Do you?
So I wouldn't want it to be a law that you always have to see the government side.
But if some social network said, you know, the government, just so you know, the government has an opposite opinion.
I would like to know that.
Because I think we're smart enough now.
To know that the government isn't always the one that's right.
Quite often.
I mean, we've seen it on both sides.
It's not a political thing.
We see that the government's sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
Everybody would agree with that statement.
Sometimes right, sometimes wrong.
So if I see both sides, I'm not going to complain about that.
But I wouldn't want the government to mandate it.
So if Facebook decided, you know, we're going to make sure you see both sides, that's okay.
No problem.
But here's what's funny about CNN. CNN has what I call clowns, and then they have people who are maybe just biased.
And the clowns with people like John Avalon, Jim Acosta, Jasmine Crockett, they don't seem like serious people.
They seem like people who just went on there to say, whatever's bad with Trump, and that's it.
But that's not true of all the CNN hosts.
You know, when I watch Anderson Cooper or Jake Tapper, I might not like the way they're approaching something, but sometimes they'll say something bad about Democrats like Biden's brain.
You know, why didn't you tell a suitor?
Now, you could say, well, it was safe to say it after it was too late because it didn't make any difference.
But, you know, the criticism you would do for, say, a Tapper or an Anderson Cooper would be about bias, but it wouldn't be they're clowns.
But some of their people on air just strike me as clowns.
But here's the funny thing.
They also, either intentionally or unintentionally, hired the best clown killer of all time, Scott Jennings.
So if you're not watching Scott Jennings being often the lone voice, sometimes he has somebody else on there that's conservative, but he's often the lone voice on the panel for the Republican side of things.
So here's what I love.
So CNN's producers, seemingly intentionally, because how could you not know this, they paired their best Republican clown killer with the Democrats' worst clown.
So they put Scott Jennings sitting literally right next to John Avalon.
I mean, he's probably the head clown of the entire network.
And so Avalon says some clownish thing.
And then Jennings says, let me answer your criticism by asking you a question.
Do you think it was uniting?
So what Avalon said was that people online are fueling division over wildfires instead of unity.
So John Avalon is worried about the Democrat criticism.
So he thinks the criticism is overdone.
And what we should really be shooting for is unity to...
You know, get things done.
And after this unity call from the clown, Jennings says, let me answer your criticisms by asking you a question.
Do you think it was uniting or dividing while in the midst of these fires for the Democrats to go to Sacramento and in an emergency session vote to appropriate $50 million to, quote, Trump-proof California to sue the Trump administration, which hasn't even taken office yet?
Do you think that was a good priority?
And a good time to do that or no.
Was that dividing?
Was that divisive or was that uniting?
And we're done.
CNN's producers put the clown killer next to the clown.
Thank you.
That's good stuff.
I'll watch that all day long.
CNN, you got me.
You got me.
If you keep putting the clown killer next to the clowns, I'm going to watch you all day long.
Your ratings are going to turn around.
Give me that.
Give me more of that.
Clown killer and clown.
Can't beat it.
Meanwhile, also on CNN, and this part you might have missed.
If you saw the clip live, you might have missed a really, really important little thing that was just sort of hidden in it.
So let's see if I can explain it.
So Harry Enten on CNN is the most data-driven Objective person on the network.
Which is good, because he's the data guy.
So he does the polling and, you know, how have opinions changed and stuff.
And when he talks about it, it's not, let's talk about how Trump is bad and all Democrats are good.
He just says what the data says.
And he's really good at it.
So all credit to Harry Enten on CNN. Does a great job.
But he's being interviewed by, is it John Berman?
Who, in this context, would be the propagandist.
So Enten is the voice of reason.
Berman would be, historically, in my opinion, more of a propagandist.
So Harry Enten shows the data, the way he interpreted the data, is that the public is not making any connection between the wildfires and climate change.
So the main messaging of the Democrats is, whoa, it's climate change, it's climate change, but the public's not buying it.
In fact, the public has moved backwards in its belief about whether climate change is causing wildfires in general.
So now we're down to, since 2023, we're down to, in 2023, we're down to 39% were worried about climate change.
And in 2019, 49% of those polled said humans contribute to climate change.
So basically half of the public said humans contribute to climate change.
Today, years later, after years and years of climate change propaganda, only 45% say that humans contribute to climate change.
So now it's less than half.
So less than half of the country is buying the main Democrat messaging on climate change.
All right?
So now, again, credit to Harry Enten, because he's just following the numbers, and that's just what the numbers say.
So here's the fun part.
So then the John Berman says, trying to wrap it up, and he says, he goes, even as scientists say climate change is causing more extreme weather events.
Even as scientists say climate change is causing more extreme weather events.
Is that true?
Are scientists saying that climate change is causing more extreme weather events?
Or is it the opposite?
Because when I read the news about this, it's always, oh, well actually the hurricanes are not getting more frequent or worse.
Oh, actually the wildfires have historically always been this bad.
Right?
So, it's just not true.
The scientists say climate change is causing more extreme weather events, is it?
It might be true that some are, but I don't even think that's the consensus anymore, is it?
So what does Harry Enten do when the propagandist says something that I'm pretty sure Harry Enten knows is not true?
But they're on TV, it's live, and the guy who tries to be honest is faced with a summary from his co-worker that either...
I don't think he believes it's true.
So instead of agreeing with, even though scientists say climate change is causing more extreme weather, Harry Enten very cleverly says this.
Even as extreme weather goes up, humans are basically the public's less worried.
So you see how he reframed it?
So Enten, I'm reading some minds here, so I can't be positive that either of them are thinking the way I'm explaining it.
But what it looked like was that Berman was trying to throw the propaganda for climate change into the story, and Enten's the data guy, and he wasn't having it.
But he couldn't go against him on the air, so he reframed it away from the scientists and just said, the public's not buying it.
Good job, Harry Enten.
Staying on fact.
Trump was railing last night about Seth Meyers, NBC late night host.
He's calling him.
He said, I got stuck watching Marble Mouth Meyers the other night.
Every time I watch this moron, I feel an obligation to say how dumb and untalented he is.
Merely a slot filler for the scum that runs Comcast.
Comcast owns NBC. And he says Comcast should be paying for in-kind contributions to the radical-left Democratic Party, and Comcast should pay a big price for this.
Well, I like part of this.
I don't like the part where Comcast should pay a big price for this, because it feels a little bit more like free speech should not be impinged or penalized.
I mean, it is true that it's a propaganda.
It is true that it's one-sided, etc.
But I don't know.
In our system, free speech, if you kind of know it's one-sided, and if you turn on Goffeld and you watch a higher quality show, you're going to see the other side of things.
So I wouldn't be terribly eager to see the new administration go after Comcast because Seth Meyers says stuff that Trump doesn't like.
That feels a little too far.
And by the way, I feel that there's an obligation on Trump supporters to set some kind of a line of what's too far.
Because part of the thing we like about him is he'll do everything that other people do, and then he'll push the envelope a little bit.
So pushing the envelope is what I like.
I like that he pushes the envelope everywhere.
In every domain, he pushes the envelope.
But I think that that makes an obligation on the supporters, such as myself, that we need to be vocal if there's something that's just a hint of too far.
To me, that's too far to say that Comcast should pay a big price for this coming from the president in a threatening way.
I love the fact that he does a critical review of the quality of the show.
That I love.
I love that he came up with an insulting nickname for somebody who's on the other team.
Love it.
Love it.
Threatening Comcast for what seems to me free speech?
Be careful with that one.
So I'm going to do my citizen duty to say where I think the line needs to be drawn.
You can disagree.
That's part of your citizen duty.
Starbucks reversed its policy that would allow anybody to sit at its cafe even if they weren't buying anything, which, of course, is going to be an invitation to homeless.
That didn't work out.
So they're changing it.
You can only be a customer if you're going to be hanging out in the cafe.
Is that the Trump effect, where everybody is now sort of allowed to be a little more commonsensical?
You have permission to do common sense.
Is that the Trump effect?
Or is it simply that they tried it and it was a disaster?
Maybe both.
Maybe the disaster wasn't enough to change it.
But the Trump effect gives you cover, because everything else going on is a bigger deal.
So, maybe the Trump effect.
Maybe, but not entirely.
Here's something I love.
Melania did an interview, and she said this, and I quote, I don't want to hire too many people on my team spending too much taxpayer money.
I want to make sure that every position they are talented, they have merit, they know what they're doing.
Is it too soon to call it?
Thank you.
I'm going to call it.
Best First Lady ever.
Any disagreement?
I want my First Lady.
To say something that's 100% compatible with what the country voted for.
And I don't want to hear another story about that damn first lady who spent way more than she should have, you know, in prior administrations, way more than she should have to get good China and to upgrade something that we didn't think needed to be upgraded.
Now, I don't think that Melania came up with this genius.
Messaging on her own.
I think she has good advisors.
So, first of all, shout out once again to whoever is advising the Trump team, including Melania.
This is just genius.
This is not just okay.
This is genius.
She could not have nailed this harder.
The wording is perfect.
It's concise.
It's on message.
She adds merit in there.
Doesn't want to spend too much money.
That's compatible with Doge.
This is everything.
This is exactly what I want out of the First Lady or the First Husband, whoever it is.
Best ever.
Message perfection.
Now let's compare it to, if you want to see the difference in quality of messaging, let's compare it to what Harris is saying about the wildfires in California.
First of all, You have to worry about the climate change.
So, got to worry about that climate change.
Second is, she reminds us that the citizens really need to be more patient in waiting for help.
So, it wasn't so much a totally Democrat mismanagement tragedy that burnt up the entire state.
It wasn't that.
No, it was a climate change problem, and now we're into more of a citizens being impatient problem.
It makes you wonder, should there be some kind of punishment for the citizens who are impatient about the government?
We've got to worry about the impatience of those people.
Yes, their homes are just ashes on the ground, and they've lost everything, but...
You know, the real problem, I think we need to focus more on their impatience, really.
We keep talking about giving them clean water and turning the power on and, you know, will they ever be able to return home in their toxic environment?
No, no, no, no, no.
Don't think small.
Stop thinking small.
You want to elevate this.
Let's talk about their impatience.
Now, come on.
That's somebody who almost became the President of the United States.
I'll take Melania over whatever that is any day of the week for any job.
Let me say that again.
For any job, I would take Melania over Kamala Harris.
For any job.
Any job.
House cleaning to President of the United States.
I'm going to take Melania.
It's not even close.
Well, just for fun, you should know that Michael Cohen was on MSNBC basically begging for a pardon from the Biden administration.
And I don't know if he's going to get it because he's so originally associated with Trump and probably completely hated by the Democrats.
So if the Democrats give Michael Cohen and Biden, if they give him a pardon...
I guess it would be a preemptive pardon, I guess.
That would be surprising, but he's trying hard to get it.
He says he should get it because even though Hunter was Biden's son, and everybody understands that Biden would give a pardon to his son, you don't have to explain that too much.
It's just common biology.
But Michael Cohen's making the argument that he also is somebody's son, so therefore he should get a pardon.
Because he's somebody's son.
I don't know.
If I ever hired a lawyer, I wouldn't want him to be this dumb or ridiculous.
But anyway.
Meanwhile, Hamas has accepted the draft agreement, which means they haven't finalized it, but for the Gaza ceasefire and release of 33 hostages.
Now here's what I believe is true about it.
The 33 is out of 98 hostages.
So, you know, one-third.
But that seems to be all the civilians.
Now, I can't guarantee that.
But if it's all the civilians, and it might include the female military, I think.
There might be five of them.
That would leave the male military people who are still being held.
Now, I could see why they'd do it.
I understand why they do it in that order.
You understand, right?
Everybody understands why you do it in that order.
Because men are useless.
So they're going to let the citizens out because the males who are in the military are worth less?
How do you decide who gets to live and die?
Do you do it by identity?
That's what they did.
Now, I get...
If you're in the military, you're taking on a bigger risk.
But keep in mind, it's universal draft or whatever it is.
So everybody in Israel ends up in the military, right?
So you can't say that the people who are being held or chose to be in the military so they took on a bigger risk.
They didn't choose it.
It was required.
So every person who was being held...
Didn't choose anything about it.
There was no choice.
So why did the adult men go last?
Now, I get it biologically.
Biologically, I understand that women are more valuable than men because they can do the baby-making.
It doesn't take many men to do that.
But, you know, I'm just going to put it out there that somebody just made a decision that adult men Are worth less than the women and the civilians.
Don't love it.
Don't love that.
But I can see why they do it.
Now, of course, part of this is that they would agree to a secondary phase, which might include the rest of the people, but that would not be negotiated to completion.
While they're doing their first phase, you know, they might be continuing to negotiate.
And the first phase release would be over several weeks.
So none of it's going to happen.
None of it will happen before Trump's in office.
Do you think Trump is going to accept we'll release one-third of them over six weeks?
Why would he?
Why would he?
It should be exactly the same penalty whether you release him or not.
Right?
I mean...
I'm sorry.
Whether you release part of them or not, Trump's response should be the same.
You don't treat this as a negotiation.
See, this is what Israel, I think, is getting wrong.
I'm not there, so they're obviously very smart.
So when I say it's wrong, it's from my perspective, not having all the information.
But from my perspective, you don't treat this part as a negotiation.
You do what Trump is doing.
This is your ticket to the negotiation.
Because what the Hamas and Gazans want is to figure out what happens to their entire future.
The entire future is in the negotiation.
The ticket to even be in the conversation is you let everybody go now.
That's the ticket.
That's not the negotiation.
That's the ticket to the negotiation.
Trump gets that 100% right.
I don't know why Israel has other...
Other variables or other considerations.
Maybe it's the local public opinion.
That could be it.
Which would be less on Trump than it would be on Netanyahu.
So, I don't know.
I'd like to see Trump fix this, if he can.
And I think that's all I had to say about this.
And, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to the locals, people.
Privately for a little bit.
Let's see if we can fix some fire stuff.
Get this country going again.
The golden age is off to a slow start with the fire.
But I do believe that the fires have one hideous advantage.
It's hideous because of the way you get there.
But the advantage is, I think it's the...
Complete destruction of the Democrat way of governing.
Maybe not the complete destruction of the Democrat Party, because they're probably resilient.
But their way of approaching things with identity and climate first and feelings first, I feel like it's so discredited that if it could ever come back, it would take a long time.
So I worry what happens when Trump retires from the process.
Will there be enough Republican strength to keep common sense in our sights?
Or is it going to turn into ridiculousness like equity and who's being impatient and what's your climate doing and all that stuff?
