mp. Trump actually called him. He's on air. Like, "Give me a call." And next thing you know, he's on the phone live with Trump. He puts on the speakerphone and Greg has to tell him, you know, "The audience is here. Don't say anything embarrassing." And then the funniest part, the funniest part is that Greg had to do a show and it wasn't really the most convenient thing to have a half-hour conversation on your cell phone holding it up to your microphone on your chest. So he needed to get Trump off the phone. The best part about it is, have you ever had the situation where you're done with a phone call? One of my exes had a way to tell you that the phone call is done. You know, you'd be talking about some stuff, you'd be going back and forth, normal conversation. Then you hear on the other side of the phone, "Anyway." And then I know the conversation's done. Anyway. So Greg was doing his version of how do you get the president off the phone. And I don't know, that was the best part, is trying to give the ex-president of the United States, maybe the future one, the bum's rush off the phone. You know, once you've done your polite stuff, it's time to move on. Anyway, that was fun. You should watch the video.

I just saw a clip from Peter Thiel talking to Joe Rogan. I guess that interview happened several days ago, but I hadn't seen this part. And apparently Peter Thiel has this theory that the reason that so many compromised people seem to be in power, you know, people that you would assume there would be some blackmail on, you just, if you're paying attention at all, you look at our leaders and you say we got a lot of leaders that, in my suspicious mind and based on what I've heard and what I see, they all look blackmailable. You've heard me say that, right? I've said that a number of times. That they just have this blackmailable vibe to them, like there's something going on besides their political stuff that somebody could blackmail them for. And Peter Thiel seems to think that it's a necessity to get ahead. That if you're not blackmailable, the people who really run the country can't trust you. They need to be able to control you, and so they prefer people who have blackmailable things that the public doesn't yet know. Now, that would explain everything.

Now, when I say it, it sounds a little crazy, right? When I say it seems to me like they're favoring blackmailable people, it sure looks that way. But I don't have any evidence of that. However, when Peter Thiel says it, suddenly I think, was I right? But he didn't show any evidence either. It's not like there's some scientific study. But he is way more connected, I think, than I am. In other words, he would be closer to whatever is behind the curtain. And for him to say this really got my attention. It's certainly short of something that is confirmed, but it looks like it. And when your observations are so consistent over time, it might be confirmation bias, but it's certainly helpful to hear at least one other smart person who's well connected say that's what it is.

Well, let's talk about the DNC and Kamala Harris. By the way, I'd like to make an announcement. If you stay till the end of my show today, I've got a special guest, Beyoncé. And after she's done, Taylor Swift will do a couple of tunes. I told her to keep it short. And then George W. Bush will be here as my special guest. That's all completely true. Stop it. Stop acting like I just made that up. This is the way you handle a big event. I learned that from the DNC. Yes, the DNC hinted that there would be a special guest so that people wouldn't turn off the TV before Kamala Harris was there. And then rumors started online it's Beyoncé, but of course it wasn't. It's Taylor Swift, but of course it wasn't. It's George W. Bush, which was just stupid because of course it wasn't. But it probably worked. It probably kept their numbers up. The number of lies that come out of the Democrat side is just breathtaking. It's just everything all the time. They only got one mode.

Anyway, remember ex-press secretary Jen Psaki? She said on MSNBC that Kamala Harris, well, she was complimenting her, and she said that Kamala Harris is likable. She's very likable. If you meet her in person, she's got this likable personal vibe. It's so likable that Jen Psaki said that she's as likable as Hillary Clinton with her magical charismatic quality. So I saw a post from Eric Abinanti. He said that that should be the Republican slogan. The Republicans should run on the idea that Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton. You know, as funny as that comment is, the thing that makes it funny is that it would actually work. If tomorrow the Republicans erased every commercial that they have, just dumped them all, got rid of all their signs, all their slogans, everything on their website, and they just went with one sentence, that Kamala Harris is as likable as Hillary Clinton, and never said anything else about politics, he could win. I'm not recommending it. It's not going to happen. But yeah, in my mind I say, you know what, nothing else makes a difference at this point. Everybody has a general idea which direction the policies would be in both cases. You could just say she's as likable as Hillary Clinton. I don't know how many people would register with that, but it worked for me.

I saw the Maze account on X say that the DNC is like one big support group for people who are imagining that Donald Trump has hurt them. Now, that is the best summary. It looks like a support group for people who imagined that Trump had hurt them but also imagined that he will hurt them again after the first time that they imagined he hurt them. That really does capture everything. If you had heard that framing and said we've got a convention of people who have mental problems and their specific mental problems, they believe that this one person, Donald Trump, has hurt them and he's coming back and he might do it again, that really would explain 100% of everything you observe. That one frame wouldn't leave out a thing. They do act exactly like he hurt them and he might do it again. I don't know what they're thinking, but they sure look that way.

Well, so Kamala Harris gave her speech. They made that same mistake they made once with Biden where they gave her a dark and foreboding background and put her in a dark suit. So she looked professional. She looked presidential but evil at the same time. I'm sure you can do a background that doesn't make you look evil. It could be done. I think I've seen Trump do it, for example. You have some nice lighting, got a nice light background, you know, you got a bunch of flags. She did have flags, but then she had this weird dark look that just looks sinister. Big mistake on the design people, I would say. But the only thing I learned from that is that Harris can still read because she didn't talk about policies, which Trump was mocking her for. She talked about her childhood. Don't care too much. And then she told a bunch of obvious lies and things that would get Republicans killed and divide the country. That she said Trump will set free violent extremists. I don't think there's any chance of that, do you? He said he would pardon the January 6 people, but do you really think he's going to pardon anybody who was violent? I doubt it. I would think that that would be an exception to his pardons. She said that Trump was going to jail journalists and political opponents. Well, did he ever say that? Has Trump ever said that he would jail journalists and political opponents? I've never heard that. Have you?

Now, the question of whether he should, I think, is in the ballpark of nobody's above the law. I mean, they lawed him beyond any reasonable level, and if he decides to lawfare them back, I wouldn't be terribly in favor of it because I think it would tear the country apart. But he certainly has a right to do it provided that they have done real crimes and it's obvious, right? If they haven't done real crimes, well, no, I don't want to lawfare anybody for that's what they did to him. It's what they did to some of us, you know, in a way. So she threw up all the hoaxes. Looked pure evil to me. I got to say that whenever I see Trump demonized this way as someone who would jail journalists and political opponents and set free violent extremists, it feels personal. Meaning that she's really painting half of the country, or I don't know, 40% of the country, as supporting this person, which sort of would make you that person too if it were true. I mean, I regard these as simply not true. But if you want to know how I take it, I take it as you're attacking me. I don't know. Do Democrats get that feeling when Trump talks? It feel like Trump is attacking them as humans? Now, I know that they don't like particular policies, but does he say things that make you think he wants you to be dead? Because when I read this, I think, do you want me to be dead? Would you think you'd be better off if I support Trump and you think Trump's so dangerous? Wouldn't you be better off if I were dead? So to me that's really dangerous rhetoric, and it gets worse. We'll talk about Nancy Pelosi in a second anyway.

To me the weirdest attack is that Trump is in it for himself. And it's the weirdest attack because it's the easiest one to debunk. Now, Trump has never done that. And I always wonder about that. Here's the easiest debunk to "Trump's only in it for himself." And this is something that Trump is good at, is putting it in the form of a question. If you put it in the form of a question, it's way more powerful. Debunk. And here would be the question I would ask if I were Trump. How could I possibly get anything that's good for me unless I do the best job for the country? You know, you're all watching, right? You understand everybody's watching everything a president does. I only have one path to get something that's good for me and the Trump family. I've got to do the best possible job for the country in public and let you watch it. Anything short of that is a failure for me personally. If you think I'm this big old narcissist who's only in it for myself, that's fine with me because the only way I can get anything that's good for my reputation or ego or family or even future income of the Trump family, the only way anything good happens for me is if I absolutely nail it in giving the American people what they want and need and deserve. So if you think there's some way I could benefit without you knowing it and it would be somehow bad for you, did that happen in the first term?

Now, of course people will say, but Jared, you know, went off and got a deal in Saudi Arabia. But he's not part of the administration and he's also not Trump anyway. So I'm surprised he hasn't taken that one on straight on.

MSNBC's coverage was entertainingly ridiculous. So Rachel Maddow looked at the camera and with great sincerity and emotion told her viewers this quote: "You will remember where you were." She's talking about the Kamala Harris speech. It was so powerful that you will remember where you were. "The speech tonight from the vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, really introducing herself to the nation, you're going to remember where you were on this night. This was an inflection point in history." That's your news network, MSNBC. It all looks like just mental health, just screaming for help.

Well, how good are Trump's policies? Well, Trump's policies are so good that his opponents decided not to talk about policies when competing against them. They literally have to make up policies that are not his to have something to talk about. What's the top thing in the country? Economics. Do they go after Trump on economics? Well, good luck. The country thinks that he's better on economics, so you don't do that. How about the border? Well, good luck. Country thinks that Trump would be better on the border. How about international relationships? Good luck. Country thinks that Trump would be better on that stuff. So what do you have left? You make up stuff. Look at this 2025 book, Project 2025. These are all the things that Trump's going to do. No, he isn't. He already disavowed that book. He had nothing to do with the creation of it. He's going to round up all the journalists who don't like him. No, he's not. Nobody would be in favor of that. There's no Republican who would be okay with arresting journalists because they didn't say good things about Trump. Nobody, literally nobody would be in favor of that. No, that's not going to happen. So if you have an entire convention that lasts days and nobody can mention a real policy of Trump, they only can make up something so they have something to talk about, that's a strong campaign. I would love to be in the campaign that they can't talk about what you're really doing or have really done. They can only talk about what you haven't done or won't do. That's it.

Now, let's be fair. Does Trump do the same thing and mischaracterize the Harris policies? He does it transparently. So Trump will say something like she was in favor of this. He'll acknowledge that her current view might be different, but it's a sign of her character. Now, that's not what we're seeing from Harris. We're seeing that he's going to do these things. Trump says, you know, it's something you know about the character and she would probably bring these sensibilities into the office. And that's actually a fair thing to say because if you say we know what somebody's past opinions are and it's not that far in the past, it's reasonable to assume that they would bring that same mindset into the job. What Harris does is say the opposite of what Trump plans to do. So Trump will say, "I am not for a national ban on abortion at the federal level." What they say is he's totally in favor of a national ban. Well, that's the opposite of what he said. He's not going to change his mind on that anyway.

I saw a user named Dandy on X. He said the only thing I can gather from this convention is that somehow they managed to sell the idea that they're running against the people in office who are also the speakers at the convention. That's true. If you want to know how deep the brainwashing is, the Democrats ran against themselves saying that the things that they've been doing hadn't been working, so you have to do it some other way. And then they brought on as speakers the people who are the very people who hadn't been getting it done. And I thought, wow, you can really brainwash the public to believe absolutely anything. So it does seem to me that Harris is running against herself. And that's the weirdest thing I've ever seen. And even Trump said he joked about how she's had three and a half years to fix this stuff, so she's running against herself. She is.

Let's see how the political consultants, who we don't trust one bit because they're all in the bag for one candidate or another, let's see. Jonathan Chait, a well-known political writer, said, quote, "Kamala Harris gave the best acceptance speech I've ever seen." Well, that does raise the question of how many he's ever seen. Maybe it's the first one. But did anybody watch her speech and say that's the best speech I ever seen? She never even talked about policies, and all she did was lie in really easily checkable ways. And that was the best acceptance speech I've ever seen?

Well, there's this weird little event that happened at the DNC that's getting a lot of play on social media, and I don't know how to analyze this, but I'll tell you what people are saying. So there's a video of the Walz family walking onto stage to accept the applause or whatever, and there are four of them holding hands. So there's two children and the parents. And there's a point where Walz seems to take his son's hand and sort of yank him almost angrily. Now, it's a very hard-to-spot thing. If you were watching it live, you probably wouldn't have noticed. But on video you can see it a little more dramatically. So maybe it looked completely different live, but it's hard to explain because when you see it you say why did he do that? Because it didn't look like the son was not walking in the right direction. I mean, they were holding hands, but he gave him like the yank, almost like a little, it almost looked angry. But there was nothing to be angry about that we could see.

Now, it needs to be said that his son, I don't know what the right words are, about special needs, would that be the right phrase? So son has some mental health problems, I guess. And when you add that to the fact that it looked like his father angrily gave him a yank in his hand, I'm not sure that that's what happened, by the way. So I think I'm going to be, I'll talk about it as a story, but I think I'm going to maybe surprise you a little bit and I'm going to back the parent on this. So there's plenty of stuff for not liking Tim Walz, like politically. If you don't like his politics, there's plenty to work with. So you don't need to dig too deep to find reasons not to support him as a future vice president. But since we can't know their relationship, we can't know, we can't read his mind, I will tell you that the son did not react in any way that looked like it was a problem. He didn't react to it at all. So I feel like maybe it's a little creepy to insert ourselves into that relationship. Whatever Tim has done to raise two kids, that's not going to be my point of criticism. We don't know his situation. We don't know the son's thinking. The son is clearly very much in favor of his father. I mean, he was crying with tears as his father was accepting the nomination. So the kid himself looks like a really sweet kid, and I don't think that he was any the worse for whatever happened. And it could be that it may have been as simple as dad was getting his attention for something, you know, just make sure he kept him in the game. So it might be the video makes it look worse than it is. I'll give you two opinions that seem like they're contradictory but maybe not. When you see it on video, it's disturbing. So don't get me wrong, I found it disturbing. But there's too much we don't know. And so to complete the story in our heads, that's a little too far for me. We just don't know what that was about. But it raises a flag. If you said it raises a little flag, I'd agree with you on that. But I won't go so far as to say that therefore he's beating his children or something like that. No evidence of that.

All right. MSNBC's Joy Reid was talking about the quote "men of the Democratic Party," and she said they were portraying something that she called 21st-century masculinity. And some of the other MSNBC hosts were talking about it. And the idea is that they're defining what a real man is. So a real man is not, you know, Dana White with his muscles and his success and his confidence and his swagger. Who needs that, right? They're saying that a real man is somebody who can support a woman to be their leader. So a real man is somebody who takes a secondary position to a strong woman in this case. And all of those supportive, caring, empathetic things that women do, a real man is going to be strong but also have these other characteristics. Here's my take on that. It ain't a man if you have to explain it. Should I go on or is that enough? If you have to explain it, it's not a man. The most obvious statement of what a man is is you can tell when you look at it. If a woman has to explain to you that that's a real man, I'm sorry, that process doesn't work. How about when I see Trump take a bullet and get back up and yell? I say to myself, that's a man. Did anybody need to explain that to me? Nobody needed to explain it. No, that was right there. Now, I'm not saying that everything that the quote real men do is acceptable and legal and appropriate. Not at all. But I never wonder who the real men are. If you need to explain it to me and make an intellectual argument for who the real men are, well, that's sort of a tell.

Anyway, here's what Nancy Pelosi said. I'm roughly paraphrasing her. She said that Trump is a threat to democracy, threat to freedom, and she likened it to a Thomas Paine and Lincoln situation. And I said to myself, Thomas Paine? Wasn't he the guy who said we need to pick up arms against our oppressors? In fact, you know, during the Revolutionary War. Lincoln? Interesting choice. Wasn't Lincoln the president who was shot because he wasn't popular everywhere for freeing the slaves? Is Nancy Pelosi giving the public permission to kill this guy? That's what it looks like to me. To me this looks like how you activate somebody like Thomas Crooks, somebody who's maybe not the greatest at understanding the world but can be weaponized by being told that if they would just do this one horrible thing, you know, shoot Lincoln at the Ford Theater, you'll be maybe hailed as a hero. To me this is encouraging violence at a level where I ask myself, where is the guideline on that? At what point is that literally just invoking violence? I believe you can get kicked off of X if you encourage violence. Am I wrong? That would be one of the things that free speech has a somewhat acceptable limit to it. If you encourage violence, you get kicked off the platform, which is why I tell you as often as possible I'm against violence in every context. Sometimes you can observe it and sometimes you just know that it was inevitable, but you can't encourage it. My interpretation of her comments are that she walked right up to the line of encouraging the worst kind of violence against a political leader. Well, I guess they're all bad, but one kind affects the whole country. So if I had to judge Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris on their ethics, it would be the lowest grade. There isn't a grade below this unless you're actually murdering people yourself. But getting right up to this line and knowing you're doing it, this is obviously very intentional. That's the most disrespectful, disgusting, unethical, immoral thing you'll ever see.

Now, let's check ourselves. Does Trump do this? If Trump does it too, then I'm going to say to myself, oh. Now, Trump does talk about illegal immigrants in a way that makes you say, is this going to cause people to do violence against illegal immigrants? Has it yet? I'm not familiar with any story in which an American citizen did some violence to an immigrant because it was an immigrant or because Trump said something. I've never seen it. So it does seem that what Trump does is talk about something we can all observe. We can observe the people are coming across the border. We can observe that some number of them murder. So when he talks about that, is that encouraging violence or is it encouraging us to defend