esn't that mean we should focus on the freedoms of people to live their life not to have government not to have any other person tell them what they can and can't do. What? So she's still trying to say that the big takeaway from slavery was the government shouldn't tell citizens what to do. Wasn't that the whole point of the Civil War is to tell the South that they couldn't do that anymore? The whole point was the government told the people what they can't do. That's all it was.

If you take the approach that the Civil War was about slavery which at least in part it was, yeah I mean even her point. So she's trying to make sort of an academic point but even the academic point doesn't make sense. Now I of course favor that the government got involved and took away the ability for the southern people to own slaves. You know I agree with that from a human perspective. But what I wouldn't describe it as is a government allowing people to do what they want to do. It was the opposite. If the government allowed people to do what they want to do there would be slavery. There would absolutely be slavery. So the government really can't allow the people to do whatever they want to do.

Yeah I'm seeing a comment that says she should have been aware that 99% of the public would say that the Civil War was about slavery so she should at least wave at that point. You know if she wants to put a nuance on it you do that after you say well obviously slavery was a big issue but you should also know and then go on with her academic point.

Now this is a sort of mistake that you do not see Vivek Ramaswamy make. This was just a communication fumble that not only did she fumble it but then after she had time to think about it she re-fumbled it. Has Vivek ever done anything like that? He hasn't even fumbled yet and I guarantee you that if he ever did fumble because you know we're all humans he would know how to correct it. He wouldn't do this.

But this is one of those situations where, well let me be honest I'll be as frank as I can be. One of the things I do like about a lot of our politicians is that they're unusually smart even if you don't like them. Nikki Haley seems to me unusually smart. You know as the other candidates do as well. But she's not nearly as smart as Vivek and I think this is one of those situations where it really comes clear. He just wouldn't have made any of these mistakes and you know it right? You watch him for five minutes and you know he wouldn't make that mistake. First of all he'd know his history better but secondly he would know what the public's thinking. He would know what they need to hear and then if he wanted to add any new ones he would add it after he had established what we all agree on.

So this really shows sort of an IQ difference in my opinion. But I'll say again she's very smart so there's nothing dumb about Nikki Haley. It's just for Vivek it's another level.

Nikki Haley did say she would pardon Trump if he is convicted of any crime. That's smart. So I'm just going to say that's good persuasion. She should say they should do that. She gave her reason. It's in what's in the best interest of the country. Look how well she says this. So you know I remind you if you want to seem credible if you can't say anything good about somebody you might have a criticism about you're probably not credible. It just means you're on a team. So I'm going to say something unambiguously good about Nikki Haley. Here's her quote. What's in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail that continues to divide our country. End of story. Thank you. Yes nothing else to say. That is a complete and perfect statement that I as an American want to hear. That you're not going to around what's good for the country. What's good for me is that I'm not still talking about an 80-year-old guy in jail for some charges. Yeah yes it's not about Trump. I like Trump as a human being so I don't want him to go to jail so there's a human element to it but when she says this she's talking about the country. Country first. Yeah yeah I'm all on board with that. Good job.

Of course she's also copying Vivek who said it first and better.

I heard yesterday, this is the part where some of you will want to leave. I'm going to talk about the simulation theory. I'm going to add something but if you don't like that that's my last topic of the day. Some of you might want to bail out. So I try to put the stuff you don't want to hear at the end because some people do and some people don't.

I was posting on this yesterday. In my opinion the worst argument against the possibility that we are a simulation, our reality is a simulation, is that it would be too hard to do it. There's too much data in the universe for a simulation. You couldn't possibly build a computer even if you're an advanced alien race you couldn't build a computer so good that it could model all of the detail of the universe.

Now that's a terrible terrible argument. You know why? It's circular. Here's me restating the argument. First assume that everything you see is real and then I'm going to use the fact that everything is real to show you that you couldn't simulate it because it's too much therefore proving that everything's real. Do you catch that? The assumption was the argument. It's just an assumption that it's real. I make the assumption that I don't know if it's real so I look for the signals that it's real and that it's not.

Now the first thing you need to know is that I agree you could not make a computer probably if it feels right now. We can't rule out that the aliens could have a better computer right? It's just better than what we can imagine. That would be not too amazing. But beyond that the way the human brain works is it tells us we're seeing details we don't see. Do you all know that the human brain, a normal functioning human brain imagines gr