ie Horton ad, which I think is less ambiguous. The Willie Horton ad was pretty racist. It's hard to defend that. And here's why the Willie Horton ad was racist. Because of all the criminals in the world, did you have to pick the black guy? Now I understand that this particular criminal had an especially bad record so he was extra scary. But I don't think anybody's believing that he was randomly picked and he just happened to be black. I'm sure there were plenty of white criminals that they could have picked from. So the Willie Horton ad, certainly all of your antennas should have gone up and you should say, well why'd you pick the black guy? Okay, a little hard to defend although I'm sure they did defend it by saying he's a real person, we didn't make it up. But still doesn't feel right.

Now let's compare that to the border question. What type of people are coming across the border? People who live below the border. The people who are coming across the border, whether they be awesome people, which I think most of them actually are, I'm actually quite pro-immigrant from an emotional, you know, just a human level. I'm very pro-immigrant. From a systems perspective you have to have good systems to have a good country and good outcomes. It gets more complicated. But is it true that with all those people coming in some of them would be criminals? That feels unambiguously true.

Did the ad that neither Fox nor CNN would run, because the impression it gave, did they have an option of showing people who did not live south of the border? Not really. This is almost exactly the opposite of the Willie Horton situation. Showing the people who are essentially 100 percent of the people coming across the border are people who live across the border. Those are the only people who can come in illegally from south of the border are people who live south of the border. So showing somebody in particular, and you know this particular cop-killer that they showed was a horrible person, but in the context of a campaign ad, the whole point of a campaign ad is not to show an accurate picture of the world. None of them do that. They're trying to show the worst case scary picture. That's what all political commercials do. They're all complete, some are worse than others, but they're all that's what they are.

So showing that there is danger coming from below the border is typical campaign stuff, making you more afraid of something than you should be. What do the Democrats do in their campaign ads? Well the Democrats make you afraid of your citizens that are in the same country. So the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the Republican ads are demonizing people who don't live in the country and are trying to get in illegally. They're not demonizing people who are coming in legally no matter what they look like. Have you ever seen a Republican campaign ad that demonized people who are legally in the country? Not in recent time. I can't think of one. Probably not since, you know, I can't even think of one. Has that ever happened?

So both sides are demonizing a portion of the human population. The Democrats are demonizing Republicans, calling essentially painting them all as ignorant racists who are dangerous, literally dangerous. And the Republicans are portraying the illegal immigration being especially dangerous. Now both of them are exaggerating because it's a political context. So you have to put it in context that it's, you know, they're both exaggerating.

So the enemy of the people has now created this fake narrative which causes people like Antifa to feel comfortable camping out on Tucker Carlson's doorstep and terrorizing whoever was inside, which happened to be his wife. And I asked in a tweet, I asked the following question: Has anybody asked Don Lemon, I just picked him as one of the enemy of the people, has anybody asked Don Lemon if he feels responsible for Antifa showing up on Tucker Carlson's doorstep? Because what they were complaining about Tucker, their complaints were right off of CNN. It's like they just took the CNN talking points, put on masks and walked up to Tucker's door.

Now how you feel about all of this depends on how you feel about the base claim, which is that the people are or are not racists. Because you would feel perhaps less empathy for somebody who was straight-up racist. You know, maybe you'd care less. But Tucker Carlson clearly is not that. I mean he couldn't have a more public record. You know, if you want to check his record it's all there. He writes a lot. He's on TV a lot. You can look at it yourself. They need to just produce one clip, one piece of writing, any evidence of their claim and then maybe we could talk about it. But I haven't seen that. Instead we see that the enemy of the people have hypnotized half the country, including Antifa, to think that there are monsters among us and that they appear on Fox News.

Yes, I was. Pen click. You heard. So let me say again that I think the temperature of the public probably went down a little. I'm talking about the average public that isn't even watching news necessarily, just the average public. I think when Democrats won the House one of the three legs of the Trump criticisms just disappeared. One of those legs was that Trump was a dictator and that he was going to run roughshod over the rest of the government. Well now that the House is owned by the Democrats, one of the biggest three things you're worried about just sort of went away. It was never true and they're not really realizing that it was never true. But the fact that it went away so easily, meaning that the president said congratulations and I think I can work with Nancy Pelosi. He didn't say let's overturn the result, let's ignore Congress. He said let's see if we can work together. That's exactly what happened. So that went away.

And at the same time I talked about how the president was so public during all of his rallies, doing an 87-minute public press conference covering all kinds of topics. And in none of that did he look mentally deranged. That's the wrong word. And none of that did he look like he had some kind of a mental problem, which was the other leg of the stool. So that's two legs that just got kicked out of the stool. Three if you count the Russia probe. You know this stool has, you know, multiple legs as many legs as my analogy wants it to have. And all that's left is imagining what's in the president's head. Think about it. All of the complaints that they had about the president that were fact-based are being disproven.

All right. So one of the fact-based predictions about this president is that he would be bad for the economy. Well then now the facts have clearly shown that the economy is thriving under President Trump. You could still argue about who gets how much credit and that sort of thing. But you can't argue anymore that he's bad for the ec