successful and they've got nothing going on. So I sort of made a list of all the things that they can do. Like what are they going to do? What are they going to complain about now? I mean half of their energy was about this and just went away in the most satisfying way.

So I'm fascinated that they're... that Hitler did the peacemaking that nobody else could do, and they have to explain why they've been calling him Hitler, whereas the public now clearly sees Trump as the peacemaker chief. So their entire authoritarian Hitler thing just turned into, well, okay, we have to admit that Trump being Trump is why this got done. So even being the authoritarian got this done. You know, I've been saying for a while, authoritarian, that's not bad. Don't we want an authoritarian as long as they're on our side? And he's clearly on our side.

Anyway, so here are the Democrat strategies that they have left. I guess they're going to have that no kings protest on the weekend. So the no kings is to say that they don't want anybody who's an authoritarian. Do you think that has the same spice and energy now as it did a week ago? Because Trump's, like I said, Trump's strong man authoritarian approach is exactly what got us these good results. So they're going to have a whole demonstration against the thing that we all watched work right in front of our eyes. We all observed it working. And they're going to have a whole demonstration against the thing we all observed working, which is Trump bullying people that needed to be bullied.

And so I think the whole no kings thing since it doesn't have an objective, you know, they just put it in the category of see we're fighting Trump. Can you see? Look how hard we're fighting him. Well, what exactly are you doing? Well, we had some peaceful protests called no kings. What exactly is that gonna do for anybody? Is that supposed to change Trump's behavior because they had a bunch of people marching? Are these people who haven't watched the news lately and they don't know that Trump's doing a good job? What exactly would this accomplish?

So that's not going to accomplish anything. It doesn't even have an accomplishment built into it as an objective. I don't believe there's any objective to it, right? They don't say, "Well, once this no kings thing is done, he'll resign." They're not saying that. Or once we do this no kings thing that will change some laws. They're not asking to change any laws. What exactly do they want there? It literally... this is so obviously just a financial transaction. Clearly there's a business model. There are people who make money from organizing these things. So the people who make money from organizing them is the reason it's happening. It's not happening because it might work. I don't think there's one Democrat who thinks this is going to work for what? It's going to work for what? To change what?

So clearly it has no... the Democrat party is so lost that it looks like they're just sort of the dog getting wagged by the tail. And the tail in this case is whoever makes money organizing these events or whoever pays for them. So yeah, they're lost.

Now, of course, they want to go after the character of Trump. That would be one attack. Do you think that would work when he's the number one peacemaking president of all time? Doesn't work so well, does it? That whole character thing.

They can say we're fighting Trump, but where's the fight? Marching around. Bunch of senior citizens marching around with signs that somebody gave them. Is that the fight? Good luck.

Are the Democrats going to try to keep this the government closed and hope that Trump gets blamed more? Well, that's not working. Apparently, in terms of history and polls, people are kind of not blaming anybody or blaming both sides or the public who is paying attention knows that the Republicans have for a long time now said, "We'll open the government. You just sign this. We've already signed it continuing resolution. We'll just keep it open. It's the same funding and then we'll work it out in a few weeks just like the schedule says we should." So I don't think the closing the government is going to work for the Democrats, but they don't have anything else.

What about will they complain about Ukraine? Well, they might complain about Ukraine, but how do you complain when Trump is giving them more weapons potentially than they've had before? Tomahawks are being discussed and not putting any of our money into it. What exactly are you going to complain about? Because that would be fully supporting Ukraine. They like that. It would be better weapons for Ukraine. Maybe probably they like that. And not paying any of our money to buy those weapons, but having Europe pay for them. How do you not like that?

So they don't really have much to complain about with Russia. The Gaza thing went away. The government shutdown probably doesn't make a dent. The no kings thing is just empty calories. What else? How about if the Democrats fight hard to not reduce crime in cities, which they're also doing. So by resisting the National Guard and so far, to the credit of the National Guard, they have not created any incidents. So it's not like there's some anecdote of well that one National Guard guy got wild and hurt somebody. Look, we don't hear that at all.

So as long as the crime is going down where the National Guard is deployed, and it probably will, they don't have anything there either because the public likes less crime. Every time they do a street interview and they're trying to get somebody to say, "Oh, I don't like all these armed people in my city," they say the opposite. They say, "Yeah, I feel safer. It's definitely safer." And apparently according to Rasmussen poll 52% of likely voters are actually supporting using the National Guard at ICE facilities. So that's an advantage to Trump. So they don't have that.

And Kristen Welker was talking to VP Vance and she was trying to do the thing where she says crime is down in both Chicago and Portland. So why do you need the National Guard if things are heading in the right direction? Do you believe that crime is down in both Chicago and Portland? Well, JD Vance had a perfect answer to that. He said crime is down in Chicago and Portland often because they're so overwhelmed at the local level that they're not even keeping the statistics properly. Now, we have lots of data to say that's true, that they don't keep the... they just lie about the data. So it looks like the crime's going down.

So if the Democrats can't use Gaza, they can't really use Ukraine, they can't really use the danger of the cities. The tariffs look like they might be working out. What's left? I think all they have left is healthcare.

So I thought it'd be fun to talk about a few things that Trump could do on healthcare, maybe. So this is just for fun and speculation. Okay. Apparently Speaker Johnson says that the Republicans do have some ideas for replacing Obamacare or at least replacing the extension to paying the extra Obamacare stuff. But he doesn't say what that is. So I wanted to give a few ideas.

What if now remember this is just brainstorming. So don't worry if anything I say now sounds impractical. This is brainstorming. But what if Trump said, "I'm going to use the tariff revenue specifically to make healthcare stable." What would they do then? Because they can't complain about the tariffs because the tariffs would then be going directly toward the thing they care about the most which is getting healthcare for everybody. So I'm not going to suggest that'll happen. But isn't it a fundamental experiment? If Trump said I'm going to use all the tariffs, he won't do this. But if he said, "I'm going to use the tariffs for healthcare to plug the hole. Maybe only until we get to a negotiated better situation." But what would they say? It feels like it's a perfect plan because they couldn't really debate it because they shouldn't complain about where the money comes from. And if they did, the public wouldn't be able to follow the argument because they don't really understand tariffs either.

Here's another one. What if Trump did an executive order on price transparency? I don't know what that would look like, but it is my belief that consumers don't have the option to shop intelligently for healthcare because they can't tell what anything costs. Could the government say, "All right, we're going to make the free market work better because you're going to really have to say what your actual costs are and then people will be able to shop." Maybe it would sound like it would make a difference before you tried it.

How about he could make a bigger deal about how taking illegal people off of the healthcare will be better for the people who are on healthcare. That's a pretty strong argument.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but you all know that I'm in the middle of a sort of a major healthcare situation. And it seems to me that my own healthcare provider is not nearly as capable as they were even one year ago. I feel like one year ago, if I needed a procedure, I could get it in two days and now it's like two weeks. Is that because of all the people who don't have healthcare who have healthcare? Is that why? I mean it feels like if I'm waiting there was some new bunch of people who got in front of me that wasn't just normal population growth.

So I don't know if anybody's having that experience where it's taking you way longer to get a medical appointment. I might be imagining it by the way. So I don't know that it's true, but it feels like maybe it's because it's life and death. So it seems like a bigger deal to me, but yeah, it could take a week or two to get a scan. So I had to actually go to the emergency room so that I didn't have to wait so long to get a valuable MRI scan. So if I go to the emergency room, who am I competing with? All the people who don't have healthcare because they would go