he government do anything he wants. You know that right? That's enough money to make the government do anything you want. So he just has to want it and of course he does. Nobody wants to lose $35 billion. So yeah there's no chance that the government is stronger than $35 billion all focused in one place. Well or let's say a billion dollars because he could burn a billion dollars just to get what he wants. The government cannot survive or cannot stand up against a billion dollars focused on any one topic. The government has no power over that. He has all the power.

So if he wants it not banned well that's kind of the end of the story. He has the power to make it not happen. So you should expect a number of people who are beholden to such a person who contributes that much to the Republicans, you should expect them to have some weird explanations of why they are opposed to the ban.

Speaking of weird explanations for why you'd be opposed to the ban, here's Rand Paul. He says reactionaries who want to ban TikTok. Oh interesting. If you want to ban TikTok you're a reactionary, huh? Let us examine the history of Rand Paul and say does Rand Paul start an argument with an emotional insult label? Is that his normal mode? Does that look like what you're used to? Because that's not the Rand Paul I'm used to. The one I'm used to usually leads with a logical rational argument and then challenges the government to tell him what's wrong with it and then they can't. And that that's what makes him Rand Paul. What makes him Rand Paul is not doing this. He just called people in his own party and the other party as well reactionaries. You Rand Paul, you very much. Yeah you don't need to insult me. Am I reactionary because I had that opinion?

I've changed my opinion since TikTok can't be banned. I don't think there's any room for an opinion. It doesn't matter if I want it to. It doesn't matter if I think it's a good idea. It's like Israel. You can have an opinion but why that? Who and R is just going to do what they whatever they can do that they need to do anyway.

So starting with reactionaries is a big red flag that you're not going to take this argument seriously. And I would expect that what you say next is not going to be as logical as what we normally expect from Rand Paul.

Let's say he says the reactionaries who want to ban TikTok claim the data can't be secured because the quote algorithm is in China. This is called a straw man. A straw man is where you characterize the other people's argument in a stupid way. Have you ever heard anybody say that? I haven't because it would be stupid. Nobody's going to say that TikTok can't be secured because the algorithm is in China. Who would even say that? That doesn't even make sense from any technological standpoint. No that's a straw man.

So he started with an insult and then a straw man. Is that Rand Paul the you know? Now does Rand Paul give you a straw man for an argument? Since when? I've never seen him do it. I always see him say things that make