in in another election? Don't they act like beating Trump is still the goal when there's nothing to beat? He's just going to run out of his time and then he'll leave peacefully. But they've got this hallucination, the Gavin Newsom hallucination. They all have it at this point. But it's because of people like Gavin. He doesn't really believe it. I don't think he really believes it. I'm not a mind reader, but I don't believe for one second that Gavin Newsom thinks Trump's going to stay in office beyond his two terms. I don't think he thinks that. But he's got this weak little argument where he says there are lots of hats that say Trump 2028. And then he added to that, why would Trump build a ballroom for the White House when he's not going to be around to enjoy it? To which I say, how much more is he going to enjoy it anyway? I always thought he's building it so that they'll put his name on it. Don't you think it'll be the Trump ballroom and then every president from there on, I guess those presidents could rename it if they wanted to, but it would be tacky if they did, especially if Trump pays for it. There's going to be at least a plaque on the wall that says Donald Trump paid for this.

So they've got this crazy imaginary problem that they're fighting and the imaginary problem is Trump 2028. And Trump totally nurtured that hoax. I guess I would call it a hoax because he's allowing them to believe it even though he denies it, but he teases it so they think, "Aha, we have finally figured out how to interpret Trump." They're very bad at it, but we finally figured it out. It means he's really going to run in 2028. Nah.

The Supreme Court has agreed with the Trump administration that they can cut the diversity research grants at the NIH. Apparently there was a ginormous amount of money being used for diversity research grants. Now, do you need to do a deep dive on that topic to know that you should cut that to zero? No, you don't. If there is such a thing as diversity research grants in 2025, it might have made sense. There might have been some point in history where that made a little bit of sense. It doesn't make sense now. So Trump cut it and the court agreed. But amazingly, Justice Roberts sided with the liberals who voted against everything Trump wants. It wasn't enough to give them the victory. But man, what's wrong with Justice Roberts? I've got questions about that guy.

I saw Mike Benz talking about how you could get the Soros organization on a RICO charge, which would mean that it's part of a big organized ongoing criminal enterprise. So there would have to be a crime otherwise it's not a criminal enterprise. And some of the things that apparently the Soros-funded, no actually taxpayer-funded I think but Soros must have been involved somehow, in creating documents that were teaching protesters how to protest their own government in the United States and had advice such as blocking intersections and occupying buildings. Now, if those things are illegal, blocking an intersection sounds like it's illegal to me. Then knowing that there's written training materials and an ongoing effort to train people to act this way, it does feel a little bit RICO-ish. I don't