ld look like we'd be in a depression. We'd be in a nuclear war. There would be prison camps for anybody who wasn't white. And we'd have an insane Russian puppet as our Tsar president.

How many of those things happened? Zero. Not only not even close, right? Nothing even suggestive of that direction happened. Instead what do we have in 2019? So in 2019 if Democrats are right about everything they believe, let's say the Democrats starting today have a certain set of beliefs, let's say they're all true. In 2016 that would have meant nuclear war, depressions and all that. Today if everything the Democrats think about this president is true it would mean that the president is guilty of almost impeding a witch hunt on a crime that didn't exist. But he didn't. He almost but didn't impede an investigation into a witch hunt. That is literally the worst case scenario.

Now have they noticed that their worst case scenario went from the zombie apocalypse, you know nuclear war and starvation and prison camps? Have they noticed that that has gone down the hoax funnel? You know this hoax funnel idea. The big lie, nuclear war, the big lie, depression, he's a Russian puppet. And they've all been reduced to well what about his personality? What about the moral fiber of the country? Hey he's told ten thousand lies that for some reason have made no difference whatsoever but he's got that funny haircut. And the funnel just gets smaller and smaller until they just are asking questions.

So no longer are we talking about the 25th Amendment. No longer are we talking about Russia collusion unless we're crazy. No longer are we talking about a weak economy unless we're blind and stupid. No longer are we talking about prison camps because it was freaking stupid from day one and that was just extra stupid. We're talking about his personality. Maybe he says mean tweets. That's it.

So that's pretty good news. But here are some of the things that people are seriously arguing in the political realm as if these are the important points of the day. All right, and maybe you can add some more. So think about some more and put them in the comments. Here are some things that people are arguing about. Who was he referring to when he said fine people? Compared to nuclear war, depression, prison camps. Wait a minute, what did he mean by those words? Different, right?

Another thing is he keeps, the president keeps saying he's exonerated but Mueller says there's just not enough. There's no, there's not evidence to say he colluded. Well you're sort of arguing about the definition of words. And yes the president is overclaiming what it means to have no evidence. Lack of evidence is not proof of no. But we do live in a country in which the presumption of innocence should be the guiding principle. So for the president to say he's exonerated when somebody's looked at it, thirty five million dollars, several years, I can't find a freaking thing, I don't think that's too far wrong.

It's wrong like it's technically absolutely untrue that the president was exonerated but is it really wrong? Is it really? I mean all we're arguing about is that the biggest arguments we have... my contribution to the argument would be really is that what those words mean? It's not nuclear war. It's not a Holocaust. It's just a word. He's using a word wrong. My God, his semantics. How will the Republic survive his different use of words?

Here's another one. Is it obstruction or not? And then there was the argument with, I guess Kamala Harris was grilling Barr at the testimony and Barr was wondering about the question of suggest. And she said did the president suggest that you do whatever. And Barr's like well I don't know, I have a problem with the word suggest. And I'm thinking that's our biggest problem. We're literally talking about words now.

Got a couple of other updates on climate. All good news, sort of, if you want to believe it. It's all good news. Number one we're seeing the term Green New Deal more places. Michael Medved used the term in an article. So this is another success for the people who have been an advocate for people understanding that nuclear is really the only solution that we know to any kind of climate risk. And it wouldn't even matter if you have climate risk. It's still the only thing you should be doing energy wise. Not the only thing you should be doing. You should be doing it hard no matter what you think about the climate because we need the energy. It's good for the world. It helps poor people emerge. Electricity basically takes people out of poverty. So that's good.

And also I believe China's doing some stuff with some plants. And I saw... I asked for an estimate for how many of the generation 3 nuclear sites, these are the kinds that understand France is mostly or all generation 3. We have a few of those I think planned in this country. And the total number of generation 3 nuclear sites who have been around for 20 years or so, the total number of them that have had a meltdown event, what do you think the number is? Because there are a lot of them. All right there are a lot of them around the world. How many do you think have had a meltdown event? The generation 3? Yeah zero. Exactly zero.

And that's what Michael Shellenberger was saying. That you don't need to wait for the exotics. You know the generation 4 which if you did everything right would be even safer because they would be designed so meltdown wasn't even an option. You know as opposed to designed to prevent it. That's a slight difference. One is designed to prevent something which is technically possible. Generation 4 if it ever became practical and economical would make it not even something that could happen even if everything went wrong.

But still apparently we've gone far enough on the learning curve that nuclear generation 3 is being built in this country. There are a few being planned already in the process. And on top of that apparently AOC and others, there was some congressional testimony I don't know all the details in which there were experts who came in and talked about climate change. And one of the experts was a statistician who essentially blew holes in the climate change alarmist view.

Now I can't remember his name but I tweeted it so if you look at my tweets... let's see let me see if I can find his name. I want to give him credit. Bear with me, talk among yourselves. Yeah he's a skeptical science scientist. And now I don't want to say that I'm promoting the point of view of the people I'm talking about because I'm not. I'm just gonna tell you what they talked about and then you can make your own judgments. All right it's Dr. Caleb Rossiter.

And his money quote is that we're trying to save the people of the planet from the people saving the planet. So his basic thesis is that carbon and warming have only been good, net and very good for the world so far. And that statistically speaking there is not evidence that the CO2 increases that we'v