're all supposed to pretend like they exist or something. No I'm not going to pretend they exist unless you can show me one. Show me one. Just one. We got lots of people in the country. Yeah one would be good. Just one.

All right I've got a new tell for somebody being either brainwashed or being the brainwasher. So you can't tell because they would use the same words. The brainwasher would inject the word into the brainwashed so then they'd both be using the word so you can't tell necessarily. You know at least on first look you can't tell is this a brainwasher or brainwashed but they use the same words. And here's the new one: useful idiot of Putin. The useful idiot thing.

Now if you were looking at all of the policies and problems of the country and you were looking at what Trump offered and you were looking at what Kamala Harris offered why would you bring up the useful idiot of Putin concept? The only reason you bring up something that dumb is that you didn't have any real reasons to prefer Harris over Trump. If you had a real reason you would mention it. You wouldn't have to make up something that sounds so dumb. And they say it every election and everybody says it about both sides to the point where it has no meaning whatsoever.

Well twice today I saw the same individual on, doesn't matter who, responding to a pro-Trump post by reminding us about that he could be a quote useful idiot of Putin.

Now you've also seen probably if you're on social media that lately a lot of accusations about Trump from the 70s have popped up. Does anybody notice that they'll talk about the Central Park Five or they'll talk about the housing case where there was a housing discrimination case with one of his companies. By the way if somebody brings that up I think so there was a Trump property I think it was the 70s that the management team was discriminating against black applicants. Now I believe that they pled guilty or the company basically said okay we you know sorry we'll stop doing that probably paid a fine. What was never demonstrated as far as I know, I'll take a fact check on this if you know something different, what was never demonstrated is that Trump had anything to do with it. It was his company so it's his responsibility so the buck stops with him but there was never demonstrated that he knew that his management team was discriminating.

Now is it plausible that they would have discriminated without getting orders from the top in the 70s? Yes it is. You wouldn't need any orders from the top in the 70s to do some rental discrimination. Probably any white people that they hired for that job would have just sort of done it automatically. And in those days it wasn't always discriminating against let's say the ability of the renter to pay. In those days the discrimination would be as much about not wanting the other people to discriminate and not want to live in your building. So it wasn't so much what you thought about the applicant it was about what you thought the other people who were applicants would think about the applicants. Still illegal still immoral unethical don't do it but there is a difference. I mean if you want to be accurate about it there's no evidence that Trump told anybody to discriminate based on race. That has never been presented. Nobody's ever claimed it. Nobody's ever said I talked to him and he said it. So I don't know. I don't know.

But beyond that I have a different standard which I like to apply which is if it happened 20 years ago and especially if there's some court that dealt with it I don't care. And I apply the same standard I applied it to Hillary Clinton as well. You know people would say 20 years ago or 30 years ago she may or may not have done this to which I say I don't care. 30 years ago everybody was a different person you know so show me what you've done lately and I'll judge you on that. But 20 years ago 40 years ago do you care about what happened 40 years ago?

Well so my point there is not to defend any of those. So I'm not defending anything that anybody did back then. What I am doing is saying that if the Democrats feel that they have to bring up stuff from 40 years ago it means they've given up on comparing policies today. You would never dig down 40 years ago if you had something today because everybody knows that what's happening today is more relevant to everybody. So it feels like the Democrats are feeling some kind of like they're giving up or they're desperate to find something that they can talk about that isn't obviously better for Trump than Harris.

Anyway Trump did what I think is a quite clever thing. You know he was taking a lot of heat on the hoax that Trump was behind Project 2025 which was done by entirely different people although they had some overlap with his past administration but he wasn't involved with it doesn't endorse it but it's a little more radical than his policies. So the Harris team is trying to tag him for being responsible for it which he isn't.

So instead of defeating that hoax which is impossible in today's media environment he decided to introduce one of his own. I love this more than I can explain because in the real world if you try to ju