on of what happens when Dilbert's mom starts dating a fan of Andrew Tate. I don't want to be a spoiler, but I'm just saying you can imagine. You can imagine.

All right, here's some stuff. Let's see, some sciency stuff that you didn't need to do the science. You should have just asked me. I think this will be my new category: Do we need to do a study, or could we just ask Scott and see what he says?

Apparently being a vegetarian is partly genetic, meaning that there are some people who don't metabolize fat the same and therefore meat doesn't give them the buzz that it gives other people and makes them sick. I'm one of those people. People ask me why I stopped eating meat. I do eat fish these days, but I stopped eating meat because I got a stomach ache every time I did it, like a huge stomach ache. So I might be one of these people. But you didn't really have to ask me if being a vegetarian is genetic. Is there anybody who thought it wasn't? Did anybody think that being a vegetarian was simply a lifestyle preference? Of course it's genetic.

Do you know what else is genetic? Alcoholism. Do you know when I knew that? About 20 years before science knew it, because it was obvious. Do you know when I knew that being a vegetarian, not for everybody, some people do pick it for lifestyle choices I'm sure, but did I know that some people were naturally vegetarians? Yes, I did. To me it was obvious. It's been obvious for decades.

About gay people having a different genetic makeup, was I surprised to learn that? No, because that was obvious for decades before science figured it out. So if you want to wait for science, you can, but it'll be decades after I tell you what's true.

Now, what about alcohol is actually good for you if taken in moderation? Well, science lied to you about that for about 50 years. But if you listened to me from the very start, I said nope, that's just science. There's no way that any of it's good for you, and now we know it's not.

Speaking of science, here's another study. I don't even know why I bother. Science is so ridiculous now. But there's a study by, see the lead author is Professor Wrath. He says that half of the population will develop at least one mental disorder by the age of 75. So in other words, half of Americans will have mental health disorders in their lifetime. Half.

So how do you explain that? Let me explain it. Follow the money. Follow the money. We now have this enormous industry that will give you a pill or give you therapy or make you watch some TikTok videos or something else. So once we monetized mental health disorders, were you going to get more of them or fewer of them? You were going to get a lot more. Yeah, everything you form a group to look for, you're going to find more.

When the ADL was formed to look for bigotry, do you think they found any? Well, there was plenty to find, but do you think they found any that wasn't really there? Oh yes, of course they did. So you're going to find everything that's there and a lot of stuff that isn't there if you're looking.

But on top of that, I do think our entire system makes people mentally ill. There's definitely a difference in mental illness compared to when I was a kid. Or here's the other possibility: If nobody told you you were mentally ill, would you know it? What if we had just as much mental illness before but there were no names for it and we were not all familiar with all the various types?

If you sat me down and said, Scott, make a list of all the potential types of mental illness, I could have a pretty long list. Do you think I could have done that when I was, I don't know, 15? No. I would have thought, let's see, I've heard of schizophrenia and maybe fear of crowds or something, and I wouldn't have even been able to come up with three, I don't think. Depressed? I don't even know if depression was a thing when I was a kid. I don't remember anybody who said they had it, or anxiety, any of it. I don't remember any of it as a kid.

So what if everybody had those problems but if they didn't have a name for it they just thought it was that happens in their head and maybe other people have it in their heads and we're all just different? And I also wonder, if half the country has a mental illness or disorder as they call it, who gets to determine what's normal? You know, where's that line of normal? If half the kids have a mental illness at some point, it just becomes who we are. I mean, aren't we all a little bit crazy one way or another anyway?

I got questions about these numbers, but it does seem like there are more mentally unhealthy people for one reason or another.

So how many of you have seen the clip of Bill Maher? He went on a few different talk shows and he talked about how the Democrats are poorly served by their own news, which is interesting to hear a Democrat or somebody who leans Democrat say that they were poorly served by their own news. The example he gives is that when people were asked what are the odds that you would end up in the hospital if you got COVID, and apparently people on the left, political left, thought it was a really big number, and the real number is you know under 2%. Now that was a really good example of where their news has completely bamboozled them. I mean just wildly.

But is there anything else like that? How about if you were to ask, I'm just guessing, but if you were to ask the Democrats and Republicans if the number of deaths from extreme weather have gone up or down recently? I feel like, I don't know this, but I feel like Democrats would say oh yeah, that extreme weather from all the climate change, so there's more extreme weather because there's more climate change. More extreme weather equals more deaths. Yes, there must be a great increase in the number of deaths. The reality is it's at an all-time low. Do you think they would know that? Yeah.

How about the hoaxes? If I ran through the list of the hoaxes: fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, you know, just go down the list. How many Democrats would recognize those as hoaxes? They wouldn't, because the news told them they were all real. So they wouldn't know any of the hoaxes. They wouldn't know the most important elements of climate change, which is their biggest issue. They wouldn't know about hospitalization for COVID, the biggest thing that happened in the country for years.

And then there's another one. I just saw some statistics. People were asked how many people were killed by police who were black in 2021. So the survey was 2021. Forty percent of liberals thought the number was over a thousand in America per year. Forty percent of liberals, people who were very liberal, thought it was over a thousand. The real number was 11. It was 11 people. And how many of the 11 had it coming, meaning that if you knew the details you would have said to yourself, oh well I can see why they shot those 11? How many of the 11? Probably at least nine or 10. You'd look at it and say yeah, they definitely should have been shot. So the number who were shot who should not have been shot, maybe two out of thousands and thousands and thousands of arrests. Still too many of course.

But conservatives didn't say that. Only 16% of conservatives thought it was over a thousand, which is way too much. What conservative thinks that the number of black people killed by police per year is over a thousand? Sixteen percent of conservatives.

Now if you asked what is their primary news source, what do you think they'd say? Probably not Fox News, probably not Breitbart. They'd probably say, see you that it's probably their primary source of news. There must be a lot of households where you've got a conservative and a liberal in the same house and one of them controls the TV so the other person doesn't see real news. So there might be a whole bunch of conservatives who think they're seeing real news on CNN because their spouse watches it. Just a guess.

So I would like to see a more comprehensive survey to see if people on the left or the right are even informed about the important stuff. You know, other questions you could imagine would be is Generation 3 nuclear energy more or less dangerous than the alternatives? You know, stuff like that. You know conservatives would know that Generation 3, there's never been a death. Never. Those are the new ones that you would build today. If you started today it would either be Generation 3 or 4. Four would be built in a way that it couldn't melt down no matter what happened. Three could, but they've done them so well that none has had a catastrophic problem.

How many would know that?

Some new information about college degrees. The percentage of young adults who said that a college degree is very important is now down to 41%. It was 74% over 10 years ago. This is in the New York Times. So 10 years ago three quarters of the country said oh yeah, college education is important, and today 41%. What changed? What changed in 10 years? College became worthless, that's what. In the last 10 years college went woke and became ridiculous and way too expensive. So the price is going way up, the value you get out of it is way down. Who would want to send their kid to a woke college? Well, woke people I guess, but the rest would not want them to come back all wokenized.

Do you remember the other day I told you Bloomberg had done a study that said after George Floyd was killed that the Fortune 100 companies, their new hires, only 6% of them were white? And it was outrageous because it would look like they were all overcompensating. Do you know how they got that 6% number? Well the Daily Wire did a little deep dive and looked into it. Here's how they got the 6% number: It's something called not knowing how to do math at all. That's the whole story. The numbers are not even close to 6%. It's actually closer to the way it's always been. So the real story is nothing really changed after George Floyd in terms of hiring, which is good news in one sense because there wasn't an overreaction. Now if you think that the baseline was good, that's a separate question, but there wasn't an overreaction. There was some small statistical difference.

So once again we learned that journalists can't do math. We've always learned that scientists can't do statistics. I mean the fact that two highly qualified statisticians, that Martin called off and Nate Silver, are having a total disagreement about the same set of data, they're looking at the same data and they can't decide what it says. Two of the best in the business. So there's almost no data that's useful, and it's really hard to accept that but it is true. Data is almost all motivated. It's motivated by somebody or it's just done wrong. And when it's done wrong it seems to agree with the motivation of the person who did it wrong. That's pretty consistent because otherwise you'd never see it.

But of course at least our climate change science is good, right? There's a new study that says a new study measured how much CO2 is released from rocks into the atmosphere. Rocks, that's right. So if it rains for example there's like a slight bit of erosion from rocks. It turns out that rocks could add as much CO2 to the atmosphere as volcanoes, and currently this process is not included in most climate models. So there's something as big as volcanoes, which are very big in terms of CO2, that are not included because they didn't know about it till now. It's the rocks.

So do you know what the plan is to prevent the rocks from off-gassing the CO2? They're going to bury them. You're going to bury all the rocks under dirt. Now I'm making that up. That's not real. They're not going to bury the rocks. It would just be funny, wouldn't it? Or ban them. Ban the rocks. They're going to make rocks illegal. Get rid of the rocks. Rocks must die. I think it would be hilarious to have a climate protest against rocks. Am I right? What would be funnier than that? Like actually get a permit, invite thousands of people and have them march: No more rocks! No more rocks! I think it'd be funny.

And do you know how much of the CO2 comes from BlackRock? Okay, that's a pun on BlackRock being a big company. Wasn't a very good pun. I just saw it in the comments and stole it. Probably should have held back on that one.

So we didn't include rocks in those models. Is there anybody who's been telling you for a long time the models can't predict the future? Not even a little bit. Not ever. Not in this case, not in any case. Yeah, but we believe they can.

Here's another story about Biden's dementia. So I guess an ex-ESPN host named Sage Steele, I guess she was on Bill Maher's show, the Club Random, and she said that interviewing Joe Biden was quote the saddest thing as he couldn't finish his sentences. So she said, forget about politics, I don't care, I didn't vote for him. Steele told Bill Maher she thinks he's a terrible president but she says however that made me sad, she said of his confusion.

Now another subpart of the story is that the Washington Post is running the story. So the Washington Post, as you know, likes their Democrats, but it's pretty clear that the word is going out that Biden will be pushed out. I think he's going to try to stay in there. I think the entire system is going to try to push him out, but they're going to try it too gently because they can't be too aggressive or too obvious. And I think his stubbornness will be greater than their subtlety. So I think he's going to stay even though his side is going to try really hard to push him out because he's an old demented man and he doesn't want to quit by saying he's demented. If you have dementia the last thing you want to do is say you know I'm going to have to step down because honestly I got a bad case of dementia and it's just getting worse.

So Sage Steele is a great name, isn't it? Your first name makes you sound smart, your last name makes you sound strong. Sage Steele sounds like a superhero name. Yes, Sage Steele. I like it.

All right, so this next category is the things that Trump was right about. Are you ready for this? Things that Trump was right about. I made a prediction in 2021 that the longer Trump was out of office the better he would look. Let's see if there are any examples in the real world of things that make Trump look better than he did.

Well as you might remember Joe Biden was very anti-Saudi Arabia and its leader the Crown Prince for possibly or probably ordering a bone-saw-related murder of a critic, which we consider a bad form. And so Biden was very, very tough on it, said Trump was some kind of a weird traitor for even doing business with that guy. Let's see if there's any news stories. Oh here's a scoop: Senior Biden advisers quietly visited Saudi Arabia last week and met Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to discuss a mega deal.

So Biden's going to do a mega deal with the guy that he said they can never do business with because he's a big old murderer. So I'm going to say that Trump was right, that even if you don't like what MBS has done or will do, that you might need to deal with them. So let's say Trump was right about that.

I saw this question from UnHoodwinked on X: What percentage of woke liberals would rather die by the hands of their publicly promoted ideology, in other words open borders and defunding the police, versus admit they were wrong and then work with the right to fix the problems?

Now what do you think? How many Democrats would literally, now we're talking literally, literally actually die? How many would actually choose a high, well not certainty of death but how many would choose a large percentage chance of dying violently rather than admit they're wrong? It's probably 90%. That's my guess, because that's how cognitive dissonance works. Until their final breath they would still think they were right. There would be no point that would ever change their mind because once you're really, really committed to an opinion you will actually risk your life so you don't have to change it.

You wouldn't take certain death. If I gave you a choice of all right yeah you can hold that opinion but in five days you will be dead for sure and we guarantee it, well that might change somebody's opinion because we have a survival instinct. But if you said there's a really higher chance you're going to get killed, like substantially higher, they would say I know but it's the principle of the thing. So no, I don't think the risk of being killed by their own policies would change their minds. I don't think that's how minds work. We just stick with what we thought was true and we never leave basically.

All right. IBM predicted not long ago, its CEO previously predicted that IBM would have to shed 30% of their workforce because AI would replace too many people. Do you remember what I've been saying? Does anybody remember my prediction about AI and employment? I said it's going to be more like the invention of the printer or the computer. We just find more things for people to do and then we hire them to do those things instead or do them faster.

But IBM now, after its CEO had said they might lose 30% of the employees to AI, says it foresees no layoffs due to AI and the company will hire more workers than it lets go. So it's actually going to grow workers instead of shedding 30%. I'm going to take credit for being right on this tentatively. I mean you'd have to see a lot more time and a lot more companies doing stuff to be sure, but I think AI will not affect overall employment. It will definitely change the mix of jobs like dramatically, but I don't think it'll change the overall employment rate by itself. So that's my contrarian prediction.

The Navy now has print-on-demand parts. So if you're on a ship at sea and something breaks you can't easily take the cruiser back to a port or fly something in easily. Now they can just print a part. They can actually just create a part and install it, and they've already done it once. They installed a crucial piece on one of its nuclear submarines. Now I don't feel comfortable with this. I don't want my nuclear submarines necessarily to have too many 3D printed parts if you know what I mean. It might have been maybe a part that wouldn't accidentally launch a missile so that would be good. Maybe fix the interface a little bit or something. But no I wouldn't want it to be one of the components of the nuclear missiles. So but I don't think we're doing that.

The most important news of the day is that Commander the dog, Joe Biden's dog, no Joe Biden not Biden, just seems like it should be Joe Biden. So that dog will be removed from the White House. I believe it's being accused of being a MAGA domestic terrorist because that's what they do with anything they don't like. And they had a few different ways to handle this but one was to remove the dog completely. But they also considered building a wall around it. Yeah it's called a cage. But they could have built a wall around the dog but they decided to get rid of it.

Now I don't know if you've put together two plus two but in the past week not only has Speaker McCarthy been removed from office but Commander the dog has been removed from the White House and that does leave us with no leadership whatsoever. It's quite a leadership hole we've created here because I'm pretty sure Commander the dog was in charge of domestic policy anyway.

Well let's see. I saw a post by Peter Zeihan on about Ukraine and he said this. He said all administrations have their blind spots. Ukraine is Biden's. So Ukraine is his blind spot. Now I'm thinking where's this going? Where's this going? So Ukraine is Biden's blind spot. But Peter Zeihan says luckily it is easy to make the case that aid for Ukraine is a core American interest. Biden just needs to address the nation just as Clinton did for Kosovo, W. Bush did for Iraq, Bush Senior did for Panama, and Reagan did for the 80s defense buildup.

So it's easy to make the case that aid for Ukraine is a core American interest. Is it? Is that easy? You think I would have heard that argument by now but I haven't. Have you? If any of you heard an argument why Ukraine is America's core interest? I've heard it's the only thing that will keep China from taking over Taiwan which I think is just laughably stupid. It's just laughably stupid. I'm not even going to address that. Would you agree the thought that whatever happens to Ukraine, the thought that that would have anything to do with China's decision about Taiwan? I'm not even going to talk about it. That's just too stupid. That's just too many levels of abstraction.

But the other argument is, let's see, I heard one argument from a politician saying but don't you realize that 30% of the world's wheat comes from Ukraine? To which I say why would that stop? If Ukraine loses the war is Russia going to stop making wheat or is it going to be one year of not as much wheat? I don't know. I'm not sure that that's it. And the problem in the United States wouldn't be people starving. It would be that the wheat cost I don't know 30% more so we would just eat less bread and would eat more vegetables. Is that a core American interest? That there might be let's say one year of low wheat production if something happened in Ukraine? That's a core American interest?

Now what about stopping Putin's war of aggression where if we don't stop him now he'll just keep taking over countries? Don't you think he just makes every decision individually? Or do we believe that he had this one big decision: I must take over everything. I'm just going to take over everything and it doesn't matter what the situation is. I'll take it over if it's bordering my country. Just going to take it over. Is that the way he thinks? Or might he look at every situation individually and his Ukraine opinion is different than his opinion of every place else? I feel like he probably treats them all as individual decisions.

Do you think that he would move on Poland? To me the Ukraine situation showed that his military can't conquer another country even one that he believed to be weak. He certainly can't take a NATO country. So I hear what Peter Zeihan says that it would be easy to make the case but I've never heard the case in a way that sounds even like a little bit plausible.

Now there's a trick that people do in the news all the time which is to imagine that there's only one choice and the choice that they imagine is we either support Ukraine or we give it all to Russia. Is that the only choices? What about the most likely choice? Why would you leave the most likely outcome out of your two choices? The most likely outcome is we say look we don't want to fund Ukraine anymore but we're going to if you don't do a peace deal that negotiates these border regions. The obvious other solution is you negotiate a peace that keeps everybody largely where they are at the moment and then you give some guarantees about the future etc.

But why do we think the choice is to fight forever or surrender when by far the most obvious thing is to say all right it's a draw. You know this should discourage you from invading another country because you can see that we can just stop you. So why don't we just negotiate peace, go back to business as usual?

Here's why you can't make a good case. Because the real case you can't tell the American people. Can you? The real reason they can't say out loud. The real reason is it's an energy war. We don't want Russia to first of all make all the money that our companies could make and second of all to have that much power over people by being in control of their energy. It's a pure energy war. If you made that argument to me, believe it or not I might be persuaded by it. It sounds purely evil but in the real world wars are about resources and usually energy and it's probably just a way to guarantee that America stays the dominant superpower for the next 50 years. Because if Russia got enough money from its energy production and got enough control over Europe you could really easily see how Putin could dominate Europe. It'd be easy to see. So there would be an argument but you'd have to say things that you can't say, which is yes Ukraine is totally corrupt but we'd rather make sure our energy companies get the business that would otherwise go to Putin because if he has the money he's going to do bad stuff with it. But you can't say that out loud because then it's an optional war.

All right of course we're going to talk about the border wall. So the head of Homeland Security, Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who's been very anti-wall as has Joe Biden been anti-wall, but now quote there is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads. Huh. Physical barriers. What would be an example of a physical barrier? And what would be the way a normal non-jerk would say it? Probably wall. Yeah. But if you're as big a loser as this Mayorkas guy is you got to call it a physical barrier so you don't, it's not as obvious what a weasel you've been and how much damage you've done to the country by not having a border.

So I'm going to put this on the category of things Trump was right about that the other side had to pretend they were against because they could be against whatever he was for. And it couldn't be much more obvious than this one. So I would say that Trump has been right about police and needing more of them and don't defund them. He was right about the border. He was right about China. He was probably right about Iran. He was right about energy. He was right about a lot and it's getting more and more obvious.

So here are some of my predictions just to remind you. I said the Republicans would be hunted and there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year. And we can see the crime wave and people getting killed in cities especially that journalist recently makes us think that it's an unsafe place to live. But how about that Republicans would be hunted? Well the federal government is so concerned about domestic violence that the FBI has created a whole category of extremists and they're called Donald Trump's army of MAGA followers. That's right. The FBI has decided that MAGA people should be followed closely for being domestic terrorists and it's the FBI that will do it.

And my God, this is a Newsweek report. Something leaked. So Biden is trying to defeat domestic terrorism by targeting one political group for political terrorism. Do you think that you would make MAGA people less likely to bomb the Capitol by targeting them unfairly? I'm pretty sure this would radicalize more people than it would defuse. So this seems like the worst idea in the world. But here we are.

So I don't think we can any longer argue that Republicans are not being hunted. Would you all give me that that prediction which is pretty out of left field was right? This is clearly right. The January 6 people were obviously hunted. A number of public figures were cancelled for reasons that sounded like other reasons but really weren't. They were. It was about taking the better voices off the field. Yeah it's as bad as I said it would be.

And when I wrote that tweet I have to say I just felt it. You know I felt it like the moment before I wrote it. I just had this feeling. It's like oh the way they campaigned and talked about Trump it became very obvious that that rhetoric would translate into action that looked like this because they were saying it. They were saying it clearly from the start that MAGA people were terrorists in versions of that. So you could see it coming from a mile away and here it is.

See the FTC is going after Amazon. So apparently they had this special algorithm called Project Nessie that worked by manipulating rivals' weak pricing algorithms. So somehow what I think this means is either their own in-house products were competing against the professional products or maybe there was one they had a greater profit margin from so they would push that instead of the other one. But apparently this was bad behavior according to some people, the FTC, and it led competitors to raise their prices and charge customers more. So that was pretty sketchy. So we'll see if that was all true because it's subject of a court case so maybe it wasn't true. You never know.

So here's the funniest thing. I realized yesterday that, do you remember Adam Schiff wanted to be the next senator from California so he was in the House of Representatives but Gavin Newsom said he was going to promote a black woman to that job and then he did. And I just realized that Adam Schiff was passed over for promotion because he's a white man. Just hold that in your head. Adam Schiff, specifically him, specifically, he was passed over for a promotion because he's a white man. How much do you think he loves his team today? Oh yeah Democrats. Something tells me the next time he goes into the shift he's not going to lie. I think he got a little closer to being a Republican is what I think because that can only happen to you so many times before you start saying hey I don't think the intentions here are really in the right direction.

Yep, Adam Schiff was passed over for promotion because he's a white male. I just like saying that. And it makes me wonder where's the ADL? Shouldn't the ADL be defending him? He is a Democrat. They should be defending him against this discrimination but they're nowhere to be seen. Oh but they are advertising again on the X platform. I think they should have been kicked off the X platform but if they're going to give Elon Musk money I guess that's okay.

Jim Jordan, Representative Jim Jordan, who's been floated as the potential next Speaker of the House, he tweeted this yesterday: Does anyone feel safe in Democrat-run cities? Democrat-run cities. And I thought to myself what an interesting choice of words, Democrat-run cities. Because if I go into the city and I see a Democrat coming toward me I'm going to run. So Democrat-run, run. It's a Democrat-run city. Yeah that's what it's called, a Democrat-run city.

Well speaking of a lack of free speech, apparently Vivek Ramaswamy and Chris Christie had agreed with each other that they would go on a show I think on Fox and debate and the Republican Party shot that down and told them they couldn't do that. To which I say what? When did the Republican Party become the no free speech party? Like I get the Republicans have to act like Republicans and you want to be on the same team and all but seriously, seriously you can't let two people running for president debate each other on your TV show?

And when I first heard that Vivek was going to have a conversation with Chris Christie the first thing I thought was that might be the first time you saw a debate where something like a debate happened. The way the debates are done for the TV audience you know with seven or eight people up there and then the questions, maybe not the questions you would have asked, not really useful. I mean it's a good event, it's a show event but it's not really useful for voters. But to one-on-one where they could spend some time really digging into the other person's point of view, I would watch that all day. But apparently the Republicans won't let it happen. So there's your free speech group right there.

Karl Rove did this big editorial in the Wall Street Journal trying to mock Matt Gaetz for throwing Congress into chaos by outing the Speaker. And I read the whole thing and my only take on it was there's something wrong with Karl Rove. I don't know if I could go further but I read his thing about Matt Gaetz and it was his choice of words, his choice of words very clearly said that his opinion was and it was just some weird political thing that he prefers some, I guess he preferred McCarthy. But I kind of thought he was a straight shooter until I saw his editorial and it was just, it looked like a Democrat wrote it really. And you know what I mean right? It was tons of insults that weren't necessary to the point. You know it's like a little too hyperbolic. So I don't trust anybody but I definitely don't trust anybody who's mad at Matt Gaetz for kicking the Speaker out. You immediately lose my trust when you have a strong opinion that that should not have gone on because we could all see that the current situation wasn't getting us any results.

And we could all keep politics aside. If your Speaker makes a public promise to your own team and then doesn't keep it, it doesn't matter if he was effective in all the other stuff. That is grounds for removal period because it doesn't look like he ever meant to keep that. Maybe he did. Yeah maybe events overtook him so he was either incapable of delivering it or never meant to. So I'm very in favor of Matt Gaetz this week.

The worst attack on him I saw was one other member of Congress saying that prior to his marriage, and this is stated directly, prior to his marriage he once bragged about taking ED meds and slamming power drinks so he could go all night. Oh well I didn't know that he was aggressively, flagrantly heterosexual so that changes everything. He was super heterosexual before he was married so before marriage he had a lot of sex. I don't know I just I can't be okay with all that heterosexual single person sex. I mean that's just too far.

I should note that there are no criminal charges for anything. There are no criminal charges for anything he did but they're going to make fun of him for figuring out which chemicals allow him to have sex all night while you're sitting home eating popcorn with your spouse. So I'm pro-Matt Gaetz for all this stuff.

All right I don't know if this story is true but there's a story of the Ukrainian president Zelensky's wife when they were in New York. She allegedly spent more than a million dollars on Cartier jewelry at the same time Zelensky was asking for money and weapons from the United Nations. Now doesn't that one feel a little too on the nose? Do you think that really happened? It's definitely possible. I wouldn't say it's impossible. Definitely possible. But it's so on the nose right? Could there be a story that you know not since Imelda Marcos and her shoes has there been a story that was like just right on the point like that? Right on the point. I don't know. I'm a little skeptical of it. I'm going to say wait two days on this one. If in two days the story doesn't change it might be real but this one just has that feel about it. It has the feel of fake news just all over it whether it is or not. I don't know. Could be true. I give it two days.

Gallup says that the appetite for a third party is pretty high. Seventy-five percent of self-identified independents support a third party, support creation of a third party, which is weird because we have third parties already. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans endorse the idea and 46% of Democrats. That kind of suggests that RFK Jr. has a path. I always thought he was way more of a dark horse than he's been given credit for. If he goes third party, which I think he's doing primarily so he has freedom of speech so they won't ban him on social media, he actually could win. Yeah let me say it clearly. I'm not predicting a win. Not predicting it. But if he wins I want you to know I said yeah that's, there's a path. He just has a path. There are enough disgruntled people that if the only thing that happened is you saw lots of Trump arguing with Biden, whoever's not Trump arguing with Biden is going to look better every day. Just every day. Because both Biden and Trump will just be dumped on with everything and whoever is just going along and making a little news on the side. I don't like big pharma. Do you? No I don't. Oh well we agree on that. Yeah. I feel like he's just going to stay under the radar, maybe slip in at the end. It's possible. Not probable but it's possible.

And here's another story that I can't believe I think it's true but is it true that Trump's attorney accidentally checked the box that says they don't want a jury trial and that he's not going to get a jury trial because the lawyer checked the wrong box? That was fake news right? But is it a jury trial? So I think it's no jury trial but is the claim that the lawyer made a mistake the reason? That part's fake. So some of this is fake right? Some of the story. All right well I'm just going to say we don't know but that judge Engoron he's a little bit too happy. He seems to enjoy his job too much which makes you feel uncomfortable because he doesn't seem like he's as serious as you'd want him to be. I mean sure he's a nice guy. I mean when I see him I think oh I could hang out with him he'd be fun but he's not really sending a judge vibe that's going to hurt him.

All right and that ladies and gentlemen is my prepared comments. Is there any big story I missed today? What am I forgetting?

So Judge Jeanine said that no conservative would go for RFK Jr. Really? Well he definitely has policies that no conservative could approve but I don't know. I don't know. There may be just bad feelings. Yeah all it would take is Trump to do something that he's not done yet that was some new outrage and RFK Jr. would only be going up against Biden so I think he's got a shot. Has ideas that aren't insane. I don't know about that. RFK Jr. thought a border wall was racist until a month ago. What's the problem? Do you ha