28. So if it's going to happen anyway, does it make sense that Trump would want it to happen under his term? If you know it's going to happen anyway, it's a strong argument for doing it first. So I think that's where Carville is up. Carville should have said there's no way. There's no way the Democrats are going to get rid of that filibuster while simultaneously believing, "Oh, we're totally going to get rid of that filibuster. We're going to get rid of that so hard." We'll just claim we're not so that they could get past a Republican administration and then get all their own goodies. So I think Trump is smart enough to know that they're definitely going to do this because they're, as he would say, cruel, evil, bad people. But he listed the things that he could get done if he gets rid of the filibuster. So he'd be able to get rid of, he'd be able to install voter ID as a requirement. No mail-in voting, no cash bail, no men in women's sports, no welfare for illegals. I'm sure the list is longer than that, but those do seem like kind of bigish things.

There are a lot of people who would say this, the number one thing you want him to fix. The number one thing is the voter ID mail-in voting situation. If he only did that, would there ever be another Democrat president? Because the play here is kind of interesting. The only way it makes sense to get rid of the filibuster is if you have some confidence that your team will be in there next time and maybe the time after, which is not normal. You know, normally there's going to be a Democrat and then a Republican sooner or later. So if Trump knows for sure that they're going to do it, and he knows for sure that if he fixes the voter ID and the mail-in, basically the election integrity, if he fixes the election integrity before 2028, can a Democrat ever get elected? The only way this makes sense is if he thinks that he can prevent Democrats from being elected by getting rid of cheating in the election. Is that a good assumption? It's not bad. I don't know. I don't know if it'll make a difference. I don't know because I don't know how much anybody has or will cheat. I don't know. But if you assume, and I assume that Trump knows more than we do about what bad behavior people are doing, if he's pretty sure that these changes would lock in a Republican or at least, when I say Republican I'm going to say at least a Fetterman-level Democrat. You know what I mean? So like the furthest it could go would be to a Fetterman type of Democrat, not a crazy ass Democrat. Maybe there's something to this filibuster.

Well, meanwhile the US and Hungary trying to be best friends. Trump loves the head of Hungary, Orbán, and he's visiting I guess now. And Orbán says it's the golden age of US-Hungary relationships. This is in the European Conservative. Now what do you think of that? If you are a Democrat you say, "Oh my God, all the foreign leaders have learned that you can just flatter Trump by saying, you know, using his words and his framing and if you flatter him enough then you can influence him and you can get what you want." Is that how you take that? That is true in the sense that flattery is a component of persuasion, but it's not a strong part. It's sort of a weak part. Here's the part that nobody sees coming. If Trump can make everybody think that if they talk the way he talks, frame things the way he frames them, and give him a king's crown when he visits, for example, that they can influence him. That's exactly the opposite of what's happening. If he can make other foreign leaders essentially wear the clothes he wants them to wear, say the things he wants them to say, and do the things he wants them to do on a small scale, small scale, such as using his framing of the golden age, very small, but it's his. And every time he can get a foreign leader to act the way he acts, even if the foreign leader is thinking, "Haha, he's falling for my persuasion. I'm just talking the way he does and it's going to work." No, if it was about one thing then maybe it would just be flattery and it would work. But if you fall into his larger frame for everything, you sort of become his subordinate, not in a technical way but in a persuasion way because you just sort of fall into the frame. So he has such a strong frame, meaning the way he looks at things and what he says is important, what isn't important, that's the frame. It's such a strong frame and consistent. He doesn't change his frame too much if ever. It's easier for people to fall in and thinking that they're influencing him and the next thing you know they've effectively hypnotized themselves to think that what he says is the common sense smart thing for whatever the next thing is. So I don't know that most of you would have spotted that, would you? Would you have known that on the surface level flattery is what they're giving him and it works but as soon as you get to the next level of falling into the larger frames like immigration and crime because you notice a lot of foreign leaders are falling into his immigration crime. NATO is another one. Rare earth minerals. You could just go right down the line and you'd find things that Trump created the frame and then the foreign leaders fell into it. You see it everywhere and it starts with the small stuff that other people think is flattery.

You probably saw because it made a lot of news, not very important but everybody's talking about it, is that Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly got into it a little bit on some event. They're on stage and I don't know what's true here. I can tell you that Grok had one version and I've heard now two different versions of what's true. But the basic idea is that Ben Shapiro claimed that Candace Owens is implicating Charlie Kirk's widow in his assassination. And Megyn Kelly said, "What? I never heard of that. That Candace is blaming Charlie Kirk's widow for being part of a murder plot." And so Ben basically sort of suggested that she's not up to date. I was not aware of that. I was not aware that there's a claim of that. I don't think it's true. Obviously I don't think it's true. So I'm starting with obviously there's nothing to it and I don't think that TPUSA had anything to do with anything. I think this is Candace content. She's very good at connecting dots even when the dots shouldn't be connected. It's a Bible code problem. Yeah. So the first thing I would say is Ben Shapiro, why do you think that the rest of us would be so invested in that conversation that we would know that? And then secondly I look to see if it's true. And I don't even know if it's true. It doesn't seem true that Candace directly accused her of murder, right? I think it's more like, hm, I have questions. This thing happened at the same time as this thing. Why did this thing happen right after that thing? Now I find that interesting content. It gets a little creepy when it involves somebody who died recently. So that's a separate thing. But I do like hearing the conspiracy theories. I do like when somebody can back it up with some details even if I don't think it's true. It's kind of fun. So as of this morning I still don't know what is true. I don't believe that I would ever find a quote where Candace was directly accusing either TPUSA or Erika for being part of the murder. But Ben Shapiro thinks that that's an indisputable fact and he's smarter than me and he's paying attention to this more than I am. So I don't know what's going on here. Do you? But the main thing I wanted to tell you, actually it's the only thing I want to say, is I didn't know it. So I'm in the same business as Megyn Kelly. I just don't do it as well. I'm in the same business. I wake up every morning and I read all the political gossip and everything. I didn't know this. Why would I know it? And I feel a little insulted that that's a problem that she wouldn't know it or it was a problem that I didn't know it. And we're both in the business of watching the news. I think it's because it's not true, right? I feel like I'd know it if it were true that she had really said that directly. Now if she'd been creeping around the edges I wouldn't be delighted with that but it'd be entertaining. So I don't know. I just wondered what you thought about that. I do think that this whole thing of conservatives fighting with conservatives, it really has everything to do with the fact that they're winning. The conservatives are winning so hard that they're running out of things to complain about so they just turn their guns on each other. Doesn't it feel like that? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that way, but it just feels like we ran out of things to do so we have to go after each other. I just don't like to be part of that. So I love Ben Shapiro, one of the most skilled people in the game. Megyn Kelly, one of the most skilled people in the game, probably the best podcaster in my opinion. I don't need to go after either one of them.

Well, it's Saturday, so that means that yesterday was Bill Maher becoming more of a Republican every day. On every Friday he becomes a little bit more Republican but not really. He's not going to become a Republican. But here's the latest. He's weighing in on the Trump ballroom. So Bill Maher said when he first mentioned it, it was all about, oh my God, he's desecrating the White House. And then I finally read, oh well, they've done this to the White House before. It's just a building, I think. And then Maher is pointing out we don't have a place where they have state dinners. They're doing it in a tent. This is America. So do I give a shit that he's doing this to the White House? I really don't. And it's private money. Save your ire for things that matter. There you go. Now what would you call that? Is that a Republican opinion, a Democrat opinion, or a common sense opinion? That's a common sense opinion. Every time somebody goes into the common sense zone, they're sort of in the MAGA zone. Not entirely, but you got one foot in there. If you're arguing common sense and you're arguing it well as he is, then also Bill Maher was in favor of Trump's Golden Dome, the missile protection system that we're trying to build. Maher said, "I have a problem." He's responding to one of his guests. He goes, "I have a problem if we don't build it. Just because Trump thought of it, I'm not against it." Something that would stop the increasing number of rogue missiles in this world from maybe coming over here and incinerating me. Yeah, mark me down as pro for that. I'm pro having it. Can we do it? I don't know. He says it'll take three years and 180 billion and the Democrats say, "Well, that's BS, but that's to be a worthy investment." Yeah, maybe it'll have cost overruns, he went on to say, but that's everything. Everything has a cost overrun. Now is this opinion Democrat or Republican or just common sense? It's just common sense. So doesn't it feel to you as if he's got that one foot in MAGA? He's not going to have the religious foot, right? Don't ever expect him to pick up his Bible and say, "Finally I've decided." No, but in the common sense domain he's completely in. And he actually recognizes what common sense looks like and he's willing to call it out despite what trouble it brings him. I like that.

Well, there are two court decisions. The Supreme Court and I'm going to confess that these are so boring that I didn't want to look into them and they're going to change 10 times before tomorrow. But the Supreme Court apparently temporary pause SNAP payments which is denying the pause of the denial of the pause of the pause from the lower courts. Pause of the snap of the payments of the pause. All these stories are so filled with negatives that you don't know exactly what got paused. Wait, you pause the blocking of it. Okay, the blocking of it means you don't get it, but you pause the blocking, but now another court says you have to unpause the blocking. These are impenetrable stories. I hope everybody gets fed and they don't starve to death because of paperwork, but it looks like that's coming. Also a federal judge ruled that Trump illegally ordered troops to Oregon. And then the judge permanently barred Trump administration from deploying the National Guard troops in Portland permanently. How can he do that permanently? Is that even an option? The judge can say it's permanent. Can't the next judge unpermanent the permanent? Permanent seems like the wrong word. Anyway, that's happening. There will be more court cases. Expect the barring to be unbared and the barring of the barring to be unbared by the barring.

Meanwhile you remember Katie Porter, that horrible human being who was screaming at her assistant and being kind of a bad person on video. And at one point she was leading in the polls to be the next governor of California. But apparently she got so much pushback from that terrible hit on video that her polling has gone from 17%, which would have been leading in a big field, down to 11%. Guess who's number one in the California poll now. This won't last, but the number one person in the current governor of California poll, now it's not Newsom of course, he's not running. The answer is a Republican. There's a Republican in the lead for California governor. There's no way that's going to last. But there's a Republican. So it's Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. He now leads the field with 13%. So 13, I think that's actually what Trump had when he entered the race around 13%. Right. So is there any possibility that a Republican could win in California? I'm going to go out on a limb. Yes. There is a genuine chance. And Steve Hilton's still in the game too. Steve Hilton seems to, you know, I believe he would have a set of policies that at least the right would like a lot. I don't know anything about Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, but it's nice that we got options, isn't it?

All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you're just joining late, you probably didn't hear that today is November 8th, a very special day for reasons that you don't know but I do. And if you don't have your Dilbert calendar for 2026, now I would rush because we really didn't print enough. So somebody's going to be really mad at me in December. Hey, I went to order my calendar and you're all sold out, which we might be because we did intentionally go low on the printing because it's expensive. So we'll see.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers, as awesome as they are. And the rest of you, I hope to see tomorrow, same time, same place. And right after the show, make sure you check in with Owen Gregorian on his spaces event where he'll talk about this sort of stuff maybe and some other stuff too which will be fun. And so just search for Owen Gregorian and you'll see a link to his spaces event that'll happen not very long from now. He'll fire it up after we're done.

All right, let's see. Oh. Oh God, that hurts. I can't lift one arm. I've got half an arm. My hand doesn't work on this one, but my arm doesn't work on the other one. And then the cursor has disappeared. All right, cursor. Me. I can't find the cursor again. All right, we're going to have to move the computer to another space so I can mess around with it in less pain. Oh, okay. That doesn't hurt. All right, cursor. There you are. Found you.