n that'd be hard to go against.

Scott, Mearsheimer to understand your history please. This has been tried. That's a terrible comment. Terrible comment. Yeah the history does not tell you what's going to happen in the future. History does not repeat itself. That is a myth. And as soon as you believe that you can't do anything that eliminates your ability to think. Oh history repeats itself so there you go. Yeah no everything's different. Everything that was true before you had a major war that exhausted both sides just doesn't apply. Everything that was true before Russia had total military control of those places it's a completely different situation. You know that we didn't have a failed government where our government couldn't really be productively involved in anything. Everything's different. So to imagine that what would happen when everything was different is your model for today it doesn't make any sense at all. No I don't need to know that history. I know a little bit of it. I mean I know enough to know it doesn't matter.

All right the Post Millennial is reporting that Canada ordered their lockdowns based on fraudulent studies. And by fraudulent I think it means that somebody did a study and said that during the Omicron wave and this is important during the Omicron wave when it was already past the most dangerous part Canada said they needed to keep the lockdown because of the unvaccinated people were causing the spread of the Omicron. The unvaccinated. Now the claim and I'm not saying this is true or false because I don't believe any of the science around the pandemic. The claim is that the statistics actually showed that it was the vaccinated people who were spreading the Omicron the most and therefore the policy should have been exactly the opposite and it wasn't justified to lock everything down.

Now the claim that the vaccinated people were spreading it the most do you believe that? You do? Okay all right. So here's what I'm not claiming. I'm not claiming that the shots worked. I want you to hear me very clearly. I'm not claiming that they worked. No no no. I'm claiming that you're believing data that came out of the pandemic and it's pretty stupid looking. Like if you believe this you're really gullible. And by the way you might be right. You might be right but if you believed it because you heard it in the news you really got to check yourself. This is not something you should have believed. It might be true but don't believe it because the data the data said it. Here's why. Almost everywhere where we collect data when it matters we can choose ways to collect that that sell a story and we can choose ways to collect it that give you the wrong answer. To me this looks obviously like they collected it and got the wrong answer.

Now if you told me that there was no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated I'd say oh well that actually sounds reasonable. Yeah that actually sounds reasonable. But if you tell me that the people vaccinated had more spreading I'm not going to believe that. Like what are the odds that it made it more likely you're going to spread it? Do you think that maybe the people who are likely to get it and get sick with it and know they had it are the people who are weak to begin with and more likely to be vaccinated? You don't think there's any correlation between there's something about the people who got vaccinated such as I'm going to spend a lot of time with other people so I better get vaccinated? What do the people who didn't get vaccinated have in common? They spend a little less time around other people. And if you say that's not true I say to you how do you know? How do you know? If you don't know that that's true or false then how can you think that vaccinated people are more likely to spread it? This is the most ridiculous I've ever seen in my life.

Now I'll agree with you that the so-called vaccinations didn't stop the spread. Certainly during Omicron it made no difference at all. So I'm not supporting the science. Hear me clearly. I'm not backing the science. I'm saying that you believe the science so I'm saying that you believe the science. Why? Like why would you believe it either way if it told you that the vaccinated were more likely or if it told you the opposite? Why would you believe it? There's no data from that era that's believable and this is opposite of what makes common sense and it's also fairly opposite why this number would be wrong because there's something about the vaccinated population that is substantially different from the unvaccinated. They have a very different character. I mean if the only thing you did is say city people are more likely to be vaccinated than country people is that true? You tell me true or false. City people more likely to be vaccinated than rural people yes or no? Well Republicans are more rural. City people are more Democrat. If that's the only thing you knew wouldn't you assume that more Democrat city people are vaccinated right now? Where are you more likely to catch a virus? In the country on your ranch or in the city where you're surrounded by infected people all day long? Do you think that this study adjusted for the fact that the unvaccinated have a more less dense lifestyle because they're more rural people if they're Republicans?

Now are you hearing this for the first time that this number couldn't be trusted because there's something deeply different about the unvaccinated population? Yeah so don't believe anything about numbers that come out of the pandemic. They're all motivated numbers even if they agree with you and even if they're right. Even if they're right. So keep in mind I'm not eliminating the possibility that it's true but you shouldn't think it's true because there was some study. If you think it's true because there was a study or there somebody corrected a study from wrong to right it's like you learn nothing during the pandemic. None of the data is useful at least believable. None of it.

All right Ian Bremmer and some others were talking about all of Biden's foreign policy wins. Here's the list of things which Biden could brag about. He kept NATO strong. Apparently Japan and South Korea were having a tough time with each other and it was getting tense but Biden administration got them to talk and it seems like tensions have gone down so that's good. Then also the China tariffs are still in place. The other Trump tariffs so not much change there and that's considered good. And then Biden negotiated to get China to stop sending fentanyl precursors to the United States. So that's all good right? Right you're not going to disagree with me are you? So look at all these wins. Then he also stopped China from harassing American aircraft. Big win there. So that's pretty strong. Look at this list. I'll read it again. He kept NATO strong. He got Japan and South Korea to get together. I think Ian Bremmer said you know that was as substantial or somebody did that was as substantial as the Abraham Accords. You know what wasn't much in the news but real big deal. So big win there for Biden. And the fentanyl you know stopping the fentanyl that's a pretty big deal. And then stopping the Chinese harassing. So that's all of his big wins. It's pretty good huh?

Let's take a look at this. Keeping NATO strong. Am I wrong or did Trump get NATO its biggest funding of all time? The argument here is that Trump kept saying is NATO useful? He should keep saying that. He should say that about literally everything we give money to. Do we still need these bases in other countries? Maybe but he should ask that question. Do we still need to give money to this or that? I don't even care what this or that is. Maybe you should ask that question. Maybe you should put them on their heels and say I'm not so sure I should give you any money. You tell me why I should give you some money. To me that's a better way to handle things. So if somebody's interpreting that Biden's got the better handle on things by telling NATO they can have anything they want and we'll back them that feels like stupid. So are we calling his accomplishment something that in my opinion looks just sort of stupid? It's bad negotiating to say NATO all good take our money. NATO all good no. You got to make them prove it. You better make sure that they're doing something we want to spend their money on and you should have them on their heels all the time. That's just basic leadership.

How about that Japan and South Korea thing? See that that's something that no other administration would be able to handle right? How the hell hard was it to get Japan and South Korea to not start a war? I don't think that was the highest level of difficulty if you're going to compare this to the Abraham Accords. Seriously seriously. Now I know that Japan and South Korea have a long long history but I don't feel like the level of difficulty there was too high. Just sort of had to get him in the same room. All right big deal.

Then what about the China tariffs? Well literally that's something Trump did and just Biden didn't break it. But then the part about he got China to agree to stop sending fentanyl. You know that didn't happen. Nothing like that happened. It's the same thing that Trump did and Trump said stop sending and they said oh yeah sure yeah we're trying as hard as we can. Yeah no nothing is happening on fentanyl. So to imagine that you could just throw this in the story like it's his biggest accomplishment none of it's happening. It's not even real. And what about stopping the Chinese harassing American aircraft? Is that an accomplishment? No because they wouldn't have even done it if Trump had been president. Am I wrong? Trump would have just said once is too many j