im. He does what he needs to do to get the job done in his mind. Some of us would disagree about the method but he's clearly doing what he can do in the face of a hostile media.

And so to ask him to tone down while the media is staying at DEFCON 10, I'm not sure that's fair. Would it be fair to say Trump should change and the anti-Trump media should just do what they've been doing? I don't think so. Because if he started getting uninteresting and the news remained interesting he's at a great disadvantage.

So I think it would be fair to say, it would be fair to him to say I'd really like to tone it down. Can you help me? Okay can you fix for example the Charlottesville fake news where Trump said both sides of the statue issue were fine people or that there were fine people on both sides of that issue and the news, the anti-Trump news reported it as that he says white supremacists are fine people. That never happened. Take that away. Go first. Go first CNN. That's a challenge to you. I know some of your producers are gonna see this. Go first. Just take back the Charlottesville hoax and see what the president does. You know test it. If you think less provocative talk is good for the country go first.

Yes somebody says nope they won't. Well I'm not optimistic that that would happen. But the only point I'm making is that the president doesn't operate in a vacuum. A huge part of why he chooses the strategies he does is because the context. He's got to get above the noise and be the strongest voice. Right now the noise is so evil the only way to get above it is with a good dose of hyperbole which he does. Why? Because it works. Because it works. That's why he does it.

Then somebody said the Charlottesville thing is, I have to read that kind of that dumbass comment. Sorry I can't scroll there for some reason. Somebody said Charlottesville is not a hoax because it is demeanor. I'm sorry apologist again. I'll delete the guy who thinks apologist is part of reason.

So the people calling me an apologist keep in mind that I disagree with the president on health care. I think immigration could be better. Race relations should be better. I disagree with statues etc. So but the Charlottesville hoax is pretty clearly factually on my side here. So you don't have to wonder if I'm shading it.

Let me ask you this. If you believe that the president was calling the white supremacists fine people do you think he also meant the other side are fine people? Meaning Antifa. Do you think the president decided to label some people in Antifa fine people? No. Do you think that he went on television and decided that as a sitting president who as far as we can tell is not crazy decided there would be a good strategy to throw in with the white supremacists on national television? No. No that never happened. It's ridiculous on its face.

And when he was asked to clarify he disavowed them in the clearest possible language. Yes it was about the statues and he probably didn't know exactly who was at the event. He knew some of the players but not all of them. And he made a standard comment that there are good people on both sides of the statue question.

Now I happen to be on the opposite side from the president on the statue question. So I'm on the side that says you know the statues are just decorations and if they're offensive well that's a bad decoration. And they're clearly offensive to a significant portion of the population. Why do you put up a decoration that's offensive? It's the worst thing. That's the worst idea in the world for a decoration.

Erasing history is wrong. Yes that's why I'm not suggesting that you change the history books. I'm not suggesting you change the internet. I'm suggesting you change your decorations. Do you ever re-curate your house? Why do you ever re-curate your house? Why not leave it the way it was for history? Do you want to change history? The changing history thing is a terrible argument. History should not be erased. Is a statue really history? Do you remember when you were in seventh grade history class and the teacher said you know we were gonna use books. We were gonna use books but instead we're just going to take you down to look at the statue because that's history. Now the statue is not history. That's a dumb argument.

A statue you know it's not history any more than everything else in the world is history, right? You can preserve all of your history without a statue. In fact I live in a town that does not have a statue. How do I learn history if statues are history? All right I think you get my point. Then put it in a museum. Then people could go look at them. Yeah I'm not sure how easy it is to move these gigantic statues to a museum but you know in principle that would be a fair thing to do.

The statue will be history when it's removed. True. If you move the statues to a different place where they could be put in context because I don't think that's offensive. You know there's such a thing as the Holocaust Museum but nobody's saying they're pro-Holocaust. Or if they are I don't want to be them. But if you move the Confederate statues to their own museum nobody's going to say you're praising slavery. They're gonna say well you put it in context. Thank you.

No one worthy of a statue in California somebody said. Well maybe I'll be the first. I hope somebody's starting to carve my statue.

There's a lot of offensive art that's offensive to somebody. Where do you draw the line? Good question. And I think there's a good standard for that. If a hundred percent of the public disliked a public decoration should you remove it? L