Could it be true that there's a difference in the average of the outcomes of white people and black people? Of course, we all see that. Nobody's questioning there's a difference in outcome.

Could it be that the legacy of slavery is rippling into the current? I say yes. I say that's obviously true. But having said that, we're talking about the average. Do you think that the person who lost their job because the factory moved to China, do you think that person is unworthy of empathy? Is that person not a victim?

Now, they're not a victim alone because there would be people in every group that would lose their jobs the same way. But are they not victims if they lost their jobs for other people's decisions? Are there not white men who were born as children into bad situations for which the baby is not responsible? How is that different than a black child born in the United States through no fault of their own? They're born into a world that has a legacy of slavery which will affect them their whole life.

What about a white male who was born into this world and doesn't have, let's say, a high IQ, right? Are you going to do great if you don't have a high IQ in 2020? Probably not. Do you deserve some sympathy or empathy for being sort of in a tough situation? I think so.

If you're born into a poor family but you're white, is that not worthy of empathy? I have empathy for that. How could you not have empathy for a white person born into a bad situation? Is it just because they're white? Because I think that's what Obama's saying. He's saying you could have all kinds of problems, but if you're a white man, it doesn't matter because there's something about the average that's different. And the average is different, right? Nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't matter to the individual.

Do you know that when we vote, Mr. racist Obama, do you know that when people vote, they don't vote as a group? I don't know if you knew that. It's an individual thing. An individual white male will vote or not vote. They don't vote as a group. When people vote, they don't say, "Well, what's my group doing?" Nope. They might vote similarly, but they're voting for themselves and their own situation, and they absolutely deserve empathy if they were born into a bad situation.

How many white people are just killing it? You know, just killing it in life. Well, I don't know what the percentage is, but it's not most. It's not most, you know. I don't know what the number is, but even if half of white men are killing it in life, I doubt that's the number, but that leaves a lot of people who were just born into a bad situation or got there however they did. But Obama says white men's lives don't matter in effect.

One of the, that's probably the most racist thing I've seen a public official say. Would you agree? Have you ever heard any public official say anything that was even close, even in the range of being as racist as what Obama said and was reported by the mainstream media as just a comment. That's it. Just a comment. Amazing.

So Seth MacFarlane, you know him, a brilliant entertainer and creator, has created among other things "Family Guy" and is a very successful guy. But when he talks about politics, he is sometimes, let's say, his skill stack might be a few pancakes short. And I only mock him because his TV show "Family Guy" has mocked me personally, meaning they've mocked Dilbert as a product. So that's mocking me. Had he never mocked me in public, meaning his property, not him personally necessarily, I would not bother with him. He would just be another person with an opinion. And you know, sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.

But he has very strong opinions on politics and he is unique in that he's a perfect example of what I write about in my book "Loserthink." Loserthink, which is you can be really smart and he is really smart but you could have blind spots if your talent stack does not have, let's say, economics, engineering. There are lots of things which you could have blind spots in and he's like the best example you'll ever see.

So he's talking about the Supreme Court decision that allowed the churches to operate during the pandemic. And so Seth tweets this about Gorsuch. He says, "Gorsuch, if you can't make the distinction between the risk level of a small business like a liquor store and massive indoor gatherings like a church with regard to raging pandemic, you are more scientifically illiterate than the man who appointed you."

Now, do you think that Gorsuch was making a scientific legal decision? What the hell is wrong with Seth MacFarlane? The law and the Supreme Court is making a legal decision. That's it. It's a legal decision. He's not making a scientific decision. He's not ruling whether masks work. He's not ruling whether social distancing works.

So I tweeted back at him, "Was it a one variable problem?" because I'm pretty sure there's another variable which is freedom, freedom of religion. You know, there are a few other variables in there, Seth. And the court doesn't rule on all of those variables, just the one.

Here's a question I asked just to be provocative, just for fun. So critics have been calling Trump a con man since the beginning, since he was running for office. It's the most common insult you hear, not counting Orange Hitler, I guess. So con man, con man, con man.

But they also observe that he apparently used those con man skills to become president of the United States. So do you think that the people who think he's a con man and used those skills and no other skills to get the most prized highest office in the entire United States? Well, that would be successful, right?

So if you think it's con man skills and that's what he used and that it worked to get the highest land in the job running against the most qualified candidate they said in years, wouldn't you say that he's really good at being a con man if that was your frame? It's not my frame. But if my critics frame say he's a con man, wouldn't they also have to c