Bump bump bump bump bump upon everybody I'll, try you my new microphone on a different device that wasn't working before So if we have any technical difficulties, don't say I didn't want you, but if we get, if we get kicked off this periscope I'll just come back with a different device so good morning I am here you're here to enjoy the simultaneous up. Please join me raise your mouth. You got your glass, your challenge, your time here. If you will fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee and join me for the cycle thing you

Well, as many of you know, by now sixty minutes, the woman, like all our bureau, S, Went on and said that the president was Definitely racist sending soon secret racist messages. I'm so I to stop calling her a cozy and I'm gonna go with our PMS. Part of our Pia peel essence, racist issues decided to go for racist. love, you ask me Scott, no you wanna be to be our pos, not our pos S? Why? Because crap is not as provocatively ship so

here's what I suggest. So a lot of people would ask these got. What is the persuasion response to our appeal s, And I've been saying well now She can do in Europe I haven't really engaged in that it. All. A lot of people have come up with clever nickname. For, like I see one going by on the comments. Occasional cortex. But here is my furious. My first persuasion advice. If you call RPF S. Stupid it has no persuasive power the most important thing I can tell you. Calling her stupid or ignorant. or uninformed, no persuasive power? Do you know why? Because the people who follow her agree with what she says.

You can't diminish your power by calling her stupid when the thing she says are in complete agreement with the Russia's primarily trying to to guarantee so the calling or stupid bar it just will never get any traction. Keep in mind that the Democrats called President Trump You stupid for three years right in front of us. They said is a grand even pay attention to the details. Did it make any difference to you if you are a transit, and then he heard the other side's say that his ideas are stupid. I go it's stupid to have a fence or a wall. Oh it's stupid. To cut taxes, do they have any impact on EU none so stop Collyer, stupid,

unless you just talking, if you just communicating with a friend or something that is your opinion, that's fine, but if you're trying to persuade stupid gets you know it's completely. But here is something that might not be so Here's a question I asked directly If I were in the media and she's gonna get interviewed a lot, All of the people would have. You were gonna, be other team, so there will be opportunities for USA, unfriendly and viewers interviewer. I think she'll problem, go for that. She probably won't just limited range of views to one side, although obviously should favour them.

and here is the question I asked, I would ask her: if given her tax preferences and climate change ideas and centre green green ideas, does she favoured a transfer of wealth from why an asian Americans to other other ethnicities. That's that's the question that has to be asked Asker directly directly. Do you favour a transfer of wealth from white and asian Americans. Two other ethnic groups, I want to hear the answer to the question: do you. because she's gone full races now and now, And now it's on the table now before she called President Trump, a racist.

I was a race wasn't in the question, and I would if I would have stayed, way from others well- and I think you ve noticed right- I've talked about our view- s going to bed And I've never ventured razor. But whatever springs was issue. Wasn't that person another she is sort of revealed herself to be race, centric, fairly deliberate, unconscious way. Then I think the question is fair, so it's like a court. Where is the other side brings up a topic than you can ask questions about it and I think that's a question. So, does you favour transfer of wealth.

wait an Asian Americans to other routes and have you answer the question if you're Europe, if you're republican, is an easy question, I know now, I would not, I will not prefer any policies, the transfer wealth based on ethnicity. That would not be a good idea, but it's gonna become too hard for. was about this story about you. Gonna have to help me with the facts, because I'm unprepared, who is the was an especial Forces guy who's being charged with murder regular Eu Isis fighter in a way that is considered inappropriate. Barely what exactly what branches service was you wasn't marine? He is a special forces.

so the first time I heard this story, I said Molly, Well, this is an easy one or seal so many things, so a seal and killed. Kill them ISIS prisoner or allowed in these alleged to let the prisoner go and then kill them or something, and when I first heard that I thought I thought showing ices sourdough. We hired him to do in life, Priscilla was even if the circle. This is a little gray. I would definitely favour the zeal, any grey area and all or even if he killed this prisoner. releasing on knowing that, prisoner would become dangerous and kill more people on our side, Even if you sort of cross the line a little bit and kills.

But he was himself, a killer was likely to kill you, I was going to say. I think rather sign with seal. But then I heard yesterday that. Turned in by other seals, so in other words It was the other seals who said he crossed the line, it's not really a question between the seal that I love and respect it is that I wanted dead. my dear how added seal on seal grime, we're accusation. So that change entirely kill, jealousy ethics, and I think that the only thing that can be changed. My mind was that the other. for seals were the ones who said this cross the line and I think, from their perspective they probably

wrists, I haven't heard of yet, but I am glad to say that we should take seriously now wait if of course way for the evidence command, but take it very seriously now scares me: I will be on David Brachmans show later this morning and I think he's gonna be divided into two parts of the sum that is tomorrow,

If you dont know David Pachmann, his broadcasters popular and he's super super aunt, I tramper we're going to be talking about all the usual stuff, so you might want to catch them. Do that recorded at sea? I guess it would be noon eastern time, but I'm not sure exactly when it airs national frontiers lie ever escaped. But anyway, look for that day. Pachmann Ba K and I M p o k of upside David backing. Be a k, a man. Now, let's talk about, I'm taking you I've taking you wanna journey the climate, the topic except I'm not taking the position there either stake in others, generally thee.

The alarm aside and undersea deny Besides, I'm not on either side and the angle that I'm taking on this, as a psychological phenomenon, Sancho to study. What is stupid on both sides and what makes sense on both sides and I'm going to try to see, If there is any way we can get you anything even close to Reasonable opinion, given the information is available. here's what I found so from the first. I can say with Confidence- is that the people who tell me you should do your own research on climate change in other. Has it all go? Look for yourself. You will come to a clear conclusion People are the wrong as people of all. So, if anybody says a citizen who is it was an educator person whose really committed to

researching and on their own can get to the bottom of it by looking over the public sources. That's not a thing I know because I ve been doing this for weeks so for weeks, I've been looking into it and you can't get to the bottom. What you can do is convince yourself. You got to the bottom of it, You can do in the way you can do is follow either of the silence. If you, if you read mostly the I'm a scientist majority opinion is completely persuasive. as long as you ignore the other side. But if you say I spend fibres on the other side and see what the sceptics say you gonna walk wasting issued. The sceptics are exactly as persuasive, Exactly they are just as persuasive, which is different from being true right

persuasion, wise identical, let me tell you how generally goes serve you Searching rally round, it goes like this, Once I exclaimed ay and you say yourself: ok, if they're making claim a to see what the other side says about money. Really. Besides they say, oh claim a is false and here's my chart show you this false. What do you do with it? I can't go. Look at the measures devices. I can't go to the satellites and find out for myself. What do I do it? I've got to authoritative people shown me to charge that are just opposite one. And you said yourself, scott- you Idiot just go look at the public sources, you can see where they got their data. If it came from

Already at source such as NASA or you know that the IPCC or something like that. Then you believe it and if it came from somewhere else, don't believe it and I think that's a good idea I'll find out if the resources they use the same source, they use the same source and produce completely different charts. What am I supposed to do with it?. I can't tell which one is right: it's the same african sources, no part of it is that deniers. Like The people were not alarmed lest they like satellite data would apparently measures. The upper troposphere. But I say how good is that as apparently, ninety percent of the warming happens in the ocean. Are you telling me.

There are some weight in space can read the temperature below the depths of the ocean. In a way that so accurate, we can tell us if the temperature is going up by a degree in ten years or whatever it is. I just don't believe that. No, yes, the argument is numbered on measuring the ocean. But if you measure the upper troposphere- the least tell you things are getting warmer or cooler without directly measuring the ocean. So I say: ok, let's say that's true and again notice how quickly I get out of my death, which is my entire point, there is no such thing as a well informed, educated citizen trying to get to the bottom of climate change is just another thing, And I M showing you: how is another thing by walking through this, so the lemme give you my perfect museum,

MIT climate experts, legacies recently resigned, but Richard Linz. Now. If you dont know MIT is the smartest of the smart when it comes to science in this case Maybe the world, if you can go to MIT you're one of the smartest people in the world. If you can be professor at MIT you're, really one of the smartest people in the world. This professor worked in exactly the area that they study climate, so one of the smartest people in the world at the highest level, credential MIT, etc. So that's his qualification. I'm watching a video of one of the twelve money when my twitter followers and me said: look it minute. Twenty five in the city and there's Richard Linden and

I have criticised him for an earlier video. He did on you where I said: he ignored the primary claim of climbed the signs of the majority. I am very pleased that the rate of increase not just that it's getting warmer, that doesn't mean climates, always change. So if it were just getting warmer, nobody would care- or at least they wouldn't be carried about co2, but the fact that is going up in a high rate. I said because Richard Limbs and ignored that he he's not credible, does ignore the primary Clinton and then somebody showed me a video where you did address directly and I thought ok, that's now that's back on persuasive territory! if you dont, addressed the primary claim the rate of increase. You got enough as a critic And so he shows this is a Richard shoulda yours,

the eleven, giving a presentation and he shows on his field on his chart, the the hockey stick claim with the temperatures, and then he puts next to it the curve. For nineteen nineteen to nineteen forty and it's the same. nineteen, nineteen to nineteen forty, the sealed From humans was, of course, much different, and what we have in modern times. So if it's true at the rate of increase between nineteen nineteen, nineteen, forty, Was the same as our reason increase? If that's true and co2 wasn't much faster than doesn't that completely disprove the primary claim a plebiscite, and the answer is only if you stop

so again, no matter how deep you go, it's turtle all the way down. So if, if I stopped, research. There is an ok, the main clay, It goes up like this and now here's a perfect Example. Where is reason enough that we're pretty confident about the measurements of the temperature has happened before with whether what, without the ceo to being much of a factor we're done, right. The entire argument is over. If you stop there, but is also rebuttal Two why there used to be a curve and now there's a curve and were now co2, but we didn't plainly before Kennedy glow. Our people explain that, and the answer is of course they can.

Have I heard the explanation not yet but gear and fuckin, do you I'm sorry? I guarantee you, I guarantee you. They can answer that. I just over. The answer is and if they answered it. I guarantee you that Richard lives and would say they got the wrong and hears why and if he said that I guarantee you, the climate scientists would say no, Criticising goes wrong and hears why you can't get to the bottom? there is no bottom on this well, and I promise you that true now, here's another interesting things.

And again, I am only going to be talking about the persuasiveness of the argument, because the science on it, the truth of it, is impenetrable, even if you try really hard and here's some other things. So apparently one of the Problems with Michael Man's theory, the hockey stick curve. Is that There were some older data and I think it might have been the some earlier period that had to be explained anomalous earlier period. If he couldn't explain it, then his theory the bank. But if you can find a way to explain it, then his theory would we would state and the way you found. Then again, I may have this wrong serve Michael man hears about this or somebody you noses work hears about it. I would invite you to correct me on this point

Because I'm a bow, I think I'm seventy five percent sure I'm right about this, but I need a fact check on this. I believe that he used tree rings to confirm his, In other words, he looked at the rings on old growth trees any determine that they were consistent with is with you. Syria and that that was sort of like a big point. He got. Those three rings right then agreed with this theory. Now we have now is inconsistent and the best is consistent in the current he's got a nice consistent reason for his curve. and then I read this morning that each rearing experts, Said he was wrong. My commands, a climate expert, but there are also apparently such a such things as you

treaty ring experts. The tree ring experts said that's it whenever this clever things and it was just wrong. So here's my question is allegedly ninety. Seven percent of climate scientists agree and that being something now, of course I do. Biggest ninety seven percent, plus a majority if the majority Grady in science that that has some weight doesn't mean it is true that can be wrong, but as wait, you you have to take them seriously.

But don't we also thank you seriously. If twenty two triggering experts tell the climate or just gonna run that matters, does it there's a great ascendancy review this far from our second technical talks about this situation? So there's something about it range being off by a year, will you please I quoted? Maybe I heard is by using these simple model of tree rating growth. There simulates artificial records. so far. You know that means I use so much,

They are usually simple model of triggering growth. The simulation artificial records, in other words, he used. The simulation too, elevate simulation. Does that sound reliable? Maybe it is another scientist, but if you tell me- somebody use the simulation to validate the problem with their simulation maybe we could ask some questions another says man and his colleagues spend the taking into account. Taking this into account could produce hypothetical reconstructions than better match the climate model of religions. so he felt he could can make a simulation. The the row chronology us. These are the people who were the experts, interference. Many,

then drew chronology to compile these triggering wreckers took offence to the eye. they had noticed such? An error in their field, so in other words Michael man alleges that major scientific breakthrough of enormous importance in the field of tree rings. There was both, he had all the expert on three rings: hadn't yet noticed possible. If you certainly also made a huge breakthrough in climate, Why would we be smart enough to make a huge breakthrough in three rings. clear, rule that out right, but I would note that one we're talking about the science of climate being settled that the gender chronology is made.

Agree that information either there scientists right their exports, so at least the triggering people have This agreement with one of the main supports and climate change, so so many. The bedroom criminologists treating people who can vial streaming. Wreckers took offence to the idea that they hadn't noticed such an important there after all researchers always cross checking tree ring wreckers with other tree other trees in the area to look for issues like skipped rings and growth variation between individual trees. Twenty three of those scientists submitted a comment to nature GEO science about the man Fuentes Rutherford Paper. In it they outline what they found was on the method, the paper, and then they go onto the question it. So

My question is the tree. Ring people don't agree with the primary foundation of the micro man grass, and they are scientists Can you say that it so because this article is its true sounds says credible? The articles would say now. What was stand. Climate change change the topical now keep in mind that one of the things on looking for as I'm studying this term. All the way down on climate change isn't working for any one thing. You can look at and say: ok if this is true, then what the climate scientists saying is probably also true, but, as is false, there Certainly wrong: why is there This sort of one thing that you could go to

and I will say one of the one things would be Richard Lindens graph. The says that the rate of increase were c is common and it's happened before Co2 is a big problem. Is that true? Why can't we find out? If that's true, it seems like that would be something that we can do tat. But then I ran into this argument, so apparently the satellite images show a extended period recently, where there is there's a plateau. Norman, I think, is seventeen year pause. now the pause appears to be in these satellite data again on open to all fact checking on this, so that the satellite checks, the upper chopper, the lower troposphere so is taking atmosphere for temperatures, not checking the ocean and it's not your land,

according to that those seventeen year pause. What do the climate experts say? explains a seventy in your paws. While Co2 is going up and see it it was the main driver of climate. What is an explanation for the pause? Do they say satellites campaigns, your stuff? I don't do this do it or do they say I'll. Tell you what they say they say. The seventeen years is a long enough to determine just this. Let that let their silken forward while so the one of the ways that ie satellite measured seventy applause in temperature is increasing, as is explained

The seventeen years is a long enough to get the full trend need something closer to thirty. young thirty would be candid convincing. So if you're looking the average of this thirty years this thirty years, this thirty years the need to draw a line that was pretty good, but they seventeen year period, you might have some anomalies. Let's say that's true, why is the most. common thing. You hear about climate change, the most. Common argument. You here for climate change, is wait for it that the temperature has gone up precipitously in the last seventeen years, making up seventy But we're talking about recent years so whether you say that ten years of the recent twenty years, is all the same argument. The entire climate change argument.

Sort of predicated on the fact that what we are seeing in our recent ten years is telling us something very important. At the same time,. Their explaining way the satellite pause in temperature for seventeen years. I say this not long enough to really say anything. You have to look at bigger periods, so they can both be right right now, again, let me go My context, my contacts is not that I'm giving you good information about climate scientists, because I know what s happening you should not take anything I say is good information and climate for sure, I'm coming at it as a concern citizen, whose legitimately trying to figure out what's going on so that I can contribute to the ear the political direction, I guess- and I can't get to the bottom of it and I cannot form an opinion with the information that I have and

These are the reasons, so Here's what I love to be an outcome of this unless an outcome to be boils down to Lucy. Let's say six good skeptical claims. I don't, have the six yet, but I'm starting to form if you could boil down to just six good skeptical claims, instead of the twenty five or fifty Here all the time and imagine that the climate experts suppose they could explain away in satisfying way the sixth strong claims. Would you be willing to say that the twenty five other claims you have weaker, maybe don't mean how much would you be willing to do that? And likewise, if the is the experts can't explain the you

The top three or top six or let's say they can all explained three of the top six claims. If you have three strong skeptical claims they can withstand the best challenge from the scientists. That would mean something with it. They will means not a subtle science. you think, and I don't know which way would end up. I don't have a prediction right now. I suspect that the climate scientists could explain all the sceptical things if you give them time to do it and if they were interested in doing what I think we can get Down to a few claims that the strong ones now, let me give you an example of a weak claim. Others there's a claim that all of this climate stuff is really

scam and the reason for the scam is that other globalists who are using it as a smokescreen to transfer a wealth from, I guess, rich people to poor people? is that the transfer to have that right so as there is a global as scheme and that the whole climate stuff is completely Meda. Now, if you do that the dumbest opinions. Without one doesn't pass any snifters baby. Here's was wrong that, in order for that to be the case that climate change is nothing but a clever all of the scientists working on it would have to be. Somebody says the IPCC admitted Well, I've seen a meme in which the picture of a guy I dont know is is

because, when you put words on top of it- and so they put words on top of, it appeared to be a quote from him, saying that that's what they're all about. Maybe you see the two Do you know that those who usually just paid up is either Anna contacts remain up or made up or he's just a It is very likely that the IPCC said that, and I know you have a source- Are you gonna send me source? That's a quote taken out of context. You can send me a video of somebody saying it with full context. I'm not gonna believe that's true, because its is ridiculous on the surface and is ridiculous. All the way down the scientists working on climate change are not doing. Their job satisfy a secret cabal of people. Cleverly running the world through a face game called the climate escape climate change.

Al Gore is not part of a secret, clever plan to get something else done by my clingy. That's the dumbest opinion on climate and elderly, there are alot of dumb opinions on climate. Let me give you another one. use another terrible opinion on climate. So it not done as much as unimportant, and it goes like this that people are still building on the coast and people. still giving loans and getting insurance for living on the coast and therefore they can't be that worried about sea level. Rising gives their building there and there pulling the money exactly where you would not put a house is the sea level was rising, that's a terrible opinion.

It doesn't understand. Banking doesn't understand insurance, it doesn't understand, most importantly, rich people, so. First of all people are not as smart to connect nuts people I'm not good at managing risk. So if you had nothing but the normal situation where people are just bad in making decisions, you still have plenty of people building on the coast. If all of this mark people who believes in climate change and we say there all right this hypothetical there all right climate change is bad. Sea levels going up. If you took all of those people who would have built on the coast and said and move the Midland How many people would be left a lot? There are so many Some people in the world- that is, eighty

percent of all the smart people decided not to build on the coast because of climate change. There would still be millions and millions of people who are not smart enough. You'll always have people who do done things. There is there's no. sanctions where you have so many people, then if ninety nine percent of the dutch people answer, If ninety nine percent of the smartest people moved in land, there would still be plenty of people by real state on the coast and the replanting banks to make them loans and plenty of insurance companies to make their decisions and give them a chance. Now, on top of that, you don't lose a rich people work if you're a billion here- and you want a beach house- you don't really care. If it's only go last twenty five years, it's not financially important.

To you and you maybe I won't be underwater focus. The sea level goes up indifferent, different ways in different places. So if your billionaire you to throw away the house where you have insurance or something now, why does bank give you alone for the house. Well, the bank also is not terribly worried about something that happened in thirty years. Secondly, people more rich enough to I and the coast often don't leave lungs, those pay cash. If I bought a book, a beach house approach and tell you this, but well, I guess I can tell you this. I did once by condo right on the beach and.

Did the bank give me alone for my condo. There was right on the reach. This was in it. Now me. I don't have any more but while ago at it, The bank may be alone for my beach property. No, they didn't because I paint cash because, as we're rich people do and has been gas, so What did insurance company give me insurance for a place on the beach, even in the context of climate change risk? Yes, they would because insurance is renewed every year They will give me insurance for as many years as there are confident that next year will be that much different, which probably could be some years and years so if you're saying that people wouldn't buy on the beach, if calamity-

were real because the banks, the insurance company in the rich people themselves, would make different decisions completely wrong. That is completely bad analysis. There will always be people on the beach, because, even if the smart, rich people left the dumb Porky would come and say freely, Bilbil bill built here and I can get at least ten years openness, so that is the worst argument is the worst thing is that people will build on and by the way, when you, when you dig into the climate change stuff, and we try to do your own research like that's that really works. You'll find two facts. that I have so far not been able to negotiate. One of those facts is that the sea level is definitely rising, and the other fact is that the sea level is not rising. Those two facts are both out there and can be found from credible sources.

If you do your own research, who is it who said that there is no evidence. of the sea level rising from climate change. Do you know a source I was the ip cc and ninety nine. Said they didn't have evidence of sea level rising because of co2 and ninety ninety, and by then, Certainly, there are paying attention to climate change. So maybe they found a recently what I'm saying is that you can you can search forever and you'll, just fine competing versions of truth, and you will not have the capability or the time or the expertise to figure out which one is right. And indeed, if you have the time and you have the expertise.

You would be like the two people have different opinions because apparently having the expertise does not make everybody come to the same opinion. So there's nothing. You can do to get down to the reality. You can't get there from here. So the idea that the people can read tree rings using other problem with tree rings as a temperature praxis apparent if you look interference and just have different opinions on it. Just like that, Imagine you what he had a tree ring you trying to tell the temperature in ninety ninety from its rearing

Do you look at it looks like it was the garden of sunny weather that summer I mean I do get that the tree rings are approximate stories. Barley ever really gonna be good enough to tell the temperature two years ago. Skeptical just leave your comments you from for moment. Yes, and then there is the issue here is the issue that there can be only other. I talk about this yesterday So the medieval warm period as explained away, because one part of the world

was unusually warm while another part of the world was not Now I ve ever seen a map of we're all the temperature ages are around the world. Gives me if you seen them out of the shows the globe and then there's a red dot for where all the places are. We we have terrestrial monitoring and end, including in the oceans is, I think, is a ninety five percent in the United States. Am I wrong about that? Ninety five percent of the measuring devices are just in the United States and the rest. I'm just a die here and there in the world. If you other concentrations. and if that's the case so you're the two facts. We have that the the terrestrial measuring devices are the primary argument for climate change, because

lay off his little more ambiguous because it shows that the plateau etc. but we also know that the mediaeval warming period was localised was one part of the world say the climate experts. There. Much warmer, while other parts of the world got much colder and they Get a map of world the temperature measuring devices are and these enormous parts of the globe that are not measured. How do we know those are the gold bars. Could we really major temper? the earth and be pretty confident that there are no big one. Article called sponsor. We missed it. Just doesn't make sense to me. But again when I say it doesn't make sense to me What I mean is you can get on the level understanding as a citizen in another,

There's no scientist who can explain I'm just saying I can never get there. Because I'm just find another scientist who says the opposite, then I can tell the difference. That's where we are for now. same question. How often do you recognised in public. That's an interesting question and we could change of topic. Oh you talk about the steel barrier in a moment. I get recognized and public far more now, because these periscopes so prior to doing the periscopes it was read. I would say close to never. but sometimes if I checked into a hotel, sometimes will recognise be my name, but before before doing periscope, almost never recognised by sight.

And now, if I travel, we also need to recognise and public now or a high side to be recognised. Let's talk about the steel barrier, As I have been telling you for now a few months, the only This will ever be settled this border walls. Less than situation is when we can come up with solutions. There is neither wall, no offense, but is both. and the steel barrier is a once. wall like fence the once at the moment, we are still in the stupid zone. So the stupid zone is where politicians. do engineering and tell you what a barrier should look like and where it should be, etc.

So we have to get past stupid to get the the government opened now when I say we have to get past stupid, I dont mean that the people were involved are stupid people, but what they're telling the public right now is clearly stupid. another engaged in negotiations, are public opinion. building irrigation persuasion. So the people doing stupid stuff are not themselves stupid. Present Trump is not is not stupid. Ways running. This is actually running it pretty well, in my opinion, and policy is not stupid. She is doing her job pretty well and that's exactly why there's a problem. You have two people, if I may say so,.

Policy and job are she's, a good nemesis right, she's she's, a solid, solid politician and the reason you have we have a reason. We're stock is that there are also good, but the current view of both of them For public consumption is just stupid, because no world deal at politicians make engineering decisions so that we need to figure out how to get from stupid to let the engineers do it and that that gap they ve figured out yet, and maybe it's not time to figure it out because remember it's not just about making an engineer a decision about the politics of it it's about who wins is about, twenty subaerial western button, but you're not going to see an end to this.

Somebody suggests the bridge. and the bridge might be something like a budget with some restrictions builtin. So, for example, they could say, look The other five point, six billion or whatever number they end up with, but it's not fully approve. until the engineers and brought us a proposal. That explains why, Law and was fence you're done, because both of them can claim victory. Send it after the engineers the engine. This will come back. Guaranteed was. looks like. a variety of solutions across the board? on the need in the Eminent domain and a bunch of other things, When it comes back in that way be months from now, Bolsa Scan say: well, we're not gonna go against the engineers and they say.

Still barrier in some places and do other solutions and other places and less let's do it. The engineer say that will give both sides the ability to claim victory, and if you don't the boy were both sides can claim victory. You don't get anything so look for that when, when they start talking about how the budget it with restrictions and the restrictions being that the that the engineers have to come back with a specific proposal that will be approved when they have the proposal, that's one against serious now is just and is just politicians trying to convince these stupid public of a stupid point. Now I tweeted yes

That theirs is weird disconnect Andy the Democrats opinion about wall. They say two things about number one: the wall, will not work number two walls or immoral. What, if they don't work, who exactly loses its just a waste of money right it? Can it can't be true Simultaneously than is immoral and it doesnt work. unless you, assuming that the intentions of the people want to build a moral and that's not an evidence. I'm pretty sure the intentions are people want to stop crime control the border. all the usual stuff, be right. They could be wrong moral lives, what a wall so. There's you close. He has painted herself

a corner with his immoral thing. Here's the way you should get somebody needs to ask Nancy blowsy if all forms of border control are immoral, And saw the drill, because the opinion falls apart. He says he is in favour of border control and, if the, if these lash wall, this being considered, is still barrier that you can see through, is that. That is our moral sense or whence warm letter letter,

I was sure to pictures: one is all or three maybe a wall and existing fence. So we have less impressive fences right now. I'm sure a concrete wall offence that we don't have offence that we do have and then the whence, he'll structure sure those three pictures and say which ones are immoral, is it just the concrete one. Or the others a little less immoral, because it's easier to climb, I would just get her to some specificity in that. because, if necessary, primary objection is not really she she. Wisely did not make the case. That is too expensive. Citation said that this is not done. on the hill of it's too expensive, because the budget disobeyed converted this ask.

So she's painted herself in a corner. I think we should show our three pictures. Concrete wall steals steel ladders thing. Existing fences that are already on the border and letters the morality of each of those solutions. I would like to see you there Let me tell you the dumbest argument for a wall. I think my value to you is that you can, there is something doesn't make sense. I'm gonna call it out, no matter which team it is so there's something that the trumpet team says. That is ridiculous is the worst argument for a wall and that every one of you of use. This argument. The argument is that they build a wall?

El Paso were wherever it is, and it took the illegal crossings down to zero. I shall say it again: Jesse but the set up is so. The argument is the walls work because bill to all, and I think it's El Paso and it took the illegal crossings down to zero. Wherever was doesn't matter where it is the organ. Is that a good argument. somebody says I live there and strew. It's true and it's stupid. It's true as far as I can tell they built a wall and stop the illegal immigration down to zero is wide stupid. You don't think those people just went somewhere else and crossed do them. Do you think the people walked up to a wall?

that was as five or ten miles long and whatever it is. It's just a little piece of the border. Do you think people walked up to their structure? there's a wall here and just this little place, I guess I came cross the border. I guess I give up somebody saying the friction The friction argument is that whenever you put up some friction, you change behaviour in every field. It doesn't matter if you talking immigration, gun control whenever, if you make it harder for somebody to do something. then, they're gonna do less of it. Does it really make it harder to cross the border if the people who are likely to cross the border talk to other people They say we used to go across El Paso. But now they have Walter. So now, when you wanna go across obscure down their totally wide open the are you ve been through a wall? Slash border only works. If you doing all of it

all of these reports. If you have a fence across all the easy parts, you have a strong argument. It doesn't matter if he wins whenever you, but if you have a strong border control and all the easy part to get across, that's a strong argument. If, if that looks like a reduced, immigration I would even after I dont think I even have to look at the data to know. That was a good idea because if all this left on the hard part to get across. That's friction, that's real, but if you ve got a border this, this big and you ve, built a wall that this And you ve felt zero people across them little wall, that little area and of all this you know. No african thing, you don't know anything if you all you know, is this little piece of all.

Stop people from going over the wall because you don't know if they just went to the other places and walked in and isolated, so I hope that gives me a little bit granted only with you damn instincts and listen. I open give me a little bit of credibility because Damas Dumb, no matter which side it comes from and in that wall or even being under present effective. If you got a little bit of it is just done. Now is wrong for them to say it now. It is because the border control people and President trumpet his administration. are there in the business of persuasion? Now is a full goodbye. Security were a bad idea, I would say my God

being done in their usual evil persuasion to get a bad result, then I would not be in favour of that. But is there persuade persuading in a way that is, as I like to say, directional incorrect Well, I'm generally ok with it and it is directional led through the walls work directly drew. It is directly true that if we had enough border security- and it was better- we can reduce immigration. I think that's just absolutely true. We don't need, but that very specific thing we build a wall in El Paso undertook immigration down to zero. That's just ridiculous. Peoples is obviously just learn to go round the wall sellers I don't see any chairs the government will reopen. Really really soon

Both sides need to take this as far as the again, because they both me to explain. They need to explain why didn't fight hard enough as they lose, so both sides have to just take this longer. So everything that happens in the next few days, maybe and may even be weeks and probably doesn't matter because neither side really wants to solve it. We're not going her air sea for those with those of you who were joining of change. Nickname too, are abused s, races, precision. because she's gone for racist she's gone full hop Newsome, why people are bad with religious latest comments and sixty minutes. So now I think she has to be challenged us so so

personally just to make this as clear as possible. I was amused and appreciated. Persuasive power and our ability to get to get attention, etc. But now crossed a red line for me, which is calling for the country raises, because when you tell when you said, the trunk is really saying that his followers are as well and. So our p s is dead to me, but I dont mind talking about her. specific thing. I'd like to talk about her more is, I think Nancy policy must be challenged to explain her. So Nancy Policy has to explain why there's Buddy and her party, who is making Nancy policy, look like a chip. Sorry, r, p, o S is getting all the attention

She's doing everything that is essentially she's moving the brand of Democrats and, as he plus looks like a week. really ineffective later, because she's letting that happen. So the fight should be between the Democrats, because Pelosi is just being totally kneecaps by r p, o s and and she's making, and I dont have nearly diplomacy is saying these things about President tromp at the moment I'm sure she has in the context of of politics in the past, but you don't see policy going after Trump as racist lately. Am I wrong doesn't seem that policy is trying to be productive and trying to make stuff work Whether your lover Aver seems like Pelosi Jen,

only wants to make things work. She was rivers, things work, but she seems like on the productive road, not the unproductive road, and I Trump and closing down the same road eventually but she's been kneecaps by our own side, so she's gonna have to get our bee, who s under control. If she wants to be effective. I am surprised by our view is not really. Ninety percent of Democrats agree yeah, I didn't say it wasn't popular. Course you polished well, she got a new nickname today are view.

I think she has to answer for that. Every time she speaks forever. She's gonna have the answer Why does she want to take money away from white people, an Asian Americans and transfer to other ethnicities. And if she doesn't want to do that, she should say it directly. Oh my Innovative back, then, is that ninety and my time, which would be new eastern time but I'm not sure what the heirs a measure that much is life and how much is recorded, but all a link to it. As soon as there is a link to it, see you you'll catch them right, that's enough for me. By for now,.