uch change, the more change you introduce and the faster you introduce it, and nobody's introduced more change than Trump is, faster or more, your popularity should drop quite a bit in the short run. If the things that you do work out, then half the people who said, "Oh, no. Tariffs are a mistake," well, suddenly they go, "Okay, I guess I was wrong about tariffs." But not until the long run. If closing the border looks cruel in the short run, but a few years go by and everybody on both sides says, "Yeah, that had to be done." You're going to forget about all the anecdotal little stories of the hairdresser who got deported. Maybe you didn't like that one. All you remember is that there was one president who closed the border when the others couldn't or didn't or wouldn't.

So in general, if you had the best president you could ever imagine, the most logical path for his approval would be to start high. Yay, you won the election. You're going to do all these things we want you to do. Oh, wait. You're going a little bit too hard. Oh. Oh, I wouldn't have done it that way. Oh. Oh, maybe if I reduce my approval, you'll back off a little bit. Oh, I like nine out of ten things you're doing, but I don't like that tenth thing. Oh, and your approval, if you're a big change leader, which Trump is, should drop precipitously because people are thinking about that one thing in the news that bothered them that one day. Over time if the things that Trump does work out and to me they look like they will 5 10 years from now he would be the highest rated president of all time. So if you're worried about these momentary drops in his popularity it would have to drop a lot more before it would be even an indication of bad news. All it is now is an indication of people having short-term thinking. That's all it's telling you. It's not telling you anything about Trump. It's telling you, oh, people think short-term. The news has to do the what's the problem of the day? Of course, it goes down. It would be anybody.

All right. The government's closed for the second day in a row. Oh. Oh no. What am I going to do with the government shutdown of unnecessary services? I need some unnecessary services. Oh. Okay. Are any of you affected in any way by the shutdown of the government in any way? So far not me. I'm sure it'll affect somebody, but I don't know who. But there is some thought that the shutdown is going to resonate a little bit better for the Republicans than for the Democrats. So I don't know if that's true, but that's what people are saying. They're some are calling it the Schumer shutdown, but of course the Democrats are trying to say it's a Republican shutdown.

Here's what I'm liking about it. As I told you, I say no more money to the government if both sides are lying about the budget. Both sides are lying about the budget. Both sides are just lying through their asses by omission and by leaving out context. So but as things are developing, it appears that the GOP lie is the good one. It's the one that's working because the GOP lie is that they're making it all about giving free health care to illegal people. Is that true? Is it true that the money that the Democrats want primarily could be thought of as free money for health care for illegal aliens? Well, that's not true, but it's a little bit true. It's not true because they're not technically illegal. The ones who are here on asylum could still get the services, but they're not technically illegal because they came in through asylum. But if you're Republican, you don't count them as legal because you know the asylum claim is fake for 98% of them. Maybe if you were real, but 98% of them are lying to get a temporary legal status. A Republican would say that that's just an illegal alien. I might use a different word for it, but if they lied on their asylum application, they're an illegal alien. So the Republicans can reasonably and sort of honestly say that there would be more health care if this the case would be if an asylum seeker who is technically legal, but according to any common sense Republican opinion, that's an illegal person. They've done two illegal things. One is they're in the country illegally in the Republican opinion, but also they lied to get in here. Two crimes. They're double illegal. They're more illegal than the illegals. They would be more illegal than somebody who just snuck over the border because they did two things. Came in illegally and lied about it. That's two.

So at the same time that the Democrats are saying, "No, no, they're lying. It's a lie. We're not going to fund any illegals. We're funding the people who pretend to be legal." That's completely different. So CNN can call the Republicans liars, which they do, at the same time that they are forced to do a deep dive as Jake Tapper did to find out, okay, what really is going on here? And the deep dive is not helping Democrats 'cause once you do the deep dive, you see that the Republican framing of this that it's to fund illegal aliens is not correct. It is not correct. But the truth is just as bad, which is kind of genius. If there's anything I've ever taught you about persuasion is that you can, and it's not always unethical. Usually it is, but not always. You can tell a story that's persuasive as hell. It's not exactly accurate. And you could be doing it in the service of the country. In other words, it could be good for the country if it gets you the funding you want, the services you want, etc. But maybe there was a little shaving of the context if you know what I mean. So because the critics have to explain why it's not true that the funding is for illegal aliens, in the process of explaining it, they end up defending the Republican view accidentally. It's kind of freaking genius. So if people believe the Republican view on face, the Republicans win. But if they don't believe it and they also drill down to find out what is true, Republicans win a second time because nobody's going to like the fact that just because they came in and illegally said that they're asylum seekers, they get free healthcare. Nobody's going to like that.

All right. I guess Hakeem Jeffries went on CNN. Eric Dhy noticed this and so Jake Tapper was going through this well and he goes he so he reads Jeffries the provision so that Jeffries can see that in reality people who are non-citizens now Jake would make the he would correctly make the distinction that the asylum seekers are non-citizens but not technically illegal. So he reads the provision that says that that group would get healthcare and then Jeffries says let's say here's what he reads. He goes Jeffrey's called it a lie but then Tapper says it's a lie. So he agrees with him it's a lie that illegals are going to get healthcare with us. He goes, "But you support what you support does bring back funding for emergency Medicaid to hospitals, which pays for undocumented immigrants and a provision for people seeking asylum and temporary protected status, non-citizens. Why even include that?" So Jake is saying, "Why would you even put that in there when you know that's going to stop everything?" I don't even know what the other things are. Do you? I've only heard of one topic that they want to fund and it doesn't sound like a good idea. Are there other parts that that trillion dollars is going to go to and just nobody wants to mention it? Republicans don't mention it and the Democrats don't mention either. Well, i