Murdoch wants what's good for America. I'm pretty sure that he never wakes up and says, you know, I want to destroy America today. It looks like the opposite, like he'd very much like America to do well because it's one of the places he has a lot of business. And so but the way the government works, it's going to take forever to approve a thing like this. I mean, it could take up to a year to get a thing like this approved. So I guess he's just going to have to wait a year while the government chugs through and tries to do his thing and all this money's on the line. But the poor bastard, he's just going to have to wait a year just like everyone else. Oh, update. Three Democrat commissioners voted outvoted the two Republican on the FCC and said that he can speed that up and the foreign company ownership of the US radio stations, that'll be fine. It'll just make an exception. Yeah, it's not, we don't normally allow that to be more than 25% stake, but you know, that's fine. We'll not only approve it, which we wouldn't normally approve, but we'll rush it. We'll not only approve it, which is an exception because we're not supposed to approve that much foreign ownership of an American entity like that media entity. And so that just happened by a partisan vote of Democrats outvoting Republicans.

Now you know why there will be no outrage about this story. I'll be a broken record because it's complicated. You'd have to know the players and all the implications, and you'd have to know the history, and you'd have to know it's unusual. You'd have to know what the law is that they're taking the exception to, and then you'd have to compare it to the 50 other stories that are complicated in the news today. You don't have enough outrage for this one. This should be a source of great national outrage. It won't be because first of all the Democrats control the media, and second of all we're just too busy. Just too many outrageous things. This won't even get your attention. So Soros is basically controlling the crime level in my town, and now he's going to take over the minds and directly brainwash American citizens, and we're just, hey, yeah, go ahead. We'll make an exception. No problem.

Meanwhile, Trump says he plans on deporting over half a million migrants, and I think he's talking about the Haitians specifically. Ship them back to Haiti as soon as he's in power. Now, I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea. Again, because it's complicated. If 80% of those Haitian migrants already have a job because there are companies that are just begging for low-end employees, I don't know if they should be top of the list if they're already employed and the company needs them. But the 20% that don't have a job, there must be a reason for that. So maybe our priorities should be different.

You know, if I were to predict what would really happen if Trump gets elected, I think he would first just close the asylum door. And the moment they stop coming in, your comfort with the world is going to completely change. So you think that there are two issues that are basically tightly linked. One is that too many people are coming in every day, and the other is that too many are already here. But if you solve the first one about too many people coming in every day, you're concerned about the ones who have already come in. Even 20 million of them will instantly go to half because you're saying, okay, we'll chug through this. By the second generation we'll probably be fine. So you would basically be able to live with it.

Now let's say that Trump decided not just closing the asylum door but that he would in fact be very aggressive in deporting. I think he will be. But where do you start? If you put all of your energy into just deporting the people who are clearly criminals, it would take all of your resources, and that's where you should put them. Nobody would argue. Nobody would argue with putting all your resources, 100% of it, on just getting criminals first. And that could take a few years. If you put 100% of your resources into just the criminals, years, it'll take years. And when you're done with that, let's say it's three years from the beginning of the Trump presidency, let's say he's got one year left and he doesn't want to go out as a monster. And the complaining about the number of immigrants who are already here now, maybe they've been working for five years and have a job and they're paying taxes. How much are you really going to want them to be deported? Some of you are going to say yes on principle. I get it. Some of you are going to say they're criminals. They're all criminals, so I got to send them back. But they're not all criminals. Remember, the ones who come through the asylum gate, which is the big one, they are legal because the asylum process processed them and they're just waiting for the process to continue. Now, you might not like it, but most of the people coming in are coming in under the umbrella of US law as it's interpreted at the moment. So my prediction is that he will go hard at deportations, but it will take all of his energy to keep the border sealed and send the criminals home. And by the time he's done with that, there just won't be much energy for the people who lived here for three years, really wanted a better life, their kids are learning English, they have a job. Right? Your level of being angry will just sort of get decreased. If they lied to get asylum, that is illegal, yeah. But it's also a reasonable opinion. Let's say you came from any country that has a cartel. How hard would it be to say, you know, I'm afraid of living where the cartel is? Is that not good enough? Do you have to prove that you got a specific threat? Here, here's the note where they said they'd kill me if I stay in Central America. Oh, asylum. How about, well, they haven't given me a direct threat, but where I live it's just so violent that I can't even walk outside without risk of getting killed, so I want asylum. Do you get it? I think the answer is yes. You just have to say that in your opinion your life is at risk. Nobody's going to, I don't believe anybody analyzes your life to find out what the degree of risk is. Now your real thinking might be economic security, but if you also have a legitimate dangerous situation, which would always be the case wherever the people want to leave to get economic opportunity, it's also going to be dangerous. I don't know. It would be hard to prove in a court of law that the only reason they came was for economics when they're in the middle of a dangerous hole. I think if I were them I'd try. I would claim asylum. And I know I hate those people. I don't hate them at all. So people who want a better life, I don't mind that we get a bunch of them as long as we can control it. The question about immigration, as you all agree, is having too much of it and the wrong kind. You want to make immigration simple and make everybody happier.

I thought of this one today. Now this could never really happen in the real world, but it'd be awesome if it could. You bring in everybody who's got an IQ over 120 and that's it. We'll take all you have from every country. Whole country, no problem. You get an IQ of 120, you're in. We don't care where you came from. Do you know what a powerhouse the United States would be if we put an IQ limit on immigration and we made it higher than average? So we imagine bringing in 10 million geniuses a year. I think we'd be okay. Yeah, we could bring in 10 million geniuses, like literally people who were in the 140s if we wanted. Maybe there's not enough of them. Scott is an open border proponent now. Did anything I say sound like an open border proponent? There are just so many trolls today on the comments. No, I'm not an open border proponent. I might be worrying about it less than you, but I'm definitely not an open border proponent.

Well, the US is going to send additional troops to the Middle East, so things are looking dangerous over there. That's according to Pentagon Press Secretary General Patrick Ryder. His brother Richard Ryder could not be heard from. Some call him Dick Ryder. In light of the increased tensions, they're sending people there. Well, that sounds bad.

And according to Peachy Keenan, who's a commenter on, Peachy says the federal government's highest priority is stopping Trump so he can't stop the wars. I am a believer in that narrative. The narrative that the primary thing that the United States is doing behind the curtain is making sure that we have maximum wars. But I don't think that they only do wars to sell war equipment. Here's, let me give you a reframe that might break some of your brains, and I haven't completely thought this through, so this is sort of new thinking. Would you agree with the following statement? If you're looking at, let's say, a business, a company, is it fair to say that companies are either growing, and that would be healthy, or they're shrinking, which is unhealthy, and they're going to go out of business? But things almost never stay the same. The rarest situation for any big complicated thing, the rarest situation is just always the same. So things are either improving or getting worse. Would you agree so far that the nature of things, countries, organizations, businesses, are either growing or they're getting worse? Very few things just same every day.

So I would argue, and you're not going to like this at all, that the only reason the United States is as successful as we are is because of colonization. And that if you weren't colonizing, you couldn't grow. Because in the days of serious colonizing, it was about resources. Some of those resources were human trafficking, of course, so it's horrible. But colonization allows you to get more resources from other countries, and you might have to control those countries to get the resources. Now you could say to me, but Scott, that is unethical and terrible. To which I say, yeah, I can see your point. It's unethical and terrible to the locals in many ways. But compare it to the alternative. The alternative is that China colonizes them or Russia colonizes them. Somebody's going to colonize everybody who can be colonized. There's no world in which you leave them alone. And when there's an exception, it would be like Switzerland. Because what, we need their chocolate? Why does anybody need to colonize Switzerland? We're going to take their mountains and bring them back home? We're going to take their weather and bring it with us? There's nothing to colonize in Switzerland. They don't have a damn thing that we need. That's why they can be neutral. If they had anything we needed, we'd be starting a war with them to get it. Because, and here's the part that's going to be hard for you to accept, if the United States isn't growing, we're dead. You grow or you die. You don't have a steady state option because even if you did stay steady state, other countries would grow faster and then they would have economic and other control over you.

So colonizing and controlling other countries, which includes wars, and that's what Ukraine looks like, and the Middle East is its own complicated situation, but there's some of that. If we don't colonize like crazy, we're all dead because we'll just shrink and go out of business. So you could say the United States is a terrible place because we create wars that didn't need to be created, and you'd be right. We're a terrible, terrible people who create wars that don't need to be created. But it works, and it has worked every year that the United States has been a country. We've grown faster than other places that don't colonize. So we have this big old navy that allows us to project power pretty much everywhere. That's why I can have this live stream, because we made so much money and inventions and technology was better and we've got great internet and all the things that you want in life. It's because people who are not you and not nearly as awesome as you, because you are ethical and moral and other people are not, but thank God those unethical people are doing horrible things in other countries and to other people. That if they didn't do, the United States would just disappear.

So here's my dilemma. I can be opposed to war, but I can't be opposed to the concept upon which the war rides. Now, there could be wars that don't give you enough resources and so therefore that's a dumb war that nobody is better off. But I don't think you can leave out of your thinking that whoever colonizes wins and whoever doesn't colonize loses. And I mean loses like you became poor or conquered slaves. I mean losing is really losing. I mean you lose everything. So do I care that the United States is super colonizing? Now you might say to me, Scott, if anything you're saying is true, why doesn't the government ever say it so that we'll be on their side when they do it? All the government has to do is say, look, let me be honest with you. If we don't grow, we shrink and then we're all dead. The only way we can grow, the only way, is by having lots and lots of control over these other countries so that we can get their resources as part of our supply chain. So we don't want to have these wars, but it's the only way to be successful. Why don't they say that? They can't because they would never be able to sell that to the public. The public would say, okay, but just don't do that because we don't want you to kill people in our name. I don't want anybody to kill anybody in my name. I don't want to pay taxes to somebody who's going to go kill a stranger in another country. On the other hand, that's a half opinion. A half opinion is you just take a part of the situation and then just pretend that's the whole situation. Part of the situation is I don't want anybody starting a war in my name with my money that could come back and bite me. I don't like war. That's a half opinion. If we wer