andon, a low IQ leader. He says, "I got a bunch of low IQ leaders." And but he also insults Governor Pritzker for being overweight. So he's going hard at Chicago.

Anyway, let me ask you this. Why is it that the Democrats are not making more hay? Is that a thing? Or why are they not making a bigger deal the fact that Trump has now labeled a number of black leaders low IQ. Has he labeled any white leaders low IQ? Because if he hasn't, I would recommend you throw a few on the list. You got to get at least one or two white leaders that are low IQ. You must have that in Portland. Portland, maybe. There's got to be something. But I wonder if he's feeling so free at this point in terms of what he can get away with and what he can say that he doesn't care about making it DEI friendly and that if he thinks somebody's stupid, he's just going to say it and it has nothing to do with anything except that's what he was thinking. He was just thinking, "Ah, you're stupid. I'll say it." I don't know. I think you'd be a little bit safer. Throw some crackers on that list if you know what I mean.

All right. Here's the reframe that you need and you'll find that this fits with what I said earlier today and you'll be amazed how it all fits together. So as you know, there's a 20 point Trump administration peace plan for Ukraine, but nobody was born yesterday. And so we don't think that we're just going to spray this plan out there and Zelensky is going to say, "Oh, that's a great idea. Why didn't we do this before?" And that Putin is going to say, "Well, thanks for the good work. This is perfect. We sign up." Nobody thinks people are just going to sign up for it. It's a starting point.

And as I posted earlier today that let me tell you what Marco Rubio said and then I'm going to put it in my words because I think he could have gone to one extra step that would have been really useful and maybe he will. So Marco said ending a complex and deadly war such as the one in Ukraine requires an extensive exchange of serious and realistic ideas. You know, 28 points, that would be extensive. And achieving a durable peace will require both sides to agree to difficult but necessary concessions. Of course, that is why we are and will continue to develop a list, listen to this, we are and will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of the conflict. Oh, that is perfect.

Once again, Marco Rubio is telling us how to think, not what to think. Now, there is a list of 28 things that we want or we think would be good. But when he describes it as a list of literally potential ideas from both sides, that's really moving forward.

Now, I'm going to put this in my own words and then when I put it in my words, see how it hits you. Okay? I'm going to say the same thing just my words. I'm going to say that packetizing, taking things and putting them in little packages which are the 28 points. Each of the 28 points is like a little packet that once you've packetized it, what can you do with it? Well, packetizing all the ideas into units that can be traded, compared, and easily communicated is the most important thing that needs to be done at this phase. We're not talking about any final agreements. We're talking about some way to take this complicated situation and turn it into little packets where you can say, "All right, there's a Donbass packet. There's a Crimea packet." You can still play with the packets, but you have to agree that there are packets. And you could call it something else, just 28 points or whatever. But until you do that, you cannot really negotiate because there's nothing to give away and there's nothing to get. You need to put them in discrete, easy to communicate packets.

And when I see Marco using his own words, speaking in those terms, pretty much what I said, but just his own way to say it, that gives me a lot of confidence. I got to admit, that gives me a lot of confidence because if I just heard we want 28 things or there are five things we have to have, I wouldn't necessarily think we've made any progress. But as soon as you tell me that the goal is to get 28 packets and we can still argue about what the packets are, excellent. That to me looks like adults trying to figure out a really complicated problem. I don't know where this approach came from or if it's really closer to a normal approach than I'm giving it credit for. Is this closer to normal than I think it is? It doesn't look normal. It looks like a whole better way of doing it. I don't know. We'll see.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you really want is a reframe to wrap things up. Would you like a reframe from my book? My book is called Reframe Your... I'm sorry, I accidentally picked up the 2026 Dilbert calendar, which you can only get on Amazon, and it's available now. It's the best thing that ever happened to you in your whole life. And there are comics on both sides. I didn't mean to pick that up. That was an accident. We'll put that over there.

But my book, Reframe Your Brain, I'm going to give you an absolutely free reframe. Wow. I sure hope I put that where I wanted it. Damn it. I seem to have put my bookmark in the middle of the book randomly. That didn't help me. All right, here's where I need to be. We'll go into the social life reframes. I know you need that.

How many of you think that marriage is about finding a soulmate? I feel like, you know, TVs and movies and our sense of romantic entitlement kind of ruins our potential for happiness because we're sort of imagining that we can have that kind of situation that they have in the movies. But if you think that marriage is about finding your soulmate, you're going to have a little problem because at some point you're going to say, "How do I know that's my soulmate? And why does my coworker act like my soulmate all the time? What's going on here?"

So the old frame or the usual frame is that marriage is about finding your soulmate. Here's a reframe. Marriage is about finding love with someone who values promises. Yeah, that's one you have to think about. But I'll give you another one. How about if you break up with somebody or maybe there's a tragic death in your life and you think to yourself, I've lost my soulmate. Oh no, I've lost my soulmate. Well, maybe you lost your soulmate. But here's another way to look at it. You have a million soulmates and you haven't met them all.

I mean, do you really think there's seven billion people and you've got exactly one soulmate? Really? Really? Do you really believe that there's just one? Just one soulmate? No. There are probably a million different people that you could come to see as your soulmate and probably a million different people that you could come to trust with your life. If you can find somebody you could trust with your life and they do what they promised to do over the entire course of your relationship and you're willing to turn them into your soulmate even if they weren't naturally that way just by being honest and let's say moral and ethical that would be an excellent situation.

So I would worry a lot less about the magic of finding your soulmate, and I would worry a lot more about how to turn any good person into somebody that you see as your soulmate just by the fact that you treat each other really well and that's your agreement. So I've always thought that relationships that are based on decision are more powerful than relationships that are based on let's say some internal feeling, right? If your relationship is based on a feeling, it could change. It could change.

All right, people. That's what I got for you today. I'm going to talk to the locals people, my beloved locals people. I hope there's something you got out of today that was useful. You could probably notice me trying to change the direction of the country. I think I'm doing a good job so far. How many of you see my influence in other public figures? I'll ask you a more specific question. How many of you think you've seen that other public figures are thinking the way I'm thinking or using the tools that I use and you think to yourself, where'd they get that? Did that come from Scott or somebody that got it from him that got it from someone else? I don't know.

I'm looking at your comments now. Yeah. So a lot of you can see it. So it's not imaginary. I remember back in 2016 and I would suggest that maybe people were listening to me and people would say, "Scott, put your ego away." And I don't think I put my ego away. But the point is, as I've said often, including today, the person with the best idea is always in charge. So if I can teach you how to think about a topic better than you were thinking about it, and maybe you share that with somebody else and they share it with somebody else, then the way to think about a topic becomes the dominant force. It's not even the personality. It's not the person whose job it is to be in charge. It's just the fact that there's something about the way somebody framed it that's so compelling that you could predict where it's going from that point on. And that's what I shoot for. Sometimes I hit it and sometimes I don't.

All right, locals coming at you. Coming at you. All right, we'll be on locals in 30 seconds.