d put Jared on the list as being a superstar. I don't know. I've got a feeling that you could pick apart any administration and you could find a number of political hires. Aren't they always political hires? It's sort of built into the process. I don't know that Trump is doing any better or worse in terms of staffing. That's just an opinion.

Well, what would be your — yeah, well, Perdue. Okay. So there. So I'm not going to argue that the Trump administration had all superstars. But is it really different? I mean could you really — do you think you could objectively look at the people that Trump has hired and cycled through and fired and rehired? Do you think that you could really put any administration up against any other and that one would look like the incompetently staffed one? I feel like no. I feel like they would all look like — here's my guess. I feel like every administration is probably 70 percent effective people and maybe 30 percent political. You know, I had to return a favor. But that's also how you get elected. If you haven't taken some political favors, you probably didn't get elected.

So we sort of also — we all just sort of wince and say yeah, I hate that part, but they all do it. It's how they got elected. It's fairly transparent. When a big donor becomes a cabinet head. Yeah, Peter Navarro, I'd say he's a star. Make a good example.

So I don't know that this claim holds up. It would be interesting if there was any — I don't know if there's any way to actually prove it. But it all comes down to a very subjective statement that some group of people are less talented than others. We don't know that. That's completely unknowable if you're not there. You don't really know.

So this really sums it up. All right. So my hypothesis is the candidates have stopped mattering and it's just a brainwash competition between the left media and the right media. And I will put a bow on that point by talking about Oliver Darcy. He's with CNN.

So Oliver Darcy is tweeting about the fact that the Fox News hosts had a variety of opinion on the president taking hydroxychloroquine, which we know to be true. So it's a true fact that the Fox News hosts have talked about it differently. Ambiguously they've talked about it differently. But they've also had experts on who also talked about it differently.

So Darcy writes, "Fox can't get its story straight." What? Can't get its story straight? What's that mean? Did I just describe a network that can't get its story straight? What does that mean? Should there be one story? Why can't Neil Cavuto have a different opinion than Laura Ingraham? Is that not allowed? Why couldn't Tucker have a different opinion than somebody on The Five? If he does, I don't know if he does. Why can't they do that?

And the fact that a CNN person would start with the very first sentence "Fox can't get its story straight," doesn't that indicate that if you work at CNN — wait for it. Yes, somebody's already ahead of me. Wait for it. Isn't he telling us fairly directly that at CNN they have to get their story straight? What does that mean? Yeah, what does it mean to get your story straight? Well, the context he's offering is that everybody says the same thing.

I believe he's admitting in public that Fox has a diversity of opinions and CNN does not present a diversity of opinions, apparently by choice. He's saying it directly. If you use the phrase "get your stories straight" as a criticism of the competing network, how do you not interpret that as CNN works hard to get their story straight? And again, since the story is opinion — you know, whether you should or should not say something or do something with hydroxychloroquine — it's really an opinion story given that the experts have different opinions. And we know that. Should you get your opinions straight?

I think he just admitted that they're not even in the business of news. And that seems like a pretty direct admission. So that's fascinating.

All right. Let me see if there's anything else to talk about here. Phil Kerpen. And that's an interesting string of tweets. And he's talking about the fact that the elderly are still the main people dying. So even today on May 20th, we've known now for how many months have we known that age is the biggest risk factor? We've known that since, correct me, January? Have we known since January that this virus really attacks the elderly like super, super hard? We've known that, right?

How long have we been talking about the strategy of super protecting the elderly and then letting the younger people take more of a risk? We've been talking about that for months. And yet today the elderly, the very group that we've identified and everybody agrees — there's no conversation on this. Everyone agrees these are the most dangerous at-risk group. And we're not protecting them.

Now I have to think that people are doing a lot of stuff. There must be a lot of activity going on to try to protect them. But we're failing. Can you believe that? After three months of knowing exactly who's at risk exactly — I mean you could list unless a guy here's 85 years old, you're at risk. We know who's at risk at the highest risk. And we're still not protecting them. What's up with that?

Is there something about the nature of the virus that's just too hard? Maybe you can try as hard as you can and you just can't get it done. But today still, still they're dying at the rate they're dying. Do you know what the correct rate of death from coronavirus should be for anybody over 80? If you're over 80, what should be your death rate from coronavirus in the United States? Zero. Zero. That's what it should be.

If there's an 85-year-old who's having any contact with somebody who could have also had contact with the coronavirus, aren't we doing it wrong? Isn't there some way you can make sure that they don't have any contact with the virus? There's got to be a way to do that. Clearly we're not getting it done.

All right. So that's the bad news. But we don't like to end on bad news, do we? We do not.

So recapping the good news, here it is. You want some really good news? I'm going to give you some real direct, reliable good news. Yesterday I talked to the most successful real estate broker in my area. So it's a friend in the neighborhood who's probably the top real estate producer in my area. And as of last night I asked what's the real estate market because I thought to myself, oh, real estate is going to get killed, right? Don't you assume real estate is going to get killed? Goodbye, troll.

So I asked her what's happening with real estate sales. And guess what? Strong as ever. This week homes are being sold for higher than asking price. This week. So I've been in Northern California just for reference. Now in Northern California, you know where I am in the East Bay outside of San Francisco, where we're sort of Silicon Valley adjacent. So it's a lot of people who didn't lose their jobs because a lot of technology jobs, they just worked at home. So I'm in an unusual area in that we were unusually lightly affected.

But could you imagine that people are paying over the asking price for homes this week? This is mind-blowing, doesn't that tell you that the economy is going to come back faster? Of course it is. Yeah, interest rates are low, so that makes a big difference. Somebody says our beach condo is on fire in Florida, meaning lots of demand.

So here's what I expect. Look at the stock market. Did you think the stock market should be — I don't know what it's doing at the moment. Let me just take a peek at it so I know. The stock market's up sharply. Did you see that? The stock market up sharply and home prices selling above their asking prices. There's something happening here that's a big deal.

Now I've got to say I think there's something about the Trump administration that even people who don't like Trump still think he can goose the economy. I feel like even his haters in their secret moments would say to themselves, I hate everything about this president, but if I'm being honest privately, if I had to pick one person in the history of civilization to be the president during this exact situation — meaning that somebody needs to get the economy going — honestly I can't think of a better choice.

And I'm not just cheerleading for the president because I've also been vicious in my criticisms of the early crisis task forces, the reporting on them and a lot of stuff about that. So I've been vicious about his communication, his empathy, etc., early on. So I'm not just giving him a free pass here. But honestly he is exactly the right person for this next phase. Exactly.

And I say this all the time and I believe I'm the only person in civilization who holds this opinion. There's no such thing as a good president. That's my opinion. There's no such thing as a good president. There is only a lucky coincidence between the problems and the situations of the time and the right personality with the right skill set. You can have exactly the right president for exactly the right problem. And we have that right now.

We did not have exactly the right president for exactly the right problem when it was empathy and sort of caring for the psychology of the country and saying things that made you feel safe about the medical situation and talking about them in the most clinical ways as opposed to getting people all worked up about some drug that hasn't passed enough tests. So Trump was not the right fit for that. But man, is he the right fit for this next part? Don't you see it? This is just me being crazy? Because I feel like you couldn't pick a better person for this.

By the way, I just saw Bloomberg's name go by in the comments. I only recently learned that Stacey Abrams is working for some organization that's funded by Bloomberg. So is Stacey Abrams Mike Bloomberg's play to run the country? Because a lot of politicians have at least one billionaire that's sort of their friend, if you know what I mean. So is Stacey Abrams just a Mike Bloomberg cutout? And he is actually still running for president but he's going to do it by trying to get Stacey Abrams as the vice president and then Biden would be sort of less important. That's what it looks like, right? It looks like a Mike Bloomberg play to run the country. That's my take on it anyway.

I think the economy is going to do great in 2021 and beyond. And the golden age is coming. We're going to have our generation four nuclear energy. You've got AOC saying that the Green New Deal doesn't even have a price tag. Rather it's a set of shared values. Do you know what value I share with AOC? Same ones you do, turns out. Yeah, I would like cheap, clean energy with no risk of the planet overheating. I don't know how big the risk is, but I'd like that to be zero. And I'd like to do it with