versus Democrats in general, I think Republicans are a little more likely to talk about the policy, whereas Democrats are a little more likely to talk about bad character. Did Van do that? Did he treat the Republicans as if they have bad character? Yes, he treated them like they don't care if babies die.

How about imaginary problems? Have you heard me talk about that a million times? That Democrats come up with imaginary problems. Well, this was completely self-created and it was an imaginary problem in the sense that they could solve it without doing any real work. It was 100% solvable just by going, would you like to see that again? Watch me solve the starving children and planes falling out of the air. There, that's me voting in favor of passing a short-term continuing resolution. Democrats, remember that. That's how it's done. Hey, save the world.

What about projection? The thing where they're doing the bad thing but they blame the Republicans for doing the very bad thing that they're doing. Yes, that was the whole shutdown. The whole shutdown was acting like the Republicans had some power over it, which they didn't. So we got the projection.

How about the cluster B personality disorder? Have any of you had any experience with a narcissist? That's part of the so-called cluster B personality disorders. Well, if you've ever seen it, the way it looks is they blame you for whatever they're doing. So really that's the same as the projection and the imaginary problems and the mind reading and the character assaults. They're all sort of under that domain. So we got that.

Then we've got Democrats trying to focus their victories on things you can't measure. Things you can't measure. Is this one of those things you can't really measure? Well, I haven't heard any numbers for children dying. I didn't see any measurement of that. I don't know the number of planes that fell out of the air. I think it's zero. So the entire shutdown was about what might happen if you don't open up. Except that didn't happen. We did open up. So it was this whole set of imaginary things that could happen but didn't as usual.

The one that's missing is where the Democrats say a problem doesn't really exist like they do with Antifa. That didn't apply to this one because everybody agrees that if you're not funding SNAP, people are going to have more trouble getting food. So at least they agreed on the problem. But could you see how stunningly consistent it is that Van, who's a totally reasonable smart guy, he's following the Democrat plan that looks like mental problems more than it looks like The Art of War, if you know what I mean.

There was a fake Truth Social that was hilarious. I wish it hadn't been fake, but it purported to show that Trump was saying that fat people would not be allowed in the United States. And then it ended with saying that Rosie O'Donnell will never come back, which would be a comment under a weight. That did not happen as far as Grok can tell. So Grok said that was not real. I made the mistake of reposting that this morning before I said to myself, I better check this one. This one's a little bit too on the nose. And sure enough, Grok said, "Nope." But here's the fun part. It's actually based on something real. It is real that the State Department is going to ban overweight people from entering the US on a visa, but it would be based on general health requirements. So we're not talking about somebody who's got a few extra pounds because that would be everybody. We're talking about people who are clearly not as healthy as they could be and clearly will be a burden on the healthcare situation in the US. Under those conditions, I guess the State Department says no visa for you, which is not a terrible decision. I can see that.

Well, the Supreme Court is still thinking about tariffs, and Trump points out that they don't understand tariffs, which is no big surprise. He says that they've been given the wrong numbers on unwinding the tariffs because one of the questions that the Supremes asked was, "What would it cost if we rule to unwind the tariffs that have already happened?" And Trump points out that the tariffs are not unconnected to the deals about bringing capital into the US. He says that there are $3 trillion that also has to be unwound because part of the tariff agreements were that people would be invested in the US. So is it possible that the Supreme Court is going to be off in their calculation by $3 trillion and then they're going to make a decision that we're all bound by while being off on the assumptions by $3 trillion? And it might be they might be off by $3 trillion and then make a decision based on that bad assumption.

Now because Trump has said that we'll have over 20 trillion coming into our economy, I think that was on Laura Ingraham. She did a very illuminating interview with Trump. But here's my take. All data is fake. All data is fake. If you simply went by what the Republicans are claiming, you'd find out later it wasn't exactly right. If you go by what the Supreme Court is believing, that's not right. If you tried to do the math yourself and add it up on your own, you wouldn't get the right answer. All of our important decisions, we pretend that somehow we have all this knowledge. We don't. We're mostly guessing, bias and guessing. That's mostly life.

But also apparently the Supreme Court is considering looking into the case of the ballot deadlines. So I guess there are 30 states that are up for a decision. We'll say not really because the Supremes haven't decided to take the case yet, but it looks like they might. And the idea would be if the Supreme Court could allow the administration, the feds, to tell states that they can't count ballots later. So there's a possibility that the Supreme Court will say you can't count ballots that come in 30 days late or whatever deadline they put on it. I think that they might. Don't know how this one will go. I don't have a good prediction on the Supreme Court, but that would be a really big thing and it would give me some confidence in our system because none of us understand why it should take so long only in one country. Am I right? Every one of you has the same issue which is, okay, if you really have to wait 30 days why is it only the top industrialized country in the world has to wait 30 days? Really we can't figure that out but Estonia can do it in a day? I'm just making that up but I think they can actually. Estonia, you vote on the app on your phone.

So that might be a big deal. We'll see.

Laura Ingraham asked Trump about the concept of the 50-year mortgage proposal. And I think Trump gave a really good answer to that. So rather than trying to weigh it in and really get into numbers and stuff, he said, quote, "All it means is you pay less per month. You pay it over a longer period of time." Now, that's not really all it means because it also means you pay more. It means you don't get to own your house outright as soon. You know, it might be you live your entire life and you never owned your house completely. So it's not like there's no cost, but I think his summary is completely fair. The part you'd feel is that you're paying less per month, but longer. And then Trump changed the subject to he thinks the real, he didn't think that would make a big difference in home ownership. So he thought that would be a minor change that some people would like, some people wouldn't, but you know, it's freedom if you have the freedom for that option. More freedom is better probably. But he thinks the Fed will lower interest rates when we get a new Fed chair in the spring, maybe before that. I think we're supposed to have a couple of more rate cuts no matter who's there, right? So that's a good answer on housing. Interest rates are going down, etc.

And then Scott Bessent, Treasury head, he was on MSNBC and embarrassed them because he knows so much more than they do about everything. So the MSNBC host asks Scott Bessent, how does a $20 billion bailout of Argentina help Americans? Now that's a pretty good question