Let's talk about Andrew Yang. So Andrew Yang tweeted something that I retweeted. I think probably people thought I was maybe agreeing with his message, but that wasn't why I retweeted it. So I'm gonna read what he said and then I think you'll know why I had to read it.

So this is Democratic candidate Andrew Yang talking about abortion. And he says the following in his tweet. Andrew Yang says, "I respect the different feelings that Americans have on this issue" — meaning abortion — "but I would personally defer to women when it comes to protecting women's reproductive rights and will act to protect their rights."

You will defer to women. Now, the way I read it — I think it's the correct way — he's not talking about the individual woman who's having the baby. That would be one thing. I believe he's talking about women as a group being the primary decision-makers for it.

Now, some of you were saying it's a cop-out. Maybe. But it matches very well with my opinion. It's compatible because I've said something similar. But Andrew Yang leaves out the important part that makes my opinion brilliant and his opinion lacking a component.

Are you ready for it? I'm gonna tell you my opinion and then you can watch in the comments how nobody can understand what I'm saying. In fact, I might even take some calls to prove this because it'll be fun. I'm going to say something super clear but watch how you can't understand it. Now, maybe my best estimate is a third of you will understand exactly what I'm saying because it's gonna be simple. It'll be very clear. But two-thirds of you won't be able to hear it because you're gonna think I'm saying something else and then you're gonna get mad at me in comments for something I didn't say.

Here it goes. My view on abortion is that no matter what rules you have, half of the country is going to think it's the worst thing in the world. We're agreed with that, right? Doesn't matter if you're pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Would you agree then no matter what happens rule-wise, half the country will think it's the worst thing in the world? That's not going to change. Do you agree with that? There's nothing you can do with the law that will change the fact that half the country is on different sides. Okay, point. That's the first point.

Now, what do you do in a situation where your best-case scenario is that half of the country thinks it's an abomination? What's your best strategy? Is your best strategy, oh well, we should get the best law we can? No, that doesn't solve it. It doesn't solve it because you're still going to end up with half of the country thinking it's an abomination.

So in that specific situation and only that situation where you're never going to have a satisfying result — the answer will never be satisfying, you can't get there, it's not to be had under those conditions — what's the best solution? Well, half the people would say the best solution is you go my way. Half would say the best solution, let's go my way.

But if you go and level up and you're looking down and saying a leader at the two sides who can never agree, what would the leader do that would be the best thing for these two groups? They can't decide. Of course they know what's best. It's their side. I don't. Smash my side. But you're a leader. You don't get to take sides per se. You got to be a leader.

I would say that when it's a life-and-death decision, you want the most credible law. Because half of the country is gonna hate it no matter what the law is. If half the country hates a law to the point of revolution, you need to do what you can to make sure that that law is credible. Credible even if you don't like it.

The best you can do for abortion is the law that half the people think is an abomination. But here's my point. They respect the process. The process is credible. They don't like where it went, but they can live with it because they respect the process.

So if it was constitutional, that's a good process. If it went through the court systems, that's a good process. The reason that there's somewhat of an acceptance of laws that half the country feel are an aberration or a horror is that it went through the Supreme Court. And because we give some respect to the Supreme Court, people are willing to say I hate this with every fiber of my being, but the way we got there is at least credible-ish.

Now, of course people say that the Supreme Court was making up the Constitution and adding things to it. And I think that was true. But at least the process looks credible-ish.

Now what Yang is saying is a weaker version of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is you can't get to happy. Forget it. Happy can't be had because half the country is gonna hate it no matter what. But you can get to a stable situation. And stability is the best you can do. And if you want stability, you want a set of laws that people are not going to think are not credible.

The most credible laws you could have are the ones that women as a strong majority, if you can get such a thing, prefer. And their men have recused themselves from it. Now some of you are going to jump in and say but Scott, women when you poll them have the same opinion as men, so that has nothing to do with my point.

It doesn't matter what the woman's opinion is. It only matters that it was favored or had a bigger say than the men who also had the right to be part of it. Men have a right to vote and have a right to speak. But if we recuse ourselves, it amplifies the voices of women. And if the voices of women become the ones that are the strongest voices on the topic and that leads us to whatever it leads us to, doesn't matter which side it leads us to, that's going to be more credible than if I had weighed in and changed people's minds.

Because think about it. I can change people's minds. I could change minds on the topic of abortion. You know I have that ability. Should I? I don't think so. If I did change anybody's mind — and it doesn't matter which way I changed it — I would be a man who had a little bit too much say on this topic. Not because it's illegal for me to have a say, not because it's unethical. It's not illegal. It's not unethical for me to have a big influence. But if I did, the result would not be as credible. It would come from a weaker source, which is me.

Now I'm watching the comments to see how many people — you helped make the babies, doesn't matter — I'm saying watch how many of your comments are sort of not relevant to my point. Why wouldn't you be a person who has been allowed to be born have a say? I do. That means somebody says it's dumb because we don't defer to certain groups to make decisions. That doesn't address my point.

The law is clear, it's murder. That doesn't address my point. Women, what would put financial responsibility? Doesn't address my point because I do think men should have a say in the finances. So I'm excluding the financial part of it. So you're not disagreeing with me there.

I'm just looking at your comments to see if you can understand this point. Do female fetuses get a right to vote? How does that have anything to do with it? Would the law be more credible if a fetus could vote? Some people would not feel the law was credible. True. Doesn't address my point because some people are going to be unhappy no matter what.

Your point is about autonomy. Not really. No, it isn't. That's not on my point.

All right. I'm just looking at your comments. Didn't you merely describe laws in general? No, nothing like that. I was describing a very special case.

Somebody says my girlfriend killed my child. It was as much my child as it was hers. Doesn't address my point.

You're avoiding processed comments. I didn't see any that were on point.

Somebody says they understand my point but they disagree with it. Okay, but you're not arguing with it.

Somebody says how does a woman get pregnant if not for a male? Doesn't address my point.

Right, so you're saying lots — most of the people, all pretty much everyone who's disagreeing is simply saying a statement that's a fact. Hey, men are part of the process of having babies. That's not an argument. That's just a fact. You're giving facts without reasons. There's nothing. So that's not nothing.

Somebody says my girlfriend killed my child. It's not fair for her to have more say. I didn't say it was fair. So you're on a different point.

Have you seen an ultrasound? Irrelevant to my point. And yes.

Somebody says I don't care about your point. Well, that's fair. You know, you don't have to care.

Scott, you said nothing concrete. Yes, I did. I said that if you can't get a solution that society likes, your best solution is the most credible law even if half the people don't like it. That's pretty specific.

And there's somebody here who says you didn't say anything because you can't hear this point. I think so. What I'm getting at is that no matter how clearly I state that I'm talking about credibility, this is the best you could do. People can't hear it because they're locked into their two-sides stuff.

Somebody says now I'm confused. What's your point again? Well, my point was that you couldn't hear my point. The point is that nobody will agree. There will always be two sides and you can never make them happy. Your best solution is a law that's credible. And the most credible law about abortion would be one that women as a majority feel comfortable with, whichever way it goes. Pretty clear, right?

Somebody says but what would you take this to other issues? Would you take this to men on all the issues? Every case is different. But yes, as a general statement there could be many, many issues that I would rather men's opinion be the dominant opinion. Just this isn't one of them.

All right. Somebody says I could change the minds of society but I won't because — so somebody's asking me why I wouldn't change people's minds on abortion. Okay, that was somebody who doesn't understand my point. Right? If you're asking that question, you've missed the simplest point in the world. And that was really what I wanted to demonstrate. I wanted to see how many of you couldn't understand it.

Life is the only point. Yeah, that doesn't address my point.

It's fascinating to watch people not be able to hear it. It's one thing to disagree with it, but see how hard it is for people to even hear it. I'm just leaving your comments because they're pretty fascinating.

So somebody said I should clarify by saying that women should have the dominant say. And women and men certainly have the right to speak and have the right to vote, but they could help the process most by letting women have the dominant vote or the dominant influence.

The same somebody says it's not clear because who decides what's credible? Who decides is society on average. And let me ask you this. Would you disagree with the statement that abortion laws, whether they're tight or loose, doesn't matter, that if women as a majority favor them, that's the most credible situation for society even if men, let's say, slightly disagreed or something? I think that statement stands by itself.

Somebody says what if the decision is only women and it's still 50/50? Well, it's gonna go one way. It's not gonna be 50/50. It's gonna be 51-49 eventually because you have to decide.

All right. It looks like I've beaten you down and I've said it enough. I think so. I believe so.