is a right answer. You can't take freedom away from the woman's bodily autonomy. To which I say that's my point. You both think you have an answer and it's the right answer and it's never going to change. So when you have a situation that you can't get agreement you have to take one step back and get the thing you can get which is a credible system. A credible system would be a set of laws that women in general were overwhelmingly in favor of even if you don't like it whichever way that goes. So it might go different ways in different states but credibility requires the people with skin in the game, the people who are most capable, the people who have the most direct knowledge from an experiential level what's going on plus doctors. Right we can throw in a few experts that's fine but basically women need to figure this out and just tell the rest of us what it's going to be. Likewise for national defense. Ladies shut the fuck up. Let the men handle it. You're effing everything up. You're destroying the whole country. Right? Stay out of the things you're not good at. Again this is not every woman. Plenty of women would be the best at national security but you can't take the group opinion. They're not qualified for defense. They're not built that way. They didn't evolve to have an instinct for defense. You don't believe it? Walk into a room. Talk to your man. Why do you think men think about Rome all the time? Do you know why? Do you know why we think about Rome all the time? Because it's relevant to defense. That's why. You walk into a room you're looking for the exit, the windows. You're looking for the most dangerous person in the room. You're looking for your allies. You're looking around the room and you're saying all right when the fight breaks out who's going to be on my side? That's built into us right? Nobody had to teach us that. That's just male behavior. We are instinctively security oriented. So you should take the bulk of male opinion not any individual male because any individual could be an idiot but the bulk of our opinion is going to be the better answer for national security every time.

All right Thomas Massie had some clever things to say as he often does. So he was talking about, you probably know that there's a 17 million dollar hush fund for paying off sexual claims against people in Congress. I think it's funny that they just have a budget for paying off women usually who are making claims against the men for terrible behavior. But he points out that wouldn't that hush money payment be considered campaign finance? Because what's the difference between that and what Trump was doing with the hush money for Stormy? In both cases it's money that's being spent so that a politician would look better to the voters. So aren't they both a campaign contribution? If one is why isn't the other? And they've already ruled that one is and it looks like they were talking to FEC's former FEC commissioner Trey Trainor and he points out that that would be, it was a weird connection to even imagine that Trump had any kind of campaign violation. In other words Bragg just sort of came up with a theory that the election people, the FEC people would say not so much but the legal system is a different system so they get to kind of have their own standard until it gets reversed. I think it'll get reversed. So that's the first good point.

And then Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said it'll likely be overturned you know the Trump conviction on that election or the election interference stuff or the campaign stuff. Then Massie points out the irony here is that the Stormy Daniels trial was all about trying to influence the election and by having the trial they influenced the elec