el Pollak was pointing out in Breitbart that Trump's done the impossible politically which he's got American Muslims and American Jews on his side at the same time. And I've been watching that happen and the more I look at it I think what am I even saying? Like what am I watching? Like how is that even possible? And then I started to understand how it's possible. It's because of his messaging.

When Trump talks about war he says I don't want people to die. That's so powerful. It sounds like he's avoiding the question doesn't it? Like you want him to take sides and what are you going to do and he starts with I don't want people to die. You can't do better than that. That has to be your starting point. Because if you say later well you know I want a ceasefire if that's what he wants later well then that's all compatible. No matter what happens after that he's compatible as long as he stays with I want fewer people to die. But Harris tries to take both sides. Like if she's talking to one group it might sound pro-Jewish. If she's talking to the other it might sound a little less pro-Jewish. So then both sides can take something she said and make her look bad to the other side. But Trump says things that are hard to disagree with. That it wouldn't have happened if I'd been president. And you think well I don't know maybe it would have but okay. See it's not taking sides. He's just saying it wouldn't have happened and I don't want anybody to die. And of course October 7th was terrible. Everybody could say that.

So Trump is very cleverly finding there is no middle ground and he somehow found a high ground I guess that's the way to say it. There is no middle ground so instead he found the high ground. The high ground is I don't want anybody to die and that's consistent with everything else he says, right? He doesn't want abortion in later months because he doesn't want anybody to die. He doesn't want open borders because he doesn't want anybody to die. He's in favor of IVF because he wants more people to live. He's very consistent on life. You have to give him that. You can say he's a bullshitter. I agree. You can say he doesn't pass the fact-checking. I agree. But he is consistent as hell about laying life over death and you got to like that. You got to like that.

According to Nina Jankowicz, whose name you already might remember, some would call her, I think Molly Hemingway called her a censorship activist practitioner, sort of a Democrat who has worked in those areas where they're trying to tell social media to change their messaging if they don't like it. And she says that 2020 was different because number one now platforms aren't creating some friction for the spread of misinformation. So in other words there's more free speech now. She would say there's not enough friction on the spread of misinformation but that allows her to determine what is misinformation. That's no way. No. She says also there's less frequent and robust coordination between federal government and platforms. In other words there's less censorship. So Nina Jankowicz is worrying that the election might be influenced by free speech. Free speech does bring with it misinformation but do you know what brings more misinformation? Lack of free speech.

This is amazing. I'm seeing an actual post. This is in the comments. This is from 2017 and Elon Musk posts I love Twitter. So it's 2017 and