m for a moment to let the crowd do its thing and they're chanting genocide Joe. And then what Trump said was you know they're not wrong. He goes they're not wrong. But you see the problem here. The problem here is that he sided with the people saying it's genocide and he doesn't want to do that because he's calling our ally Israel a genocidal country. So I think that he was just operating on feel and instinct when he agreed with the crowd because he's good at reading the crowd and getting them on his side. But I feel like he's going to have to fix that. He's probably going to have to have a statement that says the genocide is just the fact that there's a war in general. So whatever you call the genocide is you could just say it's the war. So yes Biden's responsible for all the war bad but technically let's not call it a genocide but you know it's a funny nickname. So I think he might have a little explaining to do on that because it's not always about the nickname. It has to be compatible with his actual philosophy.

I'm going to say this again until I get an answer. How do I process the fact that pollsters are telling us unambiguously that Trump is gaining with Black and Hispanic voters big time but yet he's tied with Joe Biden? Who is he losing? What story or trend? He's not losing women because that would be a story. If Trump were bleeding female support there would be a story just like there's a story that he's gaining Blacks and Hispanics. That would be a national headline almost every day if he were losing female support at some significant level. Who's he losing?

Here's what it feels like. It feels like this is your tell that polling isn't real 'cause it can't be real. It can't be true that he's losing substantial parts of his most important, the bulwark of the Democrat power base, at the same time he's not making any difference at the top line. It can't be that the bottom lines are all moving and the top line is stable. What's going on?

And by the way I'm looking at your comments right now. You have no idea do you? Losing suburban women? Is that the story? Losing suburban women? Because I thought he'd already lost them. Are you sure that's not just a continuation of the forever story that he doesn't have suburban women? Are they actually moving? Yeah I don't know. So let's look into it. Let's look into suburban women and see if that's a move. I feel like they're not moving like that. That doesn't feel real to me. I feel like a lot of them are Democrat but I don't feel like they're moving. I don't know. Why would they not already be there? It doesn't make sense.

Well Libs of TikTok is showing a clip about there's a what they would call a male, a trans athlete competing in a girls varsity 200 meters in Oregon. And the trans athlete set a new record for the girls. The trans athlete like just practically lapped the field and it's pretty hilarious when you look at it because pretty big difference in performance.

Now there are many ways to look at these stories and one way is my God what's happening to the country. That's one way. Another is this is so unfair for the women and I totally get that. I totally get that. But I prefer to take the more optimistic view if you don't mind. You know nothing's terribly all wrong and or all good. There's always an upside. Do you mind if I take the optimistic view of this?

Well in my lifetime I've seen women make tremendous gains and I think most anybody in my age group would say the same thing. I went from a world in which women really couldn't work any job they wanted. There really wasn't an option but now it is. In fact women are doing better in college, better at buying their first homes. Women are doing great. So women are higher educated, less crime than men, certainly DEI is helping them in employment and doing great. But what about men?

Here's what I say. I believe that men have what I call an indomitable spirit. And you can try to hold men down and you can say men, we're going to, white men, white men we're going to take your jobs we're going to give them to people of color and women but you're just going to have to put up with it man. And I think the white men said huh what if we don't? What if we decided that we don't want to lose and what if we want to win this race so badly that we will remove our penis just to do it?

So you might say to yourself my God this is so unfair to women and you'd be right. You might say to yourself this makes a mockery of sports. You'd be right. But I think you have to appreciate how hard men will try to win when the rules are against them. All right here are the rules. You can't win. Well what if I change some things? Like what? My penis. If I get rid of my penis can I win? Well maybe.

But here's how I summarize this entire situation over the years. Women take a backseat. Men this is our time. Men hold my baton. That's all. That's the summary. That whole thing was just worked over that one joke. Hold my baton. That's it. Yeah the whole thing was just for that one joke. If it didn't pay off I'm sorry.

All right. JD Vance is talking about Ukraine and says funding Ukraine is crazy because they don't have soldiers and we can only make about 10% of the artillery that they'll ever need so they can never, they'll never have an offensive option. So this is JD Vance's analysis. They'll never have an offensive option because they won't have the soldiers and there's nobody left. They just don't have enough people left. And we can't make more than say 10% of the artillery they need for the next few years. So he suggests that they use the Russia strategy which is dig in. You know create defensive lines that the Russians would be crazy to assault just as the Ukrainians were crazy to assault the dug-in Russian positions. Now this of course would lead you toward a negotiated settlement once you realize that neither side can beat the other. So I think JD Vance did a good job here.

By the way what's his background? I know he's an author but wasn't he working for Peter Thiel? JD Vance do I have that right? And what was his educational background? Harvard. What was his major? Lawyer. So he's a Harvard lawyer, Harvard trained lawyer and then he worked for Peter Thiel. Oh he was, I thought he was a VC. Right okay that's what I was looking for. Peter Thiel, venture capitalist. JD Vance worked for him even though his background is Harvard lawyer. He no doubt learned to think like a venture capitalist. And when I look at his analysis I say to myself holy cow somebody who knows how to analyze things just analyzed something. Do you know how rare that is? How rare is that that somebody who knows how to analyze something analyzes something?

Do you know who else is good at this? Thomas Massie, MIT engineer. When he analyzes somethi