ely going to be nominated. She has all the qualifications as far as I can tell. There's just nothing here. There's nothing here. She would be replacing another liberal. Even the court doesn't change. This is the most nothing story.

And I'm looking at people like Josh Hawley who are taking a run at her to try to degrade her in some way. I don't think there's any way that she's not going to get nominated. But isn't he just wasting his time and making himself look bad? What do you think of the Josh Hawley strategy? Obviously he's getting some attention for himself. Obviously so that could be good. And he's probably playing to his base, so the base likes it probably, right? But does it move the needle in any way? Does it help him get elected in the future? I don't know. It seems like a waste of time.

The smartest thing, I said this before, the smartest thing the Republicans could do, and it would be really smart, is to just be really polite to her and then vote unanimously to put her on the court. Because what happens the next time the Republicans nominate somebody? The next time Republicans nominate somebody they want to say, "Look, when you gave us a nominee that was solid we gave you 100% support. We're going to give you a nominee that we think is solid. You give us 100% support."

Now I know you're saying it's payback, but remember how the news treats the precedent. The news treats precedent like it matters. So if the Republicans take this one that's really a gimme because you know which way it's going to go, they're not going to stop the nomination. So if you know it's going to turn out a certain way you might as well grab whatever advantage from that you can. And grab the advantage of saying, "Look, when you gave us a qualified nominee, were we racist? Did anybody act racist? When you gave us a qualified or misogynist, when you gave us a qualified Black female candidate, did any Republican have a problem with it? Nope. Unanimous."

I mean it's almost like the Republicans are trying to lose this next election. Does anybody disagree with me with this basic fact that strategically the smartest thing the Republicans could have done, given that she's going to get on the court anyway and it doesn't change anything, wouldn't the smartest thing be to try to get a unanimous vote? Now people disagree but give me a reason in the disagreement. Right, makes no difference because you're not fighting back. Is that why? Dems will never reciprocate. It's not that you're asking the Democrats to reciprocate. So let me be more clear. I do not believe that Democrats would reciprocate and that's not important to my point. Do you get that there would be pressure on Democrats from the media if the Republicans had just done a 100% agreement on a candidate? I'm just saying the media would put pressure on the Democrats. I'm not saying the Democrats would want to. And so it would make the Democrats look bad, would it not? Don't Republicans like that? Don't you think the Republicans would want to go into an election and say, "Look, when they give us a qualified candidate, is there any, do you see any racism? No you don't. All we wanted was a qualified candidate." It would be easy to say that and they would get all the political benefits of saying it. I don't know. To me this is a no-brainer. I mean this is the simplest persuasion question that you'll ever see. This one's really easy.

So if you're thinking in terms of tit for tat that has nothing to do with the suggestion. I'm definitely not suggesting that Democrats will play nice if you play nice because there's no playing nice in the idea. In fact you're not playing nice. You're playing as, let's say, as schemingly as you could. Sorry about the word, but it would be the most, let's say, manipulative clever thing to do. It wouldn't be kind at all. It would just be putting pressure on the Democrats. That's all it would do. And otherwise everything's going to be the same because she's going to get nominated anyway. So to me this is easy. Like there are very few issues that are this cleanly obvious what is the right thing to do. And the Republicans have chosen the wrong thing to do. I don't know why.

Well, I'm starting to think that some of the news is not exactly accurate. Is anybody having that feeling? Hey, I'm starting to think that this news isn't 100% accurate all the time. So I saw a tweet where they claimed that seven generals have been killed by the Ukrainians. Seven Russian generals. I heard Petraeus say that three were confirmed. And I saw a tweet by Ian Miles Cheong saying that half of that list of, I think there were seven, are fake. That sounds about right. You know, I do believe that maybe three generals got killed. But if you see a list that lists seven of them that would be hard to believe. And I'm not sure you should believe that.

All right, let me ask you this. If you listen to the fake news and then you believe it and then just by coincidence you watch that movie The Matrix right afterwards, does your mind make the connection? In other words, does anybody realize that they're in a simulated reality even without the simulation? So forget about simulation theory where I'm saying we're all software. But forget about that. Just imagine this is a real world. It's the only one you know. Just sort of standard classic reality. Even in our classic reality the citizens are walking around in this illusion about t