nly time that I get real hate is when people have an incorrect understanding of what I've ever said or thought. If they don't understand what I've said, then it turns into some crazy thing where they're criticizing me for something they only imagine. But when I say real things, let's take the Dan Crenshaw thing. You don't think I'm completely aware that by the time I'm done with this, there will be something on social media trying to tear me down for what somebody's going to say is supporting Dan Crenshaw against MAGA, which didn't happen. And you all witnessed it, so you know that didn't happen. But somebody will turn it into that. However, it'll probably just be a passing nothing. Like the worst case will be some troll on X, and it'll just go away. Because I think through at least my audience is completely accepting that I'm not just going to tell you the normal frame. That's mostly why you watch, because you expect me to be a little different from the mainstream opinion. If I didn't, what would be the point, really? What would be the point?

So yeah, I don't think it's as big a problem on the right.

According to Simon Kent writing in Breitbart News, Democrat donors are not feeling too good about the Democrats. But there was this one donor who had a quote that I thought was great. Quote: "They want us to spend money and for what? For no message, no organization, no forward thinking." The donor said the thing that's clear to a lot of us is that the party never really learned its lesson in 2016. They worked off the same playbook and the same ineffective strategies. And to what end?

Well, here's what I say about identity politics, which largely drove the Democrat message. Identity politics, it's a one-way trip. And they should have known that, because on paper you can see it. It's the MSNBC problem. As soon as MSNBC became the identity politics all the time network, you could guarantee, guarantee that at some point in the future their own employees would turn against them and call them racists. And that just happened. Guarantee it. You don't know when it's going to happen, but you can pretty much bet on it with a lot of safety.

And so the Democrats can't really unwind that thing that they've created, because they can't be ignoring identity politics. That would make them Republicans. So they've created their own monster that they can't kill. And the Republicans are like, yeah, good luck with that, because we're not involved. It's none of our business if you want to create a monster and then the monster kills you. But you knew that that monster would kill you, because how could it not? You know, as soon as you say that identity is everything, everybody looks at their own identity and says, wait, but I'm a short gay lesbian, whatever, you know, where's my rights? And then everything falls apart.

So the Democrats, I don't think they have a way back. Now, as I've said before, all bets are off if they found the right candidate, right? So Trump is by no measure an ordinary Republican. So nobody could have really predicted the second term of Trump and the way it's turned out. No one could have predicted that. So it's just sometimes you get this special case with a special character, this once-in-a-thousand-years type of personality, which I think Trump is. And if they don't get one of those, I don't know if they have a way back. Because even Obama, as rational sounding as he was, and I think he was very smart and very savvy about how things work, I don't even think he can abandon identity politics at this point. I mean, he can't run for office, but even if a new Obama came today, I don't know. I don't know how they can come back.

Here's the least surprising news of the day. The former head of the FDA's drug center joins Pfizer as chief medical officer. Now, as you know, there's a long history of top FDA people going to work for the companies that they had been trying to regulate. Which of course creates a massive incentive to not say bad things about the industry when you're in the FDA, because you know that the most likely outcome after you're not in the FDA is a job offer from one of those same companies.

And I was trying to think, what could you do about that? I don't love the fact that you could ban it, like don't go to work for these companies for five years. We might do that. I think RFK Junior didn't he float that idea? But that seems, you know, my sense of freedom and capitalism really rejects you can't go get a job somewhere else. Like, I don't like any kind of non-compete agreements. I hate them, because I live in America. You can't tell me what my next job is, right? I mean, that's just really offensive to me that you can tell me what my next job is. No matter what it is, you don't need to. You don't get an approval over my next job.

So on one hand, I completely understand that this is massively deforming our drug approval and safety. Massively deforms it. On the other hand, I like freedom. I like freedom. So I wonder if there's some middle ground. And the only thing I could think of is that the ex-FDA people have an option that's better than working for Big Pharma, which would pay an ungodly amount of money. Could you find a way to keep them on the, let's say, the public side? And it may require paying an ungodly amount of money to say, all right,