t's just my working assumption.

Now let's talk about this border bill that appears to be the worst thing anybody ever did. Kyle Bass and lots of other people are weighing in on it. I'll just tell you what Kyle said but you can see I don't know just dozens of other people say my God did you read what's in this bill? It's the opposite of what it's trying to do which is generally the case. Usually our bills are labeled the opposite of what they do. All right Musk has been talking about that a lot that we label them the opposite. So apparently part of this bill believe it or not would grant Mayorkas the ability to grant asylum and even American citizenship at the border without review by anybody including the intelligence agencies. So somebody could come in and literally be a terrorist and Mayorkas can say you're a citizen and that would be the end of it. There would be no review. That's actually in this bill. Yeah like try to wrap your head around that. Why would that be there? Give me a reason why that would be there. There is no reason. This bill is clearly not designed to help the United States.

All right and it's not a Democrat or Republican thing. This is clearly something else is going on. This is in the category of something else is going on. Don't know what but this is not a policy disagreement. If you think there's oh we're being a little inefficient you know or it's an election year so people being a little more political that's not really what's going on. I don't know what's going on but this is one of those situations where we need to stop everything until we figure out what's going on. Remember when Trump said quite provocatively let's stop immigration from certain countries until we figure out what's going on? His instinct was completely right because if you don't know what's going on the first thing you need to do is find out. How's that not obvious?

Whatever is happening with this weird border bill it's not based on policy differences. It's not based on politics and I can't even follow the money. I guess if they tie it to Ukraine and Israel I can follow it but if you were just look at the border part by itself it doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't make sense for Democrats or Republicans. I can't imagine there would be one Democrat voter, not politician, voter, who would be in favor of this bill if they knew what was in it. Is that your take on it? That not even a Republican, not even a Democrat would if they knew what was in it? Because apparently the Democrats are just lying to everybody about what's in it and they're treating it like it's a solution to the border crisis. It's not. It's not even in that realm. It's literally making it worse. It's like legitimizing keeping it as bad as it is. It couldn't be worse.

So I think we should stop talking about it like a policy difference. I feel that we're as citizens if we allow them to tell us that this is some kind of policy difference then we've been completely brainwashed. This is not a policy difference but I don't know what it is. We need to stop everything until we figure out what's going on. And I mean we should not consider even voting on it one way or the other. We have to figure out how this happened in the first place. Who put this on paper? I want to know what's behind this because this looks like it's closer to treason than it is to a policy difference. A policy difference would have people disagreeing on the details. That's not what's going on. They're not disagreeing on the details. They literally are being bamboozled about what's in it and it's clearly designed to make things worse. That's not politics. That I don't even know where to follow the money for that. There's something else going on. They need to shut the whole system down until they figure what that is. They shouldn't vote on anything. They shouldn't pass a budget for anything. They should shut the government down because I don't want more of this. You need to stop and figure out what's wrong and then maybe figure out a way to fix it but no.

Yeah right now the current system would be what the current system would either be you know blackmail and threaten and bribe people to vote for this piece of garbage right? That'd be the normal process. Or go back and create a Frankenstein 2 which will be every bit as bad as this and then come back and tell us it was fixed and hope enough people are now desperate. You know they got to get that Ukraine funding. They got to get that Israel funding. That they'll just give up and vote for it. That's what's going to happen. There will either be some kind of force making people vote for it because they want the other things or they'll go back and rewrite it worse. You know that right? It's not going to come back making sense. It's not even going to come back looking like a Democrat plan. At least that I'd understand. You might like it you might not like it but at least shouldn't it be at least consistent with what Democrat voters would want? I don't see the Democrat voters wanting open borders at least by a majority. And the ones who think they want it are just not the people who should be in this conversation. They're people who don't understand it or I mean they're just they're honestly their limited capacity people. Let me say it as directly as possible. The only people who could be in favor of the current situation on the border are people of limited capacity. Now that's a lot of people. Limited capacity by that I mean the inability to see the short term and long term of a fairly complicated issue. Right immigration is simpler than some but still a little bit complicated. I think that the only people who could be in favor of this are low capacity people. This has nothing to do with politics.

And I would go further. I know this sounds like hyperbole but I would cancel the elections, the presidential elections. Let me say that again because I'm serious and I know you won't take me seriously. We should cancel the elections because we don't have a secure system and no matter who wins we're not going to believe it. You know that. No matter who wins the country won't believe it. Under that one situation you need to cancel the election. I'm going to say this as many times as it takes so you know I'm serious. Under the specific situation that you know for sure and we do that neither side will accept the result because they won't believe the election was fair. Under that specific situation and on top of that a system which was designed for corruption. It's not designed to remove it right? If we designed it to remove corruption the elections would be the same day, no prior voting, it'd be on paper, there'd be no computers and everybody would look at what's happening and we'd have the result the same day. We'd know how to do it.

So if the Democrats don't believe the system if it goes the other way and the Republicans won't believe the result if it goes not their way and we have a system which very clearly and objectively is designed for fraud, obviously I mean it's really obvious, we should cancel the election until we fix it. Now you're saying to me but Scott that would mean Biden or Kamala Harris are running the country. Yep that's exactly what I'm saying. Because you're watching them disintegrate right in front of you and you might need that to understand how bad this is. You might need to watch Biden try to be president while he's just literally just drooling on himself right? Because you know they're going to push they're going to tell you he's still okay. I want to see the Democrats tell you he's okay when he's just drooling on the microphone right? That's what I want. I do want that because I believe the deep state will keep the country running just fine and if the worst thing is that we don't give them money for foreign wars because we're too incompetent and everything's shut down, fine fine. Yeah let them work it out. Let them just work it out. But we are not in the domain of politics anymore. We're in the domain of there's something wrong and we got to figure out what it is. It looks like foreign influence. It's either foreign influence or somebody is in charge of our country domestically that we just don't know who it is and we don't know why they're doing it.

If we can't explain Soros is funding everything that's bad for the country and that the Democrats are just going to give us some more of that, there's something going on. And I say just shut it all down. We might need a constitutional convention in which we just rewrite this because we designed a system that doesn't work in modern times. I think the founders were brilliant and they designed a system that worked for a few hundred years but it doesn't work now. And here's why. I think the media brainwashing machine got too good. The brainwashing function got too good and that's not something that the early settlers could have understood. They would never have seen the mainstream media coming, the internet. They would have never seen the massive censorship machine. They wouldn't have seen that. So I think we need to stop, cancel the election, cancel this Frankenstein bill immediately no matter what happens. I don't care what happens in Israel. I don't care what happens in Ukraine. I literally don't because whatever happens is going to be horrible. It's just going to be some different version of horrible and somebody else is going to pay for it. So if you're just making me choose among the horribles great. You pay for it. You pay for it. If it's going to be horrible no matter what you pay for it. Why am I funding your horrible choices? You go fund your own horrible choices.

So cancel the election, literally do a constitutional convention and figure out if we can come up with a system where we can still have free speech without government censorship working through the NGOs and all their fake fact checkers and the fake ADL and the fake you know fake everything. And just see if we could rewrite it and maybe not change everything. You know you don't want to throw everything away. You want to keep the good stuff but we need something that deals with whatever is happening because whatever's happening is new and not something the founders contemplated. And if we keep pretending that the problem is a policy difference we're not even in the right frame. It's the wrong frame. Look at this bill. You tell me in all seriousness you think that the border bill was a case of policy disagreement? That's not even close to what we're seeing. It's not even in the neighborhood of even a little bit smelling like it could be true. We're in some other different domain here and I don't know what it is. We're going to have to stop everything and figure it out. And if that means that Trump doesn't get elected in November I'm for that. It's just there's no way he's going to get elected under a current system. You know that right? They're either going to kill him or rig the election. I mean it doesn't look like he has a chance honestly. So when I say we should cancel the election if you're thinking oh my God maybe Trump won't get elected if they cancel no it probably didn't change that at all. Probably didn't make any difference.

You might see today a report about election integrity that could be really interesting. So there's something coming if you haven't seen it yet. So I'm not I can't mention it because you might not have seen it. I don't know if it's out but there's something coming today on election integrity in 2020 that you're going to find really interesting. Really really interesting. And let's just say it's exactly what you thought. It's exactly what you thought.

Appeals court ruled against Trump. Is that new? What appeals court? DC. What did they rule? Which one of the many things? Rejects his immunity bid. Oh yeah I expected that though. Didn't we all expect that the immunity bid wouldn't work? I know that that's not a big surprise but I think a lot of the challenges are just to delay things until after the election. Oh actually that would be a problem wouldn't it? If you cancel the election they have more time to get Trump. Well that would be an argument against it. That would definitely be an argument against it.

All right so Kellyanne Conway did an opinion piece I think it was in the I forget where maybe New York Times or something doesn't matter. And Kellyanne Conway said that she thinks that Trump should pick a person of color not because of you know weird diversity reasons but just because it would help the election you know just a practical thing. And she says she would narrow it down. So these are the names that she's got in her list. Rubio. How many of you think of Marco Rubio as a person of color? Marco Rubio. Do you think Marco Rubio would gain Trump even one vote because he's a person of color? He wouldn't get one vote for his ethnicity would he? Am I wrong about that? I don't think so. Anyway I guess Marco Rubio I guess would be the perfect example of the way I think we should do things. I love the fact that I guess technically he'd be a person of color but I can't think of any time that Marco Rubio has ever talked about it. Has he? I mean maybe he has but he hasn't talked that up like oh you know vote for me I'm a person of color. I mean I think he treats it like it doesn't exist which allows me to treat it like it doesn't exist which is how I want to treat it. So yeah I'm going to give him credit for that.

All right so she mentions Rubio. She says Tim Scott, Byron Donalds and Ben Carson, Representative Wesley Hunt. Never heard of him. Who's Wesley Hunt? Has anybody ever heard of Representative Wesley Hunt from Texas? Yeah Mike's brother. You're funny. All right and then she mentions Vivek Ramaswamy. Now let's look at her list.

So here's what I believe Kellyanne Conway is doing. When somebody randomly who's involved in politics writes an opinion piece you might say to yourself oh there's somebody writing an opinion piece and I'll bet it will agree with their side and all that. But Kellyanne Conway is not your average pundit I believe. And I would look for an opinion on this from you as well. I believe that when she writes a piece like this that this has a function to it. I believe that she's testing these names on behalf of Trump to see what kind of reaction it gets. Does it look like that to you? That all she's doing is doing a focus group by putting it out there and letting people talk about it. So in my view she would not have done this unless Trump had already narrowed it down to these exact names. So I think she's signaling that it's going to be one of these and then she's seeing how you feel about it.

Now let's look at the list. Let's go further. Marco Rubio. Do you think that that would help Trump to have another Florida guy? I think Marco Rubio is obviously he's a strong politician but I think he's a hard no. Kind of doesn't make sense. Yeah I just don't think he's not going to get enough. He's going to get somebody who agrees with him and doesn't get any extra votes. I say no on Rubio even though he's a solid guy.

Tim Scott another solid guy you know and he checks the box so everybody would at least know he's a person of color. I think he's too weak. I just think he's too weak. I think if you've got somebody like Trump who's a certain age you're going to look at the vice president as they've got to have the same power level right? This isn't like vice presidents of old where you didn't really need them to be as good as the top of the ticket. This isn't that. This is the one case where you need the vice president to be as good as the top of the ticket sort of like a Gore Clinton situation which was rare.

So how about Byron Donalds or Tim Scott? I would say that Byron Donalds is not quite seasoned enough. I don't know what he's accomplished exactly although he's strong. I mean his future looks right. Tim Scott I just don't think he's got the gravitas. Like I just don't think he's like the hammer that you might need. How about Ben Carson? I think Ben's too sleepy. I just don't think Ben has the fire to be a vice president and certainly not. You know he's a certain age. Not Ben Carson. Wesley Hunt I don't know anything about him so that would be a pick if you didn't want your vice pre