Lisa Murkowski, Republican from Alaska. And if you didn't like Lisa Murkowski before, well, let me give you this quote and see if you like her a little better. Quote: "If I were an unpleasant person, I would say it's just so delightful to see them swirl around on this"—meaning the media swirling around on the Biden thing. And she said—oh, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican, said that this scramble has been quote "an incredible thing to watch."

Now, I'd like to double down on that and say that it's probably the most fun I've ever had. I've never had this much fun with the news for this long. I mean, I loved 2016 and Trump's first run. It was epic. But it wasn't as purely enjoyable as this is. Yes, there is a—can you hear the leaf blower right outside my window? Is my microphone picking that up? I think it's right below my window. Let me close it. So I have the same landscaper gardener guy as the neighbor across the street. So when he's doing my lawn, he makes sure that he doesn't do it when I'm doing the show. But what he does right across the street, which is basically right under my window, he does there during the show. It's not ideal.

Okay. China's having trouble with their one-child policy. You know about that. But apparently they're going to run out of people to do work. They've got a giant demographic problem because they didn't have enough babies. But I ask this question: What are they going to do about that? Because in the age of robots, China's not going to run out of workers, are they? They're going to have too many workers. So it could be that China made a big mistake with the one-child policy, but robots will save them. Meaning that we might be the ones in trouble if we had too many babies. So we might have too many workers and not enough work because the robots will get the good jobs. Whereas China might have not enough workers, but they build enough robots to make up the difference. So I don't even think we can tell if China made a big mistake or the best play of all time. Kind of lucky. Hard to say.

Tucker Carlson and Catherine Herridge were talking on Tucker's show, I guess. And one of the things that Catherine said that I disagree with completely—let's see if you agree. Quote: "The entire political conversation in the United States plays out on X, period. It does not take place on any TV channel or in any newspaper." I think it's exciting too, actually, to see it a little bit unleashed. It's not always pleasant. It's not always easy, but it's unleashed and evolving and engaging. And it's bringing in different points of view. And I think that's what civil discourse is all about.

What I don't see anything like that. X is way more siloed than it used to be. Well, under Twitter I was continuously interacting with Democrats, angry Democrats. But now I wonder if they were all fake. I'm starting to wonder if any of them were real because X is better at getting rid of bots. So if you get rid of the bots, I have absolutely no contact with any Democrat. I have 1.1 million followers and no Democrat reaction except paid trolls. I'll tell you in a minute how to spot them.

And Michael Ian Black—the reason I keep mentioning Michael and the fact that it was worth having a conversation with him on a livestream and he continues to interact with a lot of Republicans—the reason that it is so interesting is because it's rare to have an actual Democrat who is willing to mix it up and actually engage. And he's showing his sources. He's asking the right questions and stuff. And you could disagree with him. That's fine. But I don't see anybody else doing it. Who else is even trying? I could not be more in disagreement. But this is based on my own experience. I have, as far as I can tell, zero impact outside of my own audience, which is all Trump supporters basically.

Is Scott having a Biden moment? What are they calling it? Oh, Trump's Project 2025. Oh, so they're going to call it Trump's Project 2025. Eric Swalwell. Oh,