or years waiting for your asylum hearing. And then once the asylum hearing happens, you probably in at least in the old days, you could have snuck away and stayed in the country anyway. So that's what he's arguing for.

So the best the Democrats have, and he's one of their smarter people, the best they have is arguing against process again, except that the process was completely corrupted. So they're not just arguing for a good process, which you could understand. Oh, well, we had this good process, so they should be following our good process. It was the worst process ever. It literally effectively opened our border to anybody who wanted to walk in and claim that they were asking for asylum. So once again, the Democrats have been, I don't even want to say tricked because they're doing it themselves. They're taking the 20% view on another 80/20 again. And again, they're not arguing about the part that people care about. Was the border open before? Yes. Has the border now been closed? Yes. That's where the public is. Do you think that we really give a about some asylum thing that might be getting gamed by the Trump administration and I don't even know if it's being gamed or if they have solid legal standing. It doesn't matter to me. Does it matter to you? I only care that they closed it. It was an immediate security threat, an existential threat to the country. You think I care that he bent a rule if he did? I don't know if he did, but oh my god, how could he be so immensely tone-deaf that you can't at least say, "All right, it was good on the border, but we have all these other issues." Democrats. Wow.

Well, Tyler Winklevoss on X was saying, quote, "I was wondering what happened to the LA riots. They just stopped all of a sudden. Makes sense. They were never organic, just NGO funded propaganda." Well, apparently, and I don't know if this is related, but apparently at about the same time that the FBI and the IRS announced that they were going to look into who was funding the protests, the protests stopped. Now, did the protests get what they wanted? Did they make ICE stop doing what it was doing? No. Did they get anything they were demanding? Not that I'm aware of. So why did these massive protests just stop? Well, my guess is that Tyler Winklevoss is exactly right and that the people funding it stopped funding it. We don't know that for sure, but it looks like it.

So look how much we've grown up since 2016. In 2016, if I had seen a national protest, you know, like Black Lives Matter, I would have thought it was organic. I would have known that George Soros might be paying for some signs and stuff like that, but I would have thought for the most part it's organic. It's just getting a little boost from money people. But now I don't think that at all. Now I think that none of them are organic and that all it is is fake protests and you just wait a few days and it stops, especially if you talk about who funded it. So we're much more I think understanding that these protests are fake and you can just wait them out.

I saw an analysis on X, I don't know if it was done by somebody else, but Daniel Greenfield tells us that only 5% of New Yorkers voted for the socialist candidate Mamdani. Now remember, he's not elected mayor yet. He only got through the primaries. But the primaries are now something where most people vote and there weren't any Republicans voting because it was a Democrat primary. So if you go through the math as Daniel Greenfield did and you look at only Democrats and then you take out the votes for the other candidates he was running against and etc., only 5% of the city voted for him and he's overwhelmingly favored to win. Now does that track, does it make sense to you that only 5% voted for him but he's overwhelmingly favored to win? It could be. It could be if the 5% is sort of accidentally a good polling proxy for the larger market. It could be. And remember, the Democrats matter more than Republicans just because it's a Democrat town. So whoever gets nominated as a Democrat is overwhelmingly likely to become the next mayor. But it is possible at least this number opens up the possibility that the city could come to its senses and realize that he's not the best solution.

Let's see here are some things he said. So Trump is trying to label him a communist which I think is hilarious. I don't believe he technically qualifies as a communist, but communist is sort of the n-word for socialist. You know what I mean? It's the word you're not supposed to use because it's going too far. But it's, you know, socialism sounds like maybe something you might want, whereas communism sounds like something nobody wants. So it is pretty good. It's good branding. But I don't know if he technically qualifies as a communist.

So here's what one of the things that Mamdani said. He was asked I guess he'd made previous comments that we shouldn't have billionaires. And so he was asked to comment on that and he said I