ro-immigration. There are a lot of people who are pro-immigration who are not the devil. And unless Soros is making a difference in that country he's just a player with an opinion.

All right. So I believe that it is a conspiracy theory that Soros is the devil. Without giving you an opinion of whether he's done anything worthy of this, I don't know. But I can conclude, and this part I'm confident of, that maybe nearly all of the people who have a strong opinion about Soros, it's not based on anything. It's based on what they heard other people talking about without the supporting facts.

Secondly, I believe that any comparison of domestic acts on the left versus domestic acts on the right has never been made. I believe that it's looked at through such a political lens that nobody's ever done an analysis where you could just compare, look I made these two lists using the same criteria. This list is bigger than this list. If that's been done that would be great. I'd love to see it. But hundreds of people in my Twitter feed who have a strong opinion on this topic couldn't find one. And we have Google. If Google can find it right now.

Let's talk about the who gets blamed for this. Is it that should the president be blamed? Could the president be blamed for the uptick in violence? Well I don't know if this is true but people have been tweeting around a list this show that shows that the domestic acts of violence spiked under Obama and then this would just be a continuation of that line. But do I believe those graphs? No, because they're summaries. I can't see the detail. I didn't make the graph so I don't know if that's true.

But we should at least figure that out for context. You know, is that, was the trend up that started under Obama or was it a sort of flat or declining trend and that in the age of Trump it went just like that? Which of those two things is true? If you don't know the answer to that question you don't know a frickin thing about this topic. I don't know the answer to that question so I'm talking about myself. I don't know a frickin thing about this topic. But I'm pretty sure you don't either. Yeah, now I'm pretty sure other people don't as well.

So here's my take on it. The argument about whether the president should take some responsibility about it is a sort of a fake trick argument. And by that I mean people are shifting the definition of what that means to fit their political agenda.

Here's the rational way to look at it. The rational way to look at it is that there are different filters to look at this. If you look at it from a legal filter the president is absolutely not responsible for the violent acts of a stranger. Even the anti-Trump people agree with that. Secondly from a social perspective, how should we treat each other socially? What kind of civilization do we want? How do we want to judge each other? From that filter even President Trump's critics also give him a pass and say you just can't judge one person's talk as the cause of a sudden stranger's action. That's not fair.

But if you were to look at it as a science person, let's call that a scientist, if you're going to look at it that way you would say if there are tens of millions of people listening, maybe hundreds of millions listening to somebody who is speaking provocatively, what are the odds that at least one person, and let's say more than one but at least one person who has some mental issues, will be triggered by that provocative speech to go out and do something that we wish they hadn't done? The answer to that is about a hundred percent. There's a hundred percent chance because the population is so big that there's a hundred percent chance that the way you talk will trigger somebody.

But now let's put it in context. Was that true under President Obama? I don't know. Neither do you. But it probably was. Do you believe that nobody killed anybody with, pulled to the Obama administration while thinking that that was part of the reason? I would guess that that's a fairly common thing to happen. And part of it is that people look for excuses to put on their evil. So people look for a reason. They say well you know I want to kill somebody today. I think it's because of Obama. I think it's because of immigration, right? So you can't always trust people's reasons even if they're screaming them while they're shooting people. Those might be the excuses. They might just be crazy people who want to show people and they need a rationale for it. So you have to watch out for that.

But then you also further have to put it in context by saying how does that compare to other things that affect the public. For example what about some forms of music? Can music make somebody go kill people? If you're normal, now a normal person doesn't go kill people because they heard something ugly on a song. But if you're talking about hundreds of millions of people listening to music and some of them are just, just put it on repeat, they've got their headphones on and all they're hearing is kill this, you know do that, slap slap this, punch that, could those few people who are not mentally stable and millions, could they be inspired to kill somebody because of music? And the answer is a hundred percent yes. You know almost no chance it affects everybody but a hundred percent chance somebody listening to music killed somebody because of it.

How about video games? Does the average person become violent because they watched a video game? Absolutely not. It's been tested. I believe it's been tested. They've put normal people in the room and it doesn't really change it much. They can tell the difference between fake violence and real violence. But if you have hundreds of millions of people playing violent video games and some few of those hundreds of millions are mentally unstable, could the video game be a reason or a trigger or the last necessary variable to cause them to be violent? Yes. A hundred percent chance the video games kill people. A hundred percent chance. There's not even any, there's not a trace of doubt about that now.

So if you're trying to size how bad is that the Trump speaks provocatively and uses sort of you know punch 'em, kick 'em language, how big a deal is that? Well it's probably, if I had to just sort of use my best judgment based on what I know about the world and how it works, probably similar to music, probably similar to video games.

Now that doesn't mean he should do it. If you said Scott are you saying he should keep talking the way he used to talk I would say no I don't think so. I think that the smartest thing he could do with what, six days until the midterm, the smartest thing he could do is to say that he plans to stop doing that and that people should call him out if he does it again. He should actually just, you should invoke the help of the public that if he goes too far that they should call him out. And then he should say I'm gonna try to tone this down.

The trouble is doing so would make it seem like he was taking responsibility for what's happened in the past. That's very problematic. So you'd have to be very careful about how he presented it. It would be better to say we should all do this and I'll go first. So if he puts it that way it goes down better.

Now whenever I say something like this like the president should do X, let me put on my humility hat. I don't have a humility hat so I'll put on my humility earphones. Now the reason I put on the humility headphones is I ask myself if I were to go back in time to 2015, you know if I were a time traveler and I could go back and somehow I met with candidate Trump and he said look here's my plan to be president. Here are all the tweets I'm gonna send for the next few years. What do you think? It's pretty genius isn't it? I think this will make me president. I would have looked at his list and I would say oh god oh no you got to get rid of this one. I gotta get rid of this one. This was a mistake. That one's a mistake.

You have to know that none of us would have advised him to act the way he acted. And the way he acted made him president of the frickin United States. So if you think you can look into all the things he did and say well okay I'll give you that this actually worked but these parts, these parts I got to take out of there because these parts were clearly bad parts, maybe, maybe you might be right. But it could be that the provocative talk that we realize is going too far is exactly what makes him interesting. And being interesting is what allows him to control our thoughts and that allows him to persuade.

So it might be that he shouldn't do this. It might be that pulling back a little bit would help him. I would advise it. I've seen, you know I saw Karl Rove advise it. I think I've seen every talking head in the world advise it on both sides. But you know we don't really know. It's a little more complicated than don't talk bad because bad things will happen because there are more variables involved.

All right. So it is my opinion that it would be brilliant to dial it back and to announce he's dialing it back before the midterms. Because the biggest complaint about the president right now is that he talks mean. So if your biggest problem is that you talk mean and you announce that you're gonna stop doing it right before people vote it's gonna have to put a little doubt in their heads. And after the election he could go back to talking mean if he needs to. But it would be a real effective thing to get in front of it and say yeah you know let's step back and you know maybe I'll try a few months of being nicer and see what happens. I don't know if being nice will work. We'll see.

So that's my frame on it.

You know the other thing I asked in the Twitter poll is whether fake news was a bigger or smaller problem than Trump's rhetoric. And of course it's a highly unscientific, highly biased poll. But I think 75 percent said fake news was worse. You know I would agree.

Now let me ask you this. If President Trump were not battling against fake news would he need to be as provocative as he is? Mad man. Suppose the anti-Trump press just covered the news straight, just gave us the facts. Would President Trump feel the need to be as provocative as he is? I don't know the answer to that but you have to ask that question. Because the fake news and Trump are not separate entities. They're like one monster that when one moves the other moves with it. When one hits the other hits back. They are joined. They don't like it. Neither of them wants to be joined. But the fact is that the media, both yeah and you know the entire media not just the fake media but they are joined at the hip.

And so you cannot say that President Trump acts independently even when you're looking at his provocative language. It's not independent of how the news is treating h