ns think the problem with Democrats is that they're looking right at something and they can't see it. Does it ever feel like that to you? I mean, most of you are probably right-leaning if I know my audience, even though I'm not.

Anyway, let's talk about AOC, because when there's a big topic like this, you know AOC is going to be the big topic on the big topic. Now, if there's one thing that I consistently credit AOC for—and by the way, she's not flawless. I think today was, you know, this isn't her best week. But one thing she does well is surf the wave of some energy that was happening anyway.

So because of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade overturning it, AOC is in the news because, you know, we care what the photogenic and charismatic people are saying on both sides. So all the photogenic, charismatic people, you know, they emerge during these periods. And here's something she said in that tweet. She said universal health care and child care, gun safety, combating climate change. The GOP opposes it all. If they refuse to support life after birth, how can they claim to believe in it before? And she says the truth is this is not about life and never has been. It's about seizing power and control.

What? It's about seizing power and control? I don't know how this could be more opposite of that. Is it? Now again, I have to ask myself if I'm being neutral. I mean, I feel like probably not, but it's hard to see it in yourself, right? So maybe you could spot it better than I can. But what I see is Republicans giving up political power for what they see as saving lives or ending an ongoing holocaust. What do you see? Do you see Republicans trying to gain power by doing something that riles up the other side? How do you—and how does that work? Like, just connect the dots for me. I don't even understand the line of reasoning. It's like I'm not even at the point where I can disagree with it because I don't know what it is I'm disagreeing with. It doesn't make sense, right?

Does anybody see how it connects? Am I missing some obvious connection? Because to me, to me it looks exactly like the Republicans are in a little bit of danger and that they traded risk, their own risk, their living adult risk. They traded that to help what they believe is life. And do you believe that AOC actually sees it that way, or is that just the best she could do?

Because here's the other meta point I'm going to make, and it goes like this. Neither side of this debate can use their true argument, and that's why it looks like nonsense when you see the arguments in public. Because nobody can say the real argument. They can't. And it's not because the real argument isn't good. It's not because the real argument isn't right. It's because it doesn't work. It doesn't work. Not that it's wrong. It just doesn't work.

For example, here would be an honest argument from the right. All right, now this is not a criticism because I'm going to do the same for the left. I'm going to play it fair. The right would say something like, my religious faith or God tells me that life begins at conception. Now that's not everybody on the right, right? So we're talking some generalities here, right? But suppose you sincerely believe that and that's where your abortion feelings come from. They come from God.

If you know that the people that you're trying to debate are either non-believers or straight-up atheists or at the very least they're more spiritual than specifically believing God gave them directions, so why would you use the real argument? Well, you know it can't work. It can't work. If the right said, look, God says so, so why aren't you listening to God? The left would say, yeah, we don't listen to your nonsense. We have our own spiritual beliefs that don't have anything to do with that.

So the real argument—one of them, it's not the only one—but the real argument on the right, you can't sell it. Am I wrong about that? That is an unsellable argument, even if you sincerely hold it and even if it's true. Like even if God really did say it. He was very specific. He or she or they. And even if you accepted all of that, you couldn't sell that argument to people who don't believe in God. So you can't use the argument that you believe. You have to frame it differently.

Now, how about the left? Can the left tell you their real argument? Like the honest-to-God, strip out all the politics and persuasion and manipulation. Let me just tell you what I really think. Because here's what I think it would sound like. I value my own adult life over that of something which smart people could argue is either alive or not. It's a convenience. It's a convenience that specifically puts the priority of the living adult above the value of an entity which smart people can argue is either alive or not.

But we're all talking about the same thing. We're all looking at the same thing. The word we put on it—you shouldn't make your argument based on the word you use. The argument should be the argument. You should be able to do it in any language, in any word. But if you need a word to win the argument, that means you didn't have an argument.

All right, so the real argument on the left is so cold that you can't sell it in public. Am I right? Do you think I characterized the genuine argument fairly? That people would—adult women and lots of men who support them—they prefer or they prioritize the value of their own life and the quality of it and the freedom of it above the value of something that smart people can argue when it's life or not. But we're all talking about the same thing. We're all talking about the same thing no matter what word you put on it.

So the trouble is you can't sell that. It just sounds like you're a monster or something, right? I don't think so. Let me be clear. I don't. That's not my opinion. I don't consider them monsters, nor do I consider the people on the right deluded or anything else. I just don't have those bad opinions about people on either side. I just think that it's absurd to watch people on both sides use fake arguments and try to think past the sale. We'll talk about that some more.

All right. Here was an interesting thought from a Twitter user, Ryan Vertanen. He said that the Supreme Court wouldn't have struck—and why can't I make a sentence that uses the correct forms here? I'll just read what he said, and then if it's wrong you can blame him. All right. "SCOTUS doesn't strike down abortion if Trump is in office. The climate would be too tense. Can't drop a bomb like this one when everyone's on edge. The climate under Biden is less tense, which allowed the Supreme Court to do this."

What do you think? I love opinions that I don't agree with but I can't immediately figure out why, which makes me pause and go, okay, I think if I really were disagreeing with this I probably know why. So maybe it's a good point. What do you think? Do you think that if Trump were still in office the Supreme Court would not have handed down this decision? It'd be too hot.

Here's the alternative theory. And by the way, maybe yeah, I mean it's at least a good point, right? Would you all say that it's at least a good point but you don't know? Here's the alternative theory. The Supreme Court has gigantic balls and they're not afraid of anything, and they just proved it. That's the alternative theory. Supreme Court has gigantic balls, including the ladies, and they just proved it. Because they just said you could march in front of our houses. Here it is. That's what I saw. I saw you can put scary people in front of our houses, in front of our families, and we're still gonna put this right in your face. No hesitation, no equivocation, no nothing.

Every now and then the Supreme Court does something that I think bolsters their credibility, and I think that should be noted. In my opinion, the fact that they didn't hold back until after the midterms—because I think that's when the ideal time probably would have been, after the midterms, and they could have held off, right? They have that option. I think that tells me that they're not going to be intimidated. Because imagine if they had not released this. If they had not released it, it would look like intimidation worked, right?

So when whoever it was on the left released the draft decision—which in the beginning I said don't assume that it's the actual decision, but I guess it was, right? So my speculation was completely incorrect. So it was correct. But do you realize that the leaker, the leaker guaranteed that they would release it? The leaker, by leaking an actual real document—now that we know it's real we can also connect the dots because we didn't know it was real before, but now we can connect the dots. The leaker guaranteed this would be released.

Do you know why? I think I mentioned it earlier. Because the Supreme Court apparently has gigantic balls, i