part of an experiment, some of them were given all these negative words and the others were fed a stream of positive words. And then they found out that the group that was exposed to more positive news feed also had a measurably statistically significant effect of more positive emotional response and the control group was unaltered by this.

Now did they really need to run that experiment? Was there anything they could have done that would have been cheaper and faster than running that big somewhat unethical experiment because the people didn't know that they were part of the experiment? Yes, they could have just asked me because every hypnotist and everybody in advertising would have known what would happen. If you give people a bunch of negative words, they feel negative. If you give them a bunch of positive words, they feel positive. And it's not that complicated. It's probably the single most well understood thing in all of persuasion. I doubt you could find even one hypnotist who wouldn't tell you, "Oh, you don't need to do that experiment." Yeah. All the negative words would make one group feel bad and the positive words would make the other group feel good.

But here's what you need to know. That's basically CNN and MSNBC every night. Now, they're not running it as an experiment. It's just how they operate. So you know that word chaos. Do you think it's an accident that they all use that word and then when they get a new word, they all use it? It's the same thing. Basically the news is a persuasion tool and they use negative or positive words based on the story and it's very persuasive. That's why people who watch any one of those news shows at the expense of watching the others seem to you to be emotionally unbalanced and it's because they are and you would be too if you only watched one news source. You would either get unrelenting good news about one side and unrelenting bad words about the other side and you'd be quite triggered.

Well, Trump is back from his successful Middle East trip and I got to say it is one of the most impressive successes that I've ever seen. I don't think we've seen a president just dominate the news and do such an impressive job in other countries. But I saw Joel Pollak of Breitbart did a little summary of what was achieved and I think maybe the list is even longer than this but Joel's list is that Trump got us respect and gratitude from the Arab world. Yes. Investment deals for the USA. Yes. Big ones. Release of the American Israeli hostage. Well, that timing was pretty good, huh? Clear statements of US interests and values. Yes. Tough message to Iran. Yes. A distinct though linked path from Israel. You know, a little bit of distance from Israel, but we can see how we're connected. Yes. Bipartisan praise at home. Yes. And a strong personal image.

So yes, now do you remember that it was only I don't know two weeks ago when if you would ask Democrats they would have said that it's quite obvious to everybody that President Trump is the laughing stock of other countries. Do you remember that? And does anybody remember me saying that no, other countries are transactional. If Trump offers something that they want, they're going to love him. If he offers them something they don't like, they're going to demoni