t identical to the odds of Hillary Clinton winning on Election Day. Now if that's not perfect, if that is not a perfect setup for surprise version 2.0, let's call it, it needs a name, should it come to pass that the Republicans outperform. And I'm not predicting that. I'm only predicting that the turnout for Republicans will be jaw-dropping. That's my prediction. The turnout for Republicans will be jaw-dropping. In other words, the news is going to have a hard time not talking about it.

And this has everything to do with, I would say, my understanding of Trump supporters. We'll see. We'll see if I do understand that. My understanding is that they like a joke, they like winning, and they prefer action over talk as sort of a general quality. You put all that stuff together and what would be funnier? I mean seriously, what would be funnier if you're a Trump supporter than watching the news on election day for the midterms and finding a repeat of 2016? You know, you want that not just because you want it politically. You know how fun that would be. So that's my prediction there. So that's going well for the president.

But here the biggest thing that's happening of course is the caravan. And the caravan is capturing our attention because it hits two of the dimensions of persuasion that are the strongest dimensions. The strongest persuasion is fear. Fear. If you can persuade using fear, you're automatically the most important person in the room because everybody takes care of their fear before they move on to anything else. Like okay, we got to get rid of the fear. And the look of it, just the sheer number of people in the caravan, the fact that the majority of them seem male and young, is automatically military invasion-like in our minds even though that's not what it is. So your subconscious is taking this visual and turning it into something scary. So there's that. Plus it's visual. It took a concept, which is immigration, and turned it into a scary visual. So that's all working in the president's favor because it just fits the sweet spot of his persuasion on immigration.

But there's a better part. You know how you can't change history? You've heard that, right? Common sense says you can't change history. History is done. Well, you are watching right in front of your eyes the President of the United States, the master persuader, the best who has ever done this, maybe the best who ever will. You're watching him change history. How, you say? How is the president changing history? Because that's not even something that can be done. He's actually doing it right in front of you. And here's what it looks like.

What was the biggest mistake that the president probably ever made in terms of political discourse? I would argue that the biggest mistake he made was the day he announced, because he made the mistake of casting the immigrants as criminals, which allowed his critics to say you're saying all people from Mexico who are coming across the border are criminals, you darn racist. So that's the history. You used to believe, or let's say part of the country believed, that he meant literally that they were all criminals. And the people who became his supporters believed that he was talking about too many criminals. All right, anybody with an ounce of objectivity would understand he was not literally saying that the women and children coming across the border were MS-13 murderers. All right, he was talking about some of them were criminals and some is too many. So something like that might have been optimal.

Now I'm careful about saying that the president made a mistake by saying something outrageous because at the same time I have to acknowledge that saying outrageous things is his technique. It's the reason that he sucks up all the energy. So I can't say for sure that even what sounded like a gigantic mistake, you know, being a little careless in his wording so it sounded like all immigrants were being cast as criminals, you still have to ask yourself, well that is the reason he got all the attention. I don't know if it was a mistake. You just can't tell because there's no way to score it. You can certainly say it haunted him. You could certainly say it gave tons of ammunition to the other side. You can certainly say it created an easy trope for the other side to paint him as a racist. But he did win. So you have to be a little humble about looking into the past and trying to say you should have done something differently.

But that is the history that used to exist, was that the president thinks immigrants are all a bunch of criminals. All a bunch of criminals. That's how the anti-Trumpers framed him. And he sort of has put up with that framing for a long time. Now there have been many times where he has clarified, but because the clarifications are never as interesting as the original provocation, we sort of don't remember the clarifications. So the original provocation, his announcement speech in which he said he indicated that there were too many criminals coming across and it sounded to some ears as if he was saying they're all criminals, that was our history.

He's changing history right now. How is he doing it? Well this is such a big event, this caravan. It's in the news. It's in our consciousness. The president's talking about it a lot. He's tweeting about it a lot. So now what we think about immigration has morphed from our earlier mental idea of the whole situation of immigration and Trump's comment about it. It's now morphing to more about what's happening at the moment because you're always more persuaded by what's happening now and you're also more persuaded by the visual and the scariness of it. So the old history of what Trump said about immigrants, that's the old history, is now being rewritten in your mind to what's happening at the moment because the new stuff is sort of overwriting the old stuff.

And what he's doing, if you watch the way he's talking about it, he has corrected his original misstep, if it was a misstep. And that is that when he talks about the caravan, look at the way he talks about the criminal element within it. Now he says, you know, if the reporters wanted to go into the group they would find that within the group there are criminal elements and even some people sneaking in from the Middle East. I don't know if that's fact-checked but that's the claim. So he now is using the caravan to rewrite, at least psychologically, he's rewriting history about what was his opinion about the percentage of criminals coming across the border. He's rewriting it. It doesn't seem like you could rewrite history, but keep in mind history doesn't exist. History doesn't exist. You can't hold a little history in your hand. You can't get a basket full of history. History is a mental thing. Now you could say that things happened and that may be true, but history is just a mental process at this point. So the president can rewrite history because he's rewriting your mental process, which is the only way history exists. It exists as an organization of molecules in your brain and the chemistry in your brain, and he's rewiring that.

So if you are watching the caravan situation and the president talking about it, you will see that over and over again he talks about the caravan being big and that within it, if you were to look carefully within it, there are criminal elements. That's the new frame that he's put on it and he's hitting it over and over again so that it's now harder to remember and less credible in your own mind that he ever said anything different than that there are criminal elements within the larger group. It's a big, big deal that's completely ignored, right? Because if you look at the importance of that original statement about crime coming across the border, that really was an enormous part of people's mental tapestry about who this president was. And now they're watching him rewrite their history in real time so that when they look back at the original statement they're gonna have to wonder, wait, was that a little taken out of context? Because right now he's very clear about criminal elements just being a component of that group and too many of them.

All right, I probably could have said that in a shorter way, but Joel if you're jogging on the beach I wanted to give you as much content as possible and that's all I had.

All right, it seems to me that there's not much else happening, is there? Guatemala captured some ISIS people. I haven't seen that story. Yeah, so fentanyl. China continues to do its thing. I continue to track down different information and I'm trying to get a good angle on this fentanyl stuff. And one of the big problems is that people can't think. People think in analogies.

Let me tell you the most common thing that's happening when I talk about fentanyl on Twitter. And most of you know that I've advocated that if the United States can determine who within China is running these fentanyl labs, and I understand there are lots of them, yeah it's not one lab, it's lots of these illegal labs, to the extent that we can figure out who they are and where they are, we should be encouraging the Chinese government to come down hard on them and ideally execute them because they're behind at least supplying the raw ingredients that they know are killing 30,000 Americans here. And so that should certainly be an executable offense in China. But I've also gone farther than that and said that if China won't act we should directly execute them. So we should execute Chinese citizens in China to the degree that we know for sure that their drug lab operators are professional.

Now yeah, you're seeing some comments here saying you're insane, you'll start World War Three, etc. Here's what I say. We're already in World War Three. They're killing 30,000 people a year. In two years Chinese fentanyl will kill more people than we lost in the Vietnam War, Americans anyway. There were a lot more casualties in Vietnam. And somebody say without due process. Yes, I'm saying that in a war you don't use due process. In a war you do not make sure that somebody is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a war you kill whoever you need to kill.

Now you're asking yourself, hey if you were to kill somebody on foreign soil wouldn't that start a war? Well here's the good news. We don't have to wonder about that because Putin already did it. Putin already showed us that you can blatantly kill somebody on foreign soil and if that person isn't especially important to the overall government that you're going to get away with it. Now Putin killed critics and we still didn't start a war with Russia. Saudi Arabia just killed a law-abiding journalist right in front of the world and we're still not going to start a war with Saudi Arabia. Nobody els