believe that England has much fight left in it. I think it's kind of going to roll over to just becoming an Islamic country. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that you don't really kill people just for being different than you, you know, like the old days. So I don't think there's any fight that's going to happen. I mean, I think they'll say things and they'll paint on stuff and they'll wave some flags, but I think things are going to keep going in whatever direction they're already going.

According to Rasmussen, 53% of likely voters say that in-person voting is more secure than mail-in ballots. Can you believe that only 53% of adults understand that if you're there in person, it's more likely that you are who you say you are than if there's a mail-in ballot? How is that even a subject of disagreement? I would have expected it to be more like 90% understand that mail-in ballots are riskier, but a lot of people still think that the convenience is worth a little bit of extra risk. Now, that would be if I heard that, I'd say, "Oh, well, those are smart people." They know there's a difference in the security, but maybe they're willing to trade that off for a little convenience and more access to voting. Nope. Only 53% even understand that mail-in ballots are just by their nature harder to police.

Anyway, Trump is leading the movement to try to get rid of mail-in ballots as well as electronic voting machines. And Rasmussen says that 48% approve of this idea. 48%. So roughly half of the country is on board with getting rid of electronic voting machines and mail-in ballots. I'm going to assume that some of those people just like the convenience of voting by mail. I have to admit I voted by mail as well and I don't know if I would have voted if I had to go in person. Yeah, I'm sort of different because I don't go places too much. It's not my thing. But I don't think I would have voted. Now, I also am in favor of getting rid of mail-in voting except for the special cases like people in the military and people who are shut-ins and stuff. Oh, actually, I could probably get some kind of medical exemption and get a mail-in vote no matter what. So see what happens there.

Usually Trump likes the 60 or 80% things where he's on that side. But in this case I think he's willing to push for election integrity because he believes, I believe he believes, I can't read his mind but it would be reasonable to assume based on everything we've heard that he believes that Republicans would win more if the election didn't have mail-in ballots. So I don't know about the electronic part. And so just imagine this. You and I have no evidence, I believe, unless you have some. I don't have any. We have no evidence that electronic voting machines have ever been rigged in the United States to the level that it would affect the election. I don't have any evidence of that. But imagine if you're the president and you have access to all the classified information. Do you think that Trump is aware because he would have the right to know this if he asked? Do you think that he is aware, and I don't know that this is the case, but do you think that he knows that electronic voting machines have been rigged in other countries? And the reason we would know that is because we're the ones who rigged them. Do you believe that that's a thing first of all that it's ever happened and that somebody like Trump or any president would know for sure if they're hackable and you can get away with it? See, that's the part I find interesting because Trump wouldn't be able to tell us because it would be like the most highly classified thing of all time because we would want to keep doing it to other countries if it works. And again, I'm not suggesting I know that it does. I'm just saying that hypothetically Trump knows for sure if electronic voting machines can be corrupted by US intelligence people. I feel like he wouldn't be guessing. I feel like he would know. Somebody would know.

Well, Trump has attempted, some would say he succeeded in firing for the first time ever, a sitting Federal Reserve governor. That's Lisa Cook. Is that her name? So she was the first Black woman to be on the Federal Reserve. So that adds a little spice to the story. But Bill Ptak has told us that she apparently claimed two primary residences which is an illegal form of fraud I believe because you would do that to lower your mortgage rate and fairly common crime I would imagine. But here's the wrinkle. So Trump basically says, "You're fired." And then she says, "No, I'm not. You don't have the authority to fire me because you could only fire me for cause and your explanation of the cause is basically. So I'm not leaving." To which I say, what happens now? Because it's not like Trump can tell the head of the Fed, Powell, to hey, make sure you clean out her desk. I don't know if they have desks. But make sure you exclude her because she's fired. He doesn't have to do that, does he? Because he's independent. So he could just say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. You think she's fired?" But we're just gonna keep on going and keep paying her and she'll still come to work like always. What would happen then? Would Trump send some kind of physical authority like the police or something? I mean, what do you do then? So this will be an interesting standoff. I don't know who wins this one.

This is different than the Texas one where the Democrats left the state so they didn't have to vote on redistricting. You knew how that was going to end, right? Everybody knew that eventually they'd have to come back and eventually because the Republicans had the advantage, it was going to pass. But at this one, I don't know. I'm not sure that Trump's firing will stick. Maybe it goes to court. I don't know. But I wouldn't expect her to leave anytime soon.

All right. So here's a story that we will all disagree on. We will disagree on what our opinions are about it, but more importantly, we will disagree about what the facts of the story are. And I'm not sure I'm going to be able to help on this one because it's really confusing. And the story is that Trump has signed an executive order about flag burning. Now, do you see how carefully I worded that? I said it was an executive order about flag burning. What I didn't say is that he said it is now illegal to burn a flag because he didn't say that. So I would ask you to Google it or AI it and look at the actual wording of the executive order. I believe it was written by somebody who is drunk or stupid. You can barely understand what the executive order is trying to do.

So here's what I think is happening. And by the way, I'll withdraw my comment that it looks like it was written by somebody drunk or somebody stupid because I think there's an explanation in which it is intentionally hard to understand. It looks like it's intentional. So that's why I'm withdrawing my insult to the author of it. Obviously Trump doesn't write the verbiage himself. But it is so confusing that it has the look of trying to make the news get the wrong story and start reporting that he's going to ban the burning of flags, which didn't happen. That didn't