ican Party, five out of six, are in favor of using the military, and The Hill calls it a fringe idea, well, what would be a non-fringe idea? Something that Democrats are in favor of, is that by definition if five out of six Democrat candidates for president were in favor of the same thing, would that be called fringe? Five out of six of the candidates. What do you think? I think no.

And by the way, on the Republican side it's not just five out of six. It includes the one who's going to win at least the primary, you know, Trump in all likelihood if you believe the polls. I think there's a lot that will change, so I'm not sure he's going to win even the primary. You know, if he has legal problems, etc. Probably most likely he will. Can't guarantee it though. However, that's fringe. There's your fringe idea. Five out of six.

But I wanted to see if it included the arguments against it. And there are some strong arguments against using the military. Here's one of them. The Mexican government might not like it. The Mexican government not liking it is the idea. Now it's not the side effect. It's not the side effect. It's the idea. The idea is to do something that the Mexican government very much doesn't want us to do. That's the whole point, is to do the thing they don't want us to do.

So it's not really an argument against it to say they don't want us to do it. It's more like a description of the idea. Let's do the thing they don't want us to do. Well, I don't know. They don't want us to do it. I know, but that's the whole point, that they don't want us to do it. And nobody's doing it, but it's so important we have to do it anyway.

I don't know. They don't like it. Might not like it. And they might retaliate. They might retaliate. My God, think of the things the Mexican government could do to the United States. Are you thinking of things? Because I can't think of any. What would be an example? Remove their diplomats? What the are they going to do? I mean, I'd love to hear examples if there are any examples, but it doesn't sound like the strongest argument.

Here's another one. The military wouldn't be useful because the cartels are dispersed all over the country. They're dispersed. I wonder if we've ever successfully fought against any armed group that was dispersed across a vast area. Yes, we have. Our most recent largest military victory was against ISIS, a dispersed group that was all over the place. And I haven't heard from Al Qaeda lately. When was the last time Al Qaeda scared you?

I feel like Al Qaeda was dispersed all over the place, and you know what? The U.S. military dispersed them a little bit more, didn't they? So instead of being dispersed across territory, they dispersed their chromosomes all over the place until there weren't enough left to cause any problems. Yes, our military can hunt down dispersed people and kill them. I'm pretty sure they're good at it. Might take a while. You know, it might take five years. But is it worth it? Yes. Yes, five years of killing them would be worth it.

All right. Speaking of that, Blinken is going to China to see if they can make a breakthrough in the fentanyl stuff, because it's holding up the other stuff. So there are other important things we want to talk to China about. The fentanyl and all things is kind of a roadblock. Now we want them to stop sending fentanyl precursors to Mexico that the cartels turn into fentanyl.

China's excuse is these are just ordinary drugs. We send these ordinary drugs to lots of places for lots of different reasons. You can't get on us for sending ordinary drugs to ordinary places. Now the story they don't tell you is that they try to make these things illegal, but the bad guys just add a molecule or two to make them legal again. So that's all a little game that the Chinese play so they don't have to shut it down basically.

So it doesn't look like they're being honest. It looks like they're using an excuse because they like to kill tens of th