harder to get stuff there. There'll be retaliation, etc. And then you have the separate problem that if you just become the tariff country, wouldn't it cause other people to find workarounds and not sell things to you? Or would it cause people to... there would be some confusion if you tried to use it as a weapon if it was also your normal way of doing business. But I suppose you could still crank it up if you wanted to turn it into a weapon. So I guess I would say I'm not 100% sure this is a good idea. But I know that doing what we have been doing is a bad idea because what we have been doing is heading toward a cliff. So we better do something. And I would be way more open to non-standard and even big changes than I would have been ordinarily. So I don't know. I'd love to see somebody smarter tell me if this is a good idea or a bad idea to have a tariff-funded economy.

Well, Trump is going to sign some executive order on developing AI that is free from ideological bias. So AP News is reporting that now. I don't know what that means. Apparently Trump wants to remove any burdensome government oversight. And he also wants to get rid of the racism that's built into the current AIs, anti-white racism primarily. And this would be good presumably to help America have AI leadership. I'm not sure if we have that right now, but it would be in better shape. And yeah, so Trump says we must develop AI systems that are free from ideological bias or engineered social agendas. And we also want it free from red tape.

I wonder though, I think what Biden had in mind was everything had to run past the government before it was approved to be released. And I wonder if that helped at all or even would help in the future. I don't know. The argument for not having the government get involved is pretty strong because wherever we did it, it seems to work better than whenever the government's involved. How in the world could the government evaluate AI? That doesn't even seem like it makes sense, does it? Like do you think the best people are going to be looking at the AI algorithms in the government? I don't know. So getting the government out of that seems to make more sense than not.

At one point it seemed so dangerous that we couldn't release AI without the government oversight. But now that there are going to be so many AIs from so many different places, we'll talk about that. I don't think there's any way to stop AI. So if the only thing we do is our own industries but there's going to be the same amount of AI out there no matter what because it'll just come from other places. This makes sense to me to get rid of the regulations.

Yeah, somebody said that David Sacks might be the adviser on this one, so I would trust him.

You may have seen a clip of Bill Maher on his show. What's he called his show? Not Real Time, the one he does in his man cave there with Matt Gaetz. And this was really frustrating to me because Bill Maher got into the January 6th thing and wanted to really nail Matt Gaetz on it. Now Gaetz of course is one of the best communicators in the game and knows a lot about the January 6 stuff of course. So this was like so interesting to me. I'm like, oh, finally somebody's going to give a good argument to Bill Maher about January 6 because it's never been done. It's never been done. Nobody capable has ever explained January 6 to a Democrat. I've never seen it. And I thought finally you've got a superstar communicator. This is good.

And then Gaetz made the mistake that is unrecoverable in terms of a debate. He went, your side does it too. That's the losing argument. Let me tell you why. And this is exactly the way it went with Maher and Gaetz. Basically I'll just summarize this. This is not their exact words but the way it went was Bill Maher said January 6 was bad, you know, blah blah blah, January 6 insurrection bad. Matt Gaetz said but you realize the Democrats have also questioned a lot of elections. He's already lost the argument. Lost at that point. You can't win because then Maher says yes but they're not equivalent. And then this is what the Democrats do. Bill Maher said, and if you say they are equivalent you're a hack. That's right. He didn't say the argument is better this way. He said if you make that argument you're a hack. And then Maher started getting really mad and talking over him like he couldn't possibly listen to any explanation.

But to be fair, Gaetz's argument was terrible. And I hate to say it but getting all over a terrible argument isn't a mistake. It was a terrible argument. Say you do it too because it wasn't equivalent. I mean you can't compare what happened on January 6 to somebody saying I'm not sure this was a fair election or challenging it in the courts. These are not equivalent, right?

So let me tell you how to win this argument. You lose from the first moment unless you establish the following thing. Here's the way I do it. If it were me I would say, you know Bill, I'm sure you're aware that there are two narratives. There's your narrative. And then I would explain it so that it was clear I understood it. Your narrative is it was an insurrection. They're trying to overthrow the country. And importantly, importantly, they knew they lost the election. So that's Bill's narrative. Then I would say I'm not sure you're aware of what the other narrative is because it doesn't really come through. And the other narrative is there is no way to know who won any election. And if you think that Trump knew that he lost you'd have to explain why half of the country didn't know it because they thought that the election looked rigged. They saw too many irregularities. Now they could have been wrong but they were operating under the assumption that the election had been stolen. And if they were operating under that they were operating as patriots, meaning that they were trying to fix something that had gone terribly wrong.

Now when you look at the American Revolution, the reason that we don't get mad at the American revolutionaries for the violence they created, violence they started, is because they had a good reason and they were seeking freedom and independence. And if you win then you get to be the good guys in history and say that that violence was totally justified. So the thing you have to sell is the idea that nobody can tell an election is fair.

Now what would happen if you said that? Well if you're a Democrat they will start yelling at you that you're a hack. So you're going to have to somehow settle them down enough so you can explain. You know there's no way to know that any American election is fair. There really isn't. The only thing you can know is it's complicated. Other people were involved and maybe somebody told you it was fair. But in order to think that the American election systems are fair you would have to say that they're the only thing in America that is. Because we've seen over the last few years quite vividly Department of Justice was lawfare. FBI was totally corrupt at the leadership level. We've seen that our health care system was completely messed up during the pandemic. We've seen that science is a mess. There's as much fraud as there is science in the science itself. And you could just go down the line. Every part from, you know, we just talked about NGOs. Almost every part of American institutions are clearly obviously corrupt. But the elections are not the most complicated things that you and I couldn't possibly look into. You're telling me that nobody could hack an election? It's the only unhackable system in the world? These are ridiculous assumptions.

So if you want to win the J6 thing don't talk about J6. Talk about whether elections can be known who won. You can't. And don't leave that place. Because if you're arguing about whether it's good or bad to be fighting against cops don't get into that argument. If you're trying to save a country it's good, right? If you're trying to overthrow a country it's bad. So you don't even have to talk about what happened on January 6 because it all depends on what you think they were doing.

Now have you noticed that it's been how many years now since January 6? Four years. So four years from January 6 and we've seen exactly zero interviews with a January 6er who thought the election was real. None. None. Fifteen hundred people went to jail. Not one of them has said, you know, once I realized the election wa