re like the strategy? Don't even know what that word means. So instead you make it a checklist and you say here's how to have 100 life. 100 life just means a full life that's got all the good stuff in it. If you commit a crime subtract four points. If you get bad grades in school subtract seven points. If you become addicted to a substance subtract 25 points. Whatever the numbers are. I'm just putting random numbers on stuff. But you could actually have a checklist of say five to ten items and you just tell the kids if you want your life to be a hundred percent make sure you don't check any of these boxes of these big mistakes. Here's why this would work. Simplification always works. But it's better to say you could lose something than if you do something you might gain something in the future. Imagine telling a first grader that if you work hard today 25 years from now you're going to have a good time. Doesn't work because people don't respond the same to opportunity as they do to the risk of losing something. So instead you reverse the equation and you say you were born with a hundred percent life. Your life is perfect in first grade. You know your home life might be a disaster but in terms of where you could go, 100 if you did all the right stuff. But I'm going to take away from you some of your life if you make these mistakes. And then people start seeing it as a loss. Wait a minute. I was born with 100 potential and then I made this choice and this choice and I could see how that diminished my potential. And then I could look at all the older people who are not having a good life and I could say wait a minute, oh yeah this checklist totally works. That person's having a bad life and yep sure enough committed a crime, joined a gang, it's right here on the list. Got addicted to substance, there it is, it's right on the list. Had a baby at 12, it's on the list. So you could teach a first grader life strategy by just giving them a list of ten things and say don't do any of these ten things and you'll be fine.

The Republican approach, should they adopt something like this, would be one of abundance where everybody could win. So you know that still becomes a problem of equality. But if you took care of education and life strategy it might be as good as you can do. So it's not a perfect world but it might be the best world that you could produce. So that's how I would frame it if I were in charge.

Here are some just some more thoughts on the same topic. Have you wondered why there have been no counter protests for the Portland stuff? So Portland actually has a protester camp where they have nice little tents. It looks like they were acquired from the same source. And they've got like a tent village where they live. I guess they probably sleep during the day and protest and riot at night. And I'm not recommending this because it would be dangerous, people would get hurt. But I'm wondering why it hasn't happened that nobody has targeted their camp while they're gone. Because you could just destroy, again I'm not recommending this because it'd be super dangerous, people would get killed. But I don't know why it hasn't happened. It feels like the obvious thing would be some group of anti-protesters would just wait until the protesters mostly left the camps and they would just go through and rip it apart or set it on fire or just steal their stuff or whatever. And I think that would go a long way. But I don't recommend it. It would be dangerous. Just a question.

All right. Did you know, and fact check me on this, that the original Antifa was allied with Hitler? Now I read this online so you know, fact check. So here's the claim. The claim is that Antifa, the original one, was against fascism but also against organized government just like it is now. And that when they had a choice of the Weimar Republic which was unpopular in Germany or the Nazis, Antifa actually chose the Nazis because they were seemingly more anti-government. In other words the Nazis seemed to be on their side because they also didn't like the Weimar regime. And so Antifa and the Nazis allegedly, I need a fact check on this, worked together to overthrow the government. And then the first thing that happened was Hitler got rid of Antifa because of course you don't want those guys around. So the first thing they do is get rid of their partners. And it made me think, does Antifa think ahead? Because I can't see any scenario where they don't lose and literally die if they get what they're asking for. It's weird that people could get what they're asking for and it guarantees their destruction. But Antifa has that philosophy. I'd like you to give me something that destroys you but oh yeah it will destroy me at the same time. That's a weird philosophy.

All right. I also think that, well I'm confused about whether the supporters of Antifa, which is Antifa itself for the most part, are lying to everybody else or if they don't realize that Antifa wants to destroy civilization. Is there anybody who's in favor of Antifa who actually just doesn't understand that in order for them to get what they want civilization itself would have to be destroyed and not replaced with something better? Because that option isn't there. It's not even something that's unlikely but you know if everything went right it could happen. It can't happen. There is no way that the United States could have no government, which would be the Antifa preference, and still survive in a world where China still has a government and a military. They would conquer us 10 minutes into that plan. So I'm just curious whether it's stupidity or what. I don't get it.

All right. One of the things that Trump could do to mess with the protesters is ask them to pick a leader to negotiate with. Now what would happen if Trump said you know maybe you would help if we could listen to your concerns. So you Antifa and BLM people, all you protesters, just do me a favor, select somebody who will be your spokesperson and bring us some specific demands. Because if you ever saw their specific demands nobody would be in favor of them. And the Democrats, the ones running for office, would have to disavow the protesters. They would have to. But they don't have to disavow the protesters yet because the protesters are cleverly not asking for specific things that you can really dig into and say yes or no to. So defund the police sounds like it's specific but it's not because they don't know what that means. Does it mean the money goes somewhere else? Do you replace that with something else? What do you do with the government itself? If you're Antifa you don't want the government. So simply asking the protesters to give you a coherent, cohesive leadership set of negotiating demands should make the protesters turn on each other because it would force them to realize they're not actually on the same team. Because when it gets to the point where they have to ask for something they wouldn't ask for the same stuff. It would be different stuff. So it would turn them against each other.

So all, and I'm going to be working on this high ground maneuver which is getting people to understand that the protesters want the end of civilization. But if somebody wants instead the end of systemic racism the only way to get it is through education. That's as close as you can get. You know there's nothing else that could actually work but education could work. We know that.

Trump did a persuasion play that I thought was just frankly brilliant. And I'm going to give you a comparison. You remember I've told the story a number of times that I realized that Trump could win it all when I especially when I saw him in the debate, the first debate in the first election, in which he was challenged about his statements about women and he answered with the only Rosie O'Donnell maneuver. Now what made that special is that his answer was so funny and provocative that you couldn't think about the original question. He just sucked all the energy from the question which would have ruined his campaign onto an answer that wasn't even an answer. It wasn't even the right answer to the question but it was so interesting you wanted to talk about that instead.

When Trump was dealing with these accusations about calling soldiers losers and suckers, which I believe did not happen, you couldn't directly disprove it because you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something didn't happen. You could just prove that you don't see any evidence of it. So he had this impossible situation similar to Megyn Kelly asking him this impossible question in the debates. How do you get out of an impossible situation? Turns out there's one person in the world who knows how to do this and his name is President Trump. So what did he do? He said this. And by the way anybody who misses the brilliance of this is really, really missing a good show. Because I know that you know the president does a lot of stuff that you think well I wouldn't have done that. But every now and then he'll do something that is just transcendentally smart to the point where you can't even recognize it as smart. It's so smart the smart people can't recognize it as smart. Here it is. He said quote in his press conference, I'm not saying the military is in love with me. This is pacing. All right. He's agreeing. I'm not saying the military is in love with me. The soldiers are. So he's made a claim that the soldiers like him. And then he goes, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. Trump told reporters. Now do you see what he did? That's the Rosie O'Donnell move. How do you talk about some unsubstantiated claims about what Trump may or may not have said in private which isn't all that important? How do you talk about that when Trump just dumped on you the most explosive claim any commander-in-chief ever made ever, which is that his generals are dopes and they're in it for the money? Oh my God.

Now here's the good part. Will he be criticized for being the commander-in-chief and basically calling his generals and top military people corrupt? Will he be criticized for that? Yes. How do you criticize him when he's saying the same thing that General Dwight Eisenhower said later, President Eisenhower I believe, when he was leaving office and they gave the speech about the famous speech about the military industrial complex? Meaning that the military was creating wars so that the industry people could make money selling bombs and bullets. So Trump mirrored Eisenhower's most probably the most respected speech any president's ever given in terms of it being true, prophetic, important, and totally nonpartisan. There is nothing partisan about Eisenhower saying watch out for this combination of the military and the industry. Keep a