ot cognitive dissonance. You look for someone who has the trigger and you know they exhibit the tells. I'm not sure I see any but then maybe I wouldn't. Yeah the word salad. Have I exhibited any word salad about Biden? Well you wouldn't know because if you're on the same page it would look like it made sense to you. Yeah anyway we'll keep an eye on that because it looks like nobody cares.

So Trump went after DeSantis a little bit for closing Florida when apparently other governors did not. That was a pretty good offense. So obviously Trump is trying to degrade DeSantis's presidential possibilities but that's an interesting attack isn't it? Because Trump never supported lockdowns apparently so he can look at the governors that didn't lock down and they can compare him to DeSantis and suddenly DeSantis doesn't look so good because he's reframed it from comparing DeSantis to DeSantis to comparing him to governors who didn't close down. That's a pretty good political approach, right? Just from a persuasion perspective pretty good. It's pretty good because he understands his base doesn't like the lockdowns. He never supported them or mandates and DeSantis did for a little while, not for long. So we still give DeSantis credit for being one of the more right people.

But then Trump also, apparently there's a story that Nikki Haley called Trump and said she's considering running in the primaries against him. What do you think Trump said when Nikki Haley said she's considering running against him? What would be his smartest response? Go for it. Because the more people in the primaries the more likely he wins because he's going to keep his 25 percent. So if the other people can split what's left over. Yeah he's the nominee again. Worked the first time. Why wouldn't it work again? Yeah so that was exactly the right answer.

So he's definitely right on his attack for DeSantis in terms of persuasion. Wise it's a good approach and he is definitely right strategically telling Nikki Haley yeah go for it. Good strategy. But then I saw a video in which he was talking about the energy policy, the Biden energy policy, and it sounded like he was saying that there's like these stupid energy things and good energy things and the good energy things were the fossil fuel types and the bad energy things that were silly. I don't think he named them by name but it sounded like he was going after solar and wind power, right? That was the implication.

Now what do you think of his messaging? His messaging is fossil fuel is good, alternative things can never be good, you know they're not good and will never be good. Is that good messaging or bad? It's an F. Yeah that's a fail. On if I'm going to grade this it's not even a D plus. This is just a total failure.

Here's what a good message for a Republican candidate would look like. You know there's something we can all come together on on energy. It used to be there was a lot of disagreement on nuclear energy but with the generation three which has never had any deaths or problems or big problems and with the fact that we now can store the spent fuel on site so we don't have to transport it, that's you know sort of where the industry went. And now that the newer generations of nuclear could eat some of that waste as their fuel, could use some of the waste as their fuel, we should definitely come together on nuclear and do it as quickly as possible.

Now I think we should also go heavy on fossil fuel until we have alternatives but I don't see them coming happening quickly. However I also agree that the free market should continue every other technological innovation because there might be something, some change. You know you might have better batteries or better solar panels or better windmills so that'd be great. At the moment we think we need as much fossil fuel as possible to give America its independence, economic growth as well as being secure from our enemies. In the long run we like technological innovation but we don't want to over subsidize it. That's a problem. We don't want to over subsidize things. Let the free market do what it does as much as possible.

Now is there any reason that he has to not mention nuclear, the one thing we all agree on or we're coming close to it? That's the one I'd play on. And why can't he say that the other stuff is fine as long as we don't over subsidize it? It's like he's trying not to win with that message. I mean it looks like virtue signaling. I just think it's he doesn't need that much nuance to make it perfect because here are the things that we should all be agreeing on. We should be agreeing on immigration. Have a strong border security but have some bipartisan group of economists decide who we'd let in and when so you've got some independence about that decision but you know be secure on the border. Everybody would agree with that.

So he has all these topics from education including public school alternatives etc. All kinds of stuff that he could pick off Democrats. Let me just give you a sort of a mental exercise. Let's say you wanted to pick off some Democrats but you didn't want to lose your base. He could definitely pick some off on immigration just by being reasonable. He could definitely pick them off by being pro-nuclear and pro-green enough that he's not against it but also wants to make our economy and work well. I think he can make energy work. I think he can make Ukraine something we come together on. I think you could pull some Democrats off of that pile. He has all these issues even the CRT and transgender stuff in schools. I think he could pick off Democrats on that at this point in not before but at this point sure.

So he has this total ability to take 10 percent of the Democrats totally. And he can mock the January 6th thing out of the news if he chooses to. If every time he's asked about it he goes all right let's be serious. Are you really trying to tell the story that Republicans staged an insurrection without guns? And then don't even answer any other question. I go but you answer me the question. I know you have lots of questions for me but honestly I'm actually curious. Do you actually think that's what an insurrection would look like? Do you think I'm so bad at insurrections that I would think that trespassing for a day without weapons would conquer the United States? How does that even make sense, right?

So every attack on Trump at the moment is completely empty. All he has to do is reframe them but so far he's not. So far he's not taking any of the free money that is available now that really wasn't available in 2016 or 2020 because things have changed, right? At this point getting both sides to agree on ending the Ukraine stuff you don't think he can pick off people on both sides on that issue? We didn't have that issue before. He could definitely get some. Yeah so Trump has a super highway to win. He just has to stay in the middle of the highway and not say bad framing for topics that he doesn't need to frame badly. There's just no reason but we'll see what he does.

So I'm totally unimpressed by his energy take. To me that's just a failure. Like I can't give it even like nice try. I can't even say it's good for the base really. It's not even good for the base. It's like just bad.

All right here now is something you did not know about viruses. You've heard of measles and I'm old enough to have had measles before there were vaccinations. And here's something I learned today in 2019. So this is an article in WebMD from 2019. One of the things we learned about measles that we didn't know for a hundred years, how long have we known that measles existed? Hundreds of years something like that. Here's something you didn't know. A number of studies are showing that the measles may have wiped out your body's memory for immunity of other things. The measles may have wiped out your immunity for other things. And that's something that they're learning just lately after 50 years of science.

So in other words there is long measles. Long measles apparently exists because it can take out your immunity to other things and then those other things get you. Now that's something we didn't know for 50 years. So what do we know about the coronavirus? Do you think the coronavirus could take you out like 50 years from now we could find out oh it did some bad things that we didn't know? What about the vaccination itself? What about that? Do you think in 50 years we can find out it did something to us 50 years ago? It all seems possible doesn't it?

Now does it change your mind that we only found out how dangerous measles is in 2019? 2019. And by the way the article, the people talking about it were Fauci. Fauci was in the article and Michael Mina who you knew from the pandemic talking about the absence of fast testing, rapid testing. So two of the characters were well known from the pandemic were part of this story as well. They were the main people in the