've looked at is the cost of doing nothing, and in this case you may have looked at the benefits of doing something, but you're not looking at the opportunity cost. The trillion plus dollars of things you should have been doing, could have been doing, would have been doing. And what would be better? Would it be better to remediate, to relocate people, to build more water facilities? To take a trillion dollars — let's say you take a trillion dollars and put it into reforesting the Sahara, which apparently we know how to do now, believe it or not. We know how to reforest deserts. That's a real thing.

Suppose we took a trillion and we just put it into reforesting the Sahara. Well, I may have my science wrong, but here's the general idea about using your money for other stuff. All right, if you were to reforest the Sahara, my understanding is that it would cool down that region, and that region has a lot to do with the hurricanes that form in the Atlantic. So if your problem from global warming is that too many hurricanes, and that's just one of the several gigantic problems that are predicted, what if you spent the same amount of money just getting rid of the source of the hurricanes? What would happen? Well, I don't know. But the point is that there are lots of ways to spend the money, and if we don't know all of those ways and we're not at least keeping that in our mind, we're only looking at half of the situation. So there's that.

Let's talk about the Democrats now. So the Democrats are trying to do two things that look like they would be hard to do to me. One is they're trying to paint themselves as the party of believing women. Now believing women is specifically in the context of accusations about sexual assaults. Now believing women is good, but it sounds a lot like guilty until proven innocent, or it can slide into that.

Now if you're trying to form a party that is a coalition of women and minorities, that seems to be sort of the Democrats' brand. They're the group that's going to be good for women and minorities. Let me ask you this. Believing women, which gets very close to guilty until proven innocent, at least the way we think of it and treat it, is that good for African Americans? Now it should be, right? You could make an argument that it's just good for everybody. But does it feel that way if you were Black? And I'm not, so it's dangerous for me to try to say how would you think if you were something else when you're not. But I'll just put it in the form of a question.

If you were Black and your biggest issue is that the police are blaming you for stuff that maybe you think you didn't do or that you didn't do, how is that compatible with changing the whole thrust of the Democratic Party into guilty until proven innocent? If you're Black, do you want to be in the guilty until proven innocent party? That feels like exactly the opposite of Black Lives Matter, doesn't it? It feels like the Democrats have said that women are going to be the primary focus of their persuasion, but I don't know if all of these things are completely compatible.

If I were Black and my biggest issue were police pulling me over, accusing me of things I didn't do, beating me up, that feels exactly the opposite of their thrust right now. So I don't know how they hold the Black vote. We'll see.

I was amused watching the president's rally speech in Kansas, I guess, and he tried to label the Democrats as the party of crime. The party of crime, which is very clever. Now you could certainly make an argument and they would say, wait a minute, the Republicans are the party of crime. They don't even believe us when we accuse them of committing crimes. So you could make an argument the other way, but it's clever. It is clever branding because immigration is about crime and being tough on crime is the Republican thing. So you could imagine that it makes sense for the president to say that the Democrats are the party of crime.

I had been saying that they were the party of hate. You remember for several months I've said, yeah, Democrats are turning into the party of hate. But that's probably not as good as the party of crime, and here's why. Party of hate — if I told you, if you hadn't been paying attention, let's say for the past year, and all you knew was everything that's happened up until a year ago, and I said, hey, one of the parties is called the party of hate, what would you say? Which party would that be? You might say Republicans, because the Democrats would say, oh, the Republicans hate minorities. So my framing of the Democrats as the party of hate isn't as immediately agreeable to people the way they're already primed.

The president went with party of crime. The advantage of that is that you don't think of Republicans as