ff revenue. But they also have the freedom, collectively they could vote to pay down the debt. In what world would Congress give up their options? Because that's their power. Their power is their options. And why would they give away the option of wasting it on some project or something? So I would say the odds of this getting passed are pretty close to nothing.

JD Vance had an interesting exchange with Democrat troll Brian Karemstein. He's kind of famous online for being a Democrat back-and-forth troll and he was talking about the fact that the US took out that cartel boat coming from Venezuela and there was a lot of celebrating about that. And Karemstein said on X quote, "Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime." And JD Vance responded with quote, "I don't give a what you call it." And of course it was very popular with the pro-JD Vance crowd.

And you know on one hand it's just a response to a troll and JD Vance is learning a lot from President Trump. You know you could see that JD Vance has added a whole dimension to his persona that you wouldn't see unless he were part of the Trump administration. And whether or not that becomes a permanent part of his persona is to be seen, but it might. I kind of like it. If he doesn't overdo it, I kind of like it.

But here's what I think JD Vance was saying. I think he was saying that we're just going to get the job done. You know there's nothing bad in it. He's just going to say you can call it whatever you want. We're going to do the job that needs to be done. And I like that. So rather than getting into the weeds about definition, this is one of the things I talk about in my book Loserthink. If you're arguing about a definition about whether something was a war crime or not, you're trying to win your argument by getting the other person to use your word. If I can get him to say this word or two words, then I win the argument. That's not really a good way to debate. So I like what he says. He's not even going to enter the contest of what word to put on it. He's just doing what needs to be done. I like it.

And then Rand Paul was critical of it and he said that Vance says killing people he accuses of a crime is the highest and best use of the military. Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?

Now I don't think Rand Paul is analyzing this as cleanly as possible. I like his impulse to avoid war. So that part's good. And he's consistent about it. But is the argument any good? It's not as if it's Vance who's deciding whether they should die. You know there's probably a fairly rigorous process that the military used to know that it was what they thought and where it left from and they probably had intelligence on the ground before it even left the port. I don't know. But so I think he mischaracteriz