Some problem well pop up Joanne heroes here so quickly. Susie hello, come on in everybody. Everybody else, Joanne sincere up what's wrong with the rest of you, Ronald seven virus, Joe yeah, hey, come on in here MIKE Stephen Good, to see all of you. It's time I think you would agree for the the simultaneous up it's going to happen now.

But only if you have your mug, your chalice, your Stein, your cup, your glass and it's filled with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Now, let's enjoy the simultaneous, zip that's good stuff. Let's talk about Megyn Kelly, so Jim Kelly gets fired from her lucrative job at NBC. Because she used a term which is widely considered, racially insensitive it doesn't matter what the term was I'm not even going to talk about it because apparently the the words themselves are so offensive. That even just using them in any context and here's the key. Using those words in any context, early enough to lose your job,

here's a question I will I will accept, as as givens as fax, the following thing: the words that Megyn Kelly used are centered offensive by a large swath of the public african american public, primarily but other people as well. And the question I have is, if You don't know that the words you're using are racially insensitive. Is that the same thing is being a racist when you're talking about a crime we have a standard. This, as ignorance, is not an excuse for a crime, but that's really just a practical standard, meaning that you can't let people get. On a crime. By saying I didn't know, murder was illegal right. So you can have somebody say

that they just didn't know it was a crime and therefore they are innocent, so legal system that makes sense, Let's say you didn't know was you know that excuse, but in the real world, if you have send somebody by using some words so you didn't know was offensive should you lose your job for that I would say here's the best standard, and this is why I suggested? What I call the forty eight hour rule Forty eight hour rule says, if you say something, that's provocative or offensive, or or even just on clear and people go whoa. What did you say? that you have forty eight hours from the from the moment is pointed out that there Some problem with what you said: forty eight hours to correct or apologize.

And if you do correction apologize within forty eight hours. I believe the standard should be for the benefit of society that you're good with it. That you got the clarification you wanted, or you got the apology that you wanted this seems especially important when some we had no idea that the thing they were saying would be offensive to other people and uh, Pretty sure that the real problem is that the people who are offended believe that she knows what she was doing or that they think my God, you would have to know that even using those words anybody would know. These are these offensive words, but I submit to you, there are many words that people use that they don't know. Where offensive. I don't know, if that's obvious. If you're a member, black community, even if you're a member of any non black community. You probably know that

don't really have the same appreciation for what words are offensive and what words or not. If it's not part of your world, you just think their words. You don't know so I would propose the following standard and and let me say that I like to talk about things in terms of people's brands. You know Megyn Kelly had a brand and her brand is is quite affected by this but I would say that the way the black community has treated her is terrible for the black brand. If what's the black community wants is better relationships, and I would think everybody would want that right. Wouldn't the black community want the same thing everybody else once which is just everybody to get along. If that's what they want now, it's not the one thing they want, of course,

they would also like to not be offended. They would like to not have racism. They would like to have equal opportunity, equal everything I think most of us or all that stuff too, but if you're number of the african american Community and you're trying to make your brand be better. This worked in the wrong direction. This I think this made the brand african american brand worse, because if so really was intentionally racist and you went hard at them. I think other people would say well, they're going hard at somebody was intentionally racist. That's rare looks fair to me. It's not my problem but if you go hard as somebody who literally didn't know- and I think it's pretty obvious- that she didn't know that these were in the context you use them,

She didn't use them in every contacts used him a very specific can't there's no way there isn't the slightest chance. This she would have done that if she thought there was any chance, it could be offensive no way So when she is punished for something that no, I won't say, nobody could have known lots of people would have known I would say that personally, I would not have used those words, as I think I would have a little alarm would have gone off in my head is like. Oh, you don't even talk about that stuff, but the alarm didn't go off in her head and she was in a context in which, even if she thought bad, the She certainly wouldn't have said them on television. You could imagine what would happen to her if she could imagine how offended people would be. So I think I don't like to be a mind reader, but I like this. One is pretty clear:

that she didn't know. It was offensive. If you don't know something is offensive and you lose your job for it. We live in the wrong world, I mean there's something wrong with the way we're organized so talk about the system, not the specific, case, do you want to live in a world in which you can accidentally offend p? have no idea that your words were offensive and illusion, I can job over it black people to the extent that use Megyn Kelly losing her job for something she clearly didn't know was racist. I think that's a terrible decision, terrible for your brand that song about that people can do whatever they want to do, but it's bad for the brain. Let's talk about the bomber and let's talk

of some of the things we're hearing about the bomber. So, of course the trolls have come out for and you can tell when the trolls come out because they have. I think they have like three or four, or things that they say to me, but it's always the same. They use their own words, but it's always the same thing. So the big one is they make fun of my comic strip? in very similar ways, you can tell these are the trolls, meaning that they're organized and so that's why I'm or they just come out personally or they whatever so I've been getting getting a lot of heat for my joke that I said early on in this bombing situation. When I found out the the bomb or at least one bomb wasn't made by a master bombmaker when I saw the first bomb picture

the one that went to CNN to me. And then it didn't work To me, it was obvious these were going to be a real bombs, but I didn't really know that so as to be fair, I didn't know with one hundred percent certainty that the rest of the bombs were not real bombs, but I was pretty sure pretty sure and And since none had gone off and there was no loss of life and the bombs were just so poor we made there were silly, I had to say I made a joke and the joke was My first impression was that a republic it was behind the bombing until I found out the bombs didn't work. Now, if you have a sense of humor, you would recognize that this was just a joke. Alright, it's a joke in the local context. Obviously I was playing to the audience. It didn't mean anything. It just didn't mean anything but all of the offense shock. True,

okay ma'am. So you get all the trolls who come in and say, I am so offended. How can you make fun of a bomber? to which I say I do make fun of a bomber. I made London, somebody who can't be a bomber. I've made but it was not smart enough to be a bomber made fun of them. So that's a very different than making fun of a bomber? I would not make son of an actual terror attack. In fact, if you've watched my periscopes for any length of time you would probably know I have a pattern which is when there's a natural disaster. I don't talk about it for the first twenty four hours. Usually, I might add, I'm sure, there's some exceptions to that, but I usually just give us some time. I don't even talk about it, and but this did not look to me like the real kind of terrorism. We're

going to call it terrorism because the people who received it genuinely affected by it and that counts for something you know, there's big terrorism, nine hundred and eleven and then there's you know. My security crew saw something suspicious terrorism, which is. It's a it's a smaller level, yet still worth putting somebody in jail for So was that worthy of joking was it too soon, People were saying too soon, to which I say no wasn't too soon other people said my god? How do you know this isn't funny Could I not know that this is not funny to which I say. Did you see seven thousand retweets on this and there twenty three thousand likes there to be some large number of people in the world who

the humor is objective, meaning that if somebody says that's not funny, but that's just an objective observation like something is yellow something is green It's not funny. Funny doesn't really work. That way, funny is subjective and people who come in to tell me I'm not funny need explain why I guess only retweets white wife sold so many books, so they have to deal with that all right. Let's talk about the Conspiracy theories with the bomber. Here are some of the funniest things I've heard about the bomber and. Usually follows this form and it goes if he was if this bomb, It was really a trump supporter. How can you explain He did this thing before the midterms 'cause any any reasonable person would know

so they're doing this bombing thing before the midterms would be bad for the president that he supports. How can you explain that? Well, let me explain that he lived in a van. So, every time somebody says to you: how do explain why he would do x. Answer at the same way, he lived in a van I'll, try that again, but this time I'll, bring you in Dale Dale, oh yeah, if He'S- order. What do you explain why the stickers on the van looks sort of new. The sun from Florida would have ruined the stickers it like they were put on there recently. Well,

Is there anything else we know about this bomber? happened recently. Yes, We tried to send bombs to people. He made ten fake fake, or at least poorly made bombs that he sent people this week, I think we could make an assumption that whatever level of crazy he was two weeks ago. His crazier now, so if he did do crazy things this week We should not be surprised. One then ten bombs to people or fake bombs or badly made bombs? We don't know, so So, if the same week that he sent then bombs to people he. So put some extra stickers on his van I'm going to call that surprising, because, whatever his mental state was was obviously cresting that week,

so you should not expect to see one crazy thing that week If you only saw one crazy thing and everything else was normal I would say: you'd have some questions about that. He added a whole bunch of extra stickers to his van the same. I think that he sent bombs out I would say that's perfectly explainable by the fact that one crazy? At the last few weeks, but if you're wondering why he would make a such a bad choice as to do it before the mid terms and hurt the guy he says he supports. Let me enter eight reiterate. He lives in a van. He doesn't make good life choices if there's one thing we can say with complete certainty about Cesar the bomber he doesn't make good choices. So If your reason that you think it's a conspiracy, not a conspiracy but yeah, I guess you call it conspiracy if you think it's a false flag because some of the things this guy did don't see, lodge

call to you the way they've been explained so far. Let me say it again. He lives in a van. He doesn't make good choices, don't expect to see good choices. Alright, that's enough! I will do a small victory lap because I did say it was going to be an older, crazy old are republican. What was it that gave me the clues for this well, I'm not even sure. I know all of the things that I was picking up on. Because sometimes you just recognizing patterns- and you don't know why the other possibility is that I just got lucky. I guess the new, a fifty, eight hours either going to be a lefty or righty. So I guess right so possibility, and the reason that I make more than one prediction. The reason I've been predict for three years. Is that it's,

there's a public experiment. I talked about it in my book win Bigly, which is coming out in paperback under 30th. You should get it when what was I talking about. I just saw a funny comment there and then I lost my train of thought hum. I literally just forgot what I was talking about speaking of Oswald, so imagine Ausable, Patton Oswalt mock my joke to now. If you're, a professional comedian, Patton Oswalt and you go to Twitter to make fun of some another professional humorous joke. What the hell is that even I don't make fun of other peoples jokes, if their professional comedians

I would never go on somebody's twitter feed and tell a professional humorous that one of their jokes is not funny and they should delete it or something. What kind of professional community does that there is some kind of. You know professional ethic that I thought was somewhat understood that humorous don't make fun of somebody else is joke. You know you could do it, there's no no login step, but it always seemed in bad form to Maine. Yeah he lived in a van down by the river? That should really should expo and everything are saying what is it that I saw that made me, think it's not a conspiracy and that it was really a republic That one was the choice of Dinero.

Dinero is not the guy you choose if you tried to do a a false flag, if you were, if you were a smart, person trying to make it look like a Republican had done it. The first thing you do is you would keep it simple? Go The rule number one of a false flag is: don't get caught, This guy was not doing a good job of not getting caught, which argues against the false flag. So the first thing is. You, you probably want something to actually burn or actually blow up now you might not want to kill people so perhaps If you were doing a false flag, you would blow up a an unoccupied church, something like that. Right. 'cause you'd want to make it look, sort of violent and you'd want it to be very visual and everything, but you wouldn't want to kill anybody 'cause, it's a false flag

So if you were doing a false flag attack, you'd probably want to Not risk killing everybody and sending and fake bombs or bomb. So don't work isn't the right. Way to not kill somebody because you're scaring the very people who are on your side and if you are such a partisan, such a partisan, that you love your side and they're all good people and the other side. Let's say the Republicans are all bad people, your not going to do a false flag attack that harm your side, the almost nobody in the world is that evil right so even sending them fake bombs, EVA making their afraid of bombs is not the sort of thing to do even with a false flag attack. 'cause you like your side. And someday your side might find out, you were involved. You want at least your side to like you,

when you're done with your false flag attack. So that part, accepts Deniro was sort of he was. Side of politics and if you're going to ten bombs, the odds of getting caught are ten times the odds of getting you know of getting because sending one even a fake, false flag. Jack would know that, because if you would send one bomb, or let's say you planted one bomb and it blew up That one bomb that actually blows up is going to be way better. False flag attack then turn this poorly made that don't blow up and You got ten opportunities for getting caught on camera, ten opportunities for fingerprint on your body. False flag person, who's actually smart, does one thing and sure that nobody gets hurt all right this. I did ten things

He did hurt the Democrats 'cause it's an app tool terror attack because the the threat of it is the tear apart? so that part didn't make sense a false flag and then, when I heard them what that there was a clock on the bombs. I don't I don't think enough has been made at this point the. Meant you heard there was a led clock on the bombs You should have known they were fake, so bomb experts said: oh yeah, that's the that's! The tell for a fake bomb, they'll put a little little fake, led clock out it 'cause, that's what see on tv. So the first thing you should have known. For some reason I knew that you should have said. Oh led clock, that's That's a sign of a fake bomb and it's a sign. I have more mental problems than anything else. And here's why you should know that that was a fake bomb. No

it makes a mail bomb with a timer. 'cause, nobody knows the timing of the mail, you don't so, if your mail is going is going to get delivered today or tomorrow, now. If it's going to kill the mailman, you don't know ' and by the time you guys open for each of these people who got one. It's not going to be open by Bill Clinton. Obama isn't going to the mailbox and opening his mail. I think pretty much. Everybody knows that. So, if you can't, control when the bomb goes off and and the the timing is anytime within like a day or two good. Don't send the mail bomb. No, nobody says, a mail bomb, the timer on it. I don't I think that's ever happened so that should, in your clue that there was something just crazy going on not clever anyway,.

It seems to Maine that the people who were quite mentally committed to the idea of it being a false flag attack are still meant. We committed- and here is one of those situations where you can see what I've been talking about for LO these years since two thousand and fifteen, and that is that facts, don't matter where's my book hold on, don't go anywhere. I'll, be right back. Damn I don't have a copy of my own book. I need to cut keep a copy of my book in my office. The my book win, bigly facts, sorry, persuasion, world war, facts, don't matter, this is one of those cases did the facts. Kaiser Sosa. That is funny. Ok

So clearly, this is a case where people are not being affected by the facts: the people who believe that there's a there's that it's a false flag are being affected by the lack of proof that it isn't that which is really anything just because there's no proof it wasn't a false flag and just because you, could imagine how it would be yeah. That's not very good. Information so somebody is laughing because Caesar's Say's sack sounds like Kaiser, so so and it does, which is a funny coincidence. Let's talk about. The midterms so everybody's talking about the midterms and What will be the impact of Kavanaugh? What will be the impact of the caravan?

will be the impact of this bomber. On the bid terms, I will give you my definitive answer about how these big headlines will affect the mid term vote. Are you ready, Drum roll and the answer is they won't and won't So by now, everybody has made up their mind now. If you ask people And you said to them: hey Have you made up your mind who you're voting for you might be able to find people who said? Oh, you know not yet if I'm going to vote, but they had made up their mind at this point, this close to the election. Rarely much everybody is made up their mind so anything

what happens in the headlines or has happened in the headlines last few months. Anything like that is is going to make no difference there. There will be what I call the fake, because there will Maybe people who say that x change their mind but they will just be using those as excuses for things they were going to do anyway. So this you can stop asking. Will the headlines change the result in the midterms the How people vote is locked in at this point. They don't change their minds at this late stage, but there's might be a slight difference in how much energy each team has and how many people get off the couch and go vote.

I would say that people are going to be somewhat exhausted by the actual election day. Then, by exhausted I mean they're going to be exhausted by the news that The news is just coming so fast and furiously that none of the stories are gonna really be the motivating thing you're saying: His Kavanaugh, but honestly then a few weeks, and I think we're almost over it in terms of Nrg. So in a world in which we thought we were all energized, it looks like both, guys were highly energized, and probably that will remain highly energized more than prior elections. So I think, this might be the most, guys election will ever have. But within that context, if there's nothing there, the brand new energizer.

We're all going to be dealing with, the energy, that we have right now, of writing. This until election day seems to me Republicans, are just going to be a little bit more likely to do what needs to be done. So my prediction I will, I will keep with the Republican turn out, will be jaw dropping the Democrat. The Democrats will have also very high turning out which also might be a might also be some kind of record, but I think the Republican turn out is just going to be insane. That's what I think compared to other years So we'll see now the actual where it falls down to my guess, is it's going to be someplace closer to close another words? I don't think it's going to be a blowout in either direction. I think

will be no waves, which way to go, but I think it's going be kind tight. To say the Senate will stay republican? I have no reason to disagree. I don't follow specific races. All wow. So what else is going on? That's about it so that about it so there has been kind of a split in the Republican Party over this bomber. Apparently there have been a number of well known, conservative voices who have said at least early on, they said that they thought it might be a false flag. I believe rush may have said something about that. There was story of NBC about how I'm going to pc dot com about how

people like Maine, we're saying it wasn't a false flag and other people were saying it was so I tweeted that out. Yeah I was, I was wondering if the bomber guy his training in Saudi Arabia 'cause, it looks like sort of that kind of a caper. If you know what I mean didn't workout so well Stock Exchange, somebody is asking: what are you asking about Caravan making it to the border will it change things? I suspect it won't change things. I think the the caravan story is a strange one, because it means It means a different thing to everybody uh, if it a different thing to everybody. I don't know that we'll have that much of an impact. My guess is that My guess is that it will not turn

Violent, I sure hope so I hope it doesn't turn violent, but I'm pretty sure the president's going to stop it. I don't think he has any choice really and one of the questions that interest me, because I just don't I don't know enough of. I don't know enough about the topics around this question, but if the Us Army is, allowed to do its thing on american soil, and I guess that's the law. So they are regular military can't use arms and weapons in the United States. I don't know if there are some exceptions there. I guess. If we get attacked it would be section of, but we can use the military in other countries and we don't have to ask

So the permission of the other countries, if it's an emergency right like if we get attacked, we didn't have to ask Afghanistan for for approval or a rack for approval. We did what we do is there anything that would stop us from invading Mexico? by invading I mean just go one mile in or something to meet the to meet so caravan so that our military needs them, but we're meeting them safely. With. Maybe some water and You know we're not trying to kill, but just often and Could we do that on mexican soil The problem would be. It would be invading Mexico, what the hell Mexico do about it. I don't anything they're not going to attack the United States because we went one mile into their territory to stop a caravan.

Now: here's where the diplomacy in the politics of it all. I don't have any appreciation for so I assuming there's some. Stupid reason not stupid but I'm assuming there's a good reason why we shouldn't do that I'll bet, there's a very Good reason that we should not send our military one mile into Mexico so that they could operate freely outside of our border. I don't know what that reason is. But if so, It has one. Let me know now part of the explanation, that it's not even controlled by Mexico. The mexican government doesn't control their border. I don't know You knew this, but we learned this recently and it's the cartels. So the government of Mexico doesn't even operate on their own border. At least not functionally is the cartel who operates the governments on the border, the government entities.

On the border, so even though we would be attacking in being Mexico? Technically, if we were, let's say one mile into the territory, we'd really just being cartel territory. It's not even. Territory, that's owned or controlled by the mexican government. So what do you call? What do you call territory this not owned by Mexico? Isn't Mexico then? The other question I wondered is if the car, Those are functionally running big parts of Mexico? Maybe not Mexico. Maybe maybe not some parts of the federal government, but only. The cartels are the the management. You know the management of Mexico for practical purposes looks to be at least for a big part of Mexico, the cartels. So cartel is the government of Mexico

and the United States could find some way to tax the cartels. We could pay for a wall and I don't think the cartel would care because about the wall anyway, 'cause it doesn't stop him from doing anything I hate to tell you, but the wall is it going to stop any drugs from coming in um. Apparently, virtually all of the drugs come in through the legal crossings that are just you know, they're, hidden in tail pipes and stuff, like that. So so we have at least a non zero chance that the Us Army could confront the cartels directly on on the mexican side of the border and

I don't know what the cartels would do if they're smart, they would just pull back for awhile. So what if we could just permanently occupy of his own, the mexican side of the border. We would want us all a lot of problems if we just permanently occupied the mexican side of the border. I had I I don't know what the problem is really. Obviously the the mexican government would complain, but complaining: they would have to admit that they don't control the border. How are the mexican government explained that the US, to invade, because Mexico doesn't actually manage their own bear border territory. The cartels. Do What would that conversation? Look like it's kind of awkward

uh! So anyway, this is not a recommendation. So I'm not! I don't know enough about any of this topic for me to say that this is a good idea, but I'll put it out there I'd like to know why it's not a good idea. There may be a perfectly good reason and. I'll be embarrassed. When I hear it- and somebody will say- oh Scott, you forgot about x or y. That's why we can't do that. Two which I would say. Oh yeah, good point. I change my opinion But I haven't heard any reason that we can't just walk on the side of the wall and do whatever we want. That's legal and ethical and safe. We already have assets in the caravan, maybe somebody suggested here that the

Us government already has spies. If you will within the caravan. I wonder if that's true, if it's not true, we probably should have tried to put a few informants in there. It does seem likely. We would have thought of that right. So I wonder if we do it no more about them than we say better to legalize the drugs. Is there any reason we don't do a local drug legalization trial? Can you people say to me Scott, I'm going to tell the story the way President Trump tells a story. I saw somebody on the internet and whose name is Dale, which is funny talk about the President, having sir,

stories. You know where, where he tells story story, they will say that somebody came to him came to President Trump as used the story will say so. They came to me and they said Sir, can we do yes and then I said this. So all told of the lessons of your tell sir story there anyway. So here's my question, I Why I brought that up? Is there any reason? Here's why because people come to me and they say sir, they don't say that. But it sounds funny when you talk about that so people come to me on the internet and they say Sir uh, why do you support President no matter what he does, no matter what he does to which I say I don't do that years. Old, to the page. I wrote about it all the things I disagree here,

here's my long list of things I don't like it on. I can like some stuff and dislike others But one of the things that I'm uh, I would consider a weakness of the Trump administration, so this is a pure criticism. What follows is that if you can test something small. You should do it. If somebody has a good idea and Anna good reason that it would work but you don't want to roll it out, for the whole country there's no reason in the world to not try a small tried in one city, one town, one county. So why don't we try? Drug legalization in one place. And just let it run for a year. Let us know how it went it's either going to work or not work, and not working isn't Will look a lot different than working. I'm sorry now

working is not going to look a lot different than if we had done nothing. So if we do small trial where we allow addicts to have legal, safe doses may be supervised they're working on getting off their addiction? If we were to do that and it didn't work. We just did it in one city. We gave them free drugs, we made sure they were not the the bad doses they get. You killed. The worst that can happen, is the attics have a safer supply of drugs and then they say: don't get off of drugs, or some That's the worst case the, K scenario is that there a little bit safer than they would have been. That's the worst. Now in that situation, where the worst case scenario has first of all already been tried Portugal, for example, and has been successful-

and you could absolutely try it small, there's nothing! Stopping you from doing this. Nothing you've got resources you got people willing to do it. You've got lots of x, who say it's a good idea in the that situation, if you're not trying it small you're, failing right, you're. Failing so say this is clearly as possible. The Trump administration on this question is failing, because this this test should be running right now, so that we could at least know whether it works. We don't have to decide to do. We don't have to decide to make it national. Absolutely should be doing that and it should be. We should be focusing on it, etcetera. So that's a criticism and I think that's a big one as one I care about

So if you come after after me saying that I never disagree with the president. Well, here's a case. I absolutely disagree with not having small trials all right- the one city trial won't stop the cartels, though the ones the trial, would not be an attempt to stop the cartels. It would simply be test the idea that you could reduce overdoses by. Giving people a legal supervised supply of the drug. During the time they're also trying to figure out how to get off at perhaps maybe you're putting once a box in which helps them get off, but the biggest problem was a box and it is supervision making sure they take it on time and the right doses stuff. So you could tell

of RON Paul suggested this awhile ago and he's right. I don't know if you suggested testing a small. That's specifically what I'm talking about. Thoughts on Obama's speech, totally uninterested, is it just me or is is Obama just no longer interesting. He used to be interesting. Not a criticism, I'm not criticizing Obama, it's just that our new age, the age of, he is so interesting, like him he is really interesting. That Obama who used to be one of the most interesting people in the world just so

it went down a level in being interesting. Uh up, it's not a good solution, one drug to another. I don't know what you're talking about if the drug addiction folks use suboxone to get you off the other opioids, because it's easier to taper off this box and then it is to taper off opioids. That's the simple explanation, and a lot of detail all right- I don't have much else to say so. I'm gonna sign off for now. I would say we should expect a lot of new news. This week is going to be new stuff New news coming up I'll talk to you later,