Bobo Bumpo right on time, look at me filing finally being organised effort awake at night. Yeah come on in here see all of you grab a seat near the front. They have a fun time today. Sometimes the news is just fun. Sometimes it's horrible disasters today, few horrible disasters, but there's more mostly it's just fun. So Do you not to do if you want to have the maximum enjoyment of this periscope? It doesn't take much very little on your part actually to have the peak experience Your day, which will make all the rest of the day amazing

all you need is a copper among your glasses time. The jealous attacker determines last accounting, the vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous up go home. I gotta get better every day. I love coffee. Can I add grail? Yes again, GRAIL. Alright. So the new new theme song will be cup, reminder glass, time to challenge the tanker, thermos flask, auntie and gray lordvessel of any kind done now. That's what I call responsive to the audience beat that you can't. I want to talk about the democratic debate again.

It turns out it's the is. The news has thing happening, is. It gives us something to talk about that people are still talking about and it takes it. Sometimes it takes a day or two to sink in what it is that you exactly feel about Yes, I do small my coffee licence small returned after twelve years, and it is the lights, but talking method debates are there. Some additional was a observations and analysis coming out. Then. The first thing that I would say is that the top three candidates on the stage they top appalling dammit

at are completely unelectable, and I think that fact is starting to become more obvious. Somebody's asking if I'm gonna be throwing f bombs today, probably not its often today and so years. Why? I think, the top three year on Electoral Biden DO, I would even say the men I even I'm, starting to feel not even starting I've been feeling for awhile, actually bad forbidden and his situation, and that I feel bad for his family and his friends is that I think he's been here. Somebody who try to be a good service in the country I dont believe, is

I mean you can't argue whether he was up, but I think he's a well meaning good citizen, Patriot kind of a guy and- and I feel bad because his literally falling apart from the public. Now, if you haven't seen the clip of bite in answering the question about institution racism if you haven't seen his answer that you dont know exactly what I'm talking about. By his answer, was so mentally incompetent and I'm not trying to put a spin on us. I'm not I'm trying not to speak as a protracted guy. You know saying all the other side is so dumb and they do dumping. I'm being is clinical and try to be as objective as possible. Biden just doesn't have. Control of his faculties is very obvious and its also obvious that the Democrats see it is.

Clearly, as you and I see it, everybody says now tell me one person who think each show me one person who will go on television and see them Go on television, the embers MSNBC and on the on the risk of their personal reputation, will say in public anything bad news. The best choice for president. I don't like this. Honestly, I don't think you could put one it was. One of his advisers is Simone. Somebody and I dont know that you could put her on CNN and have a look at the Public Azalea Joe Biden is definitely the right he's the best choice for present. It's kind of down to no one, and so he says one Williams. You know once these gotta role he has to play, so I think I sort of a special case.

But I think we can all agree the binding it has no chance of being present. You might get anything can happen, he could get nominated, but he does abolition, winning his match up against tromp would just be devastating, I would obviously just feel sorry for I, in fact I would say Biden is so weak the trump might even run against him, meaning that he might not even have to address them. You just just say what he's gonna do for the country and say you know they dominate it Joe. They probably wish they hadn't. You know what to do. I don't even think he would have to criticise them specifically because it's just so obvious at this point. I then you get a warrant number to most. People assume that she would

You want to get rid of your button doesn't, but I learned interesting thing, which I guess I end and paying attention after the healthcare policies- and I read that, warns. Healthcare proposal and remember warrant is the one with all the plans, so the one you trust to have complete thought about policies at a time, is worn. It turns out there her healthcare plan. I remember Healthcare is really the sort of the biggest domestic topic. Her plan is to back Bernice plan explicitly, like actually literally to say she backs his laugh and has actually done so now does not really leadership. He, even if it's a good plan, and even if it makes perfect sense not to plans, look the same

but the trouble is that Burma is planned for healthcare is why he can't get elected in all likelihood, so she's adopting the weakest part, a birdie, the the healthcare problem. Now the problem with healthcare as a as a kid Topic is this, even if you had a better plan, let's say hypothetically, that Medicare for all was a better plan for the

what country? Now? What I mean by better is that it gives access to everybody and at its and its affordable, so that would be better access for everybody and affordable sure that might be some quality differences and ass be factored in, maybe wait times and other things, so that always be factored in Blue, say hypothetically. You could make a case that, on average Medicare for all was a better system. Birdie actually says it'll save money. They say. Economists is just like that. I'm not tell you, this is true. I'm just hypothetically, if, if you could imagine Medicare for all being unambiguously better for the country in general, is still wouldn't work as a campaign thing here is why

The people who have private health insurers through their companies and her happy with it, are gonna vote against anybody, the change that so you have too many people who were above average and health here who would be brought down to the average. The people were below healthcare. In other words, they don't have any words too expensive might be brought up to a better average. All of those people, could be reasonably could be reasonably expected to have a preference for the person who would bring them from no healthcare up to having some healthcare. All right, but all other people above the line. Many of them Democrats dont, have a single chance of voting for the thing that takes away their good healthcare. They worked for a big company.

They ve got courage. All they're doing is taking their good healthcare, taking other advantages way, bring them down to the average and taking their money their money after they were brought down in the quality of their healthcare. They still have to take some extra money and give it to the people below the average to bring them up to the average. So you can't win with Medicare for all as you were campaign central theme, because the people above the average are gonna know what's going on and they're gonna say, yeah, I can vote for myself interest. Our system Not only allows the kind of encourages were allowed to vote for what's good. For me, I'm a voter augurs well for what's good for you that sources. We all agree that the system so with that healthcare for all just can't win. So one is not competitive because he's not gonna backlog,

now, the sort of central to Lord you, then you go down to Bernie. Embodies the funniest comedy Sober Bernie. I sort of capturing offer me. I guess who's ethic was abbe. Huntsmen said this view. Here's required she said quote: Bernie looked like he crawled out of a garbage can last night Grilled duck: that's the clever, the more clever version of what I was saying, periscope, which is that you can't discount the look of,

all people water president to represent them not just militarily, economically, not just politically but down. You want your president to be a reflection in some way of you and Bernie. Does that worse than anybody? Because he's such aid, add visual, though you say to yourself like his policies, maybe a bad. I don't wanna hear representing me he's not my brand looks like he crawled out. The garbage can as huntsmen said, and then he was already screeching boring with statistics, so you his popularity is capped. He can't possibly when also because of the socialist policies. So what do you do when you, your top? Three people really can't win, but maybe there are still some Democrats

we're thinking? Well, maybe Elizabeth warrant can pull through, but I'll bet that belief will fade over time as well. At the moment, they still have the polls in their favour, Because the poles are very artificial now, because when you Really pulling aimed against president tromp you're, not really comparing the two candidates at this point, process were you're. Really saying is you? Do you want from to be present? Is the just that and then people say. No, I meant I trump, but until he gets a specific target to to demolish, you have no idea what what the poles who end up. We have no information until until ten is over the target site and start Sir opening the Bombardier doors. So if you ve got your top three

are sort of clearly unelectable, and I think that's a view that honestly, I think the Democrats already share at least the people with money. Don't you think, give you some feedback your teeth? I do think that the Democrats already now that the top three polling Democrats have no chance of winning. Do you think they know that? So I think they do. It feels, like is obvious, now said, takes down to number four, so number, four in the polls. Is Harris, Harris is one of the worst campaigners. I think I've ever seen. Now I remind you that a little over a year ago, I I predicted as the nominee the nominee who would go on to lose to tromp. Now I'm just stick with my prediction

because the prediction always depended on the people polling ahead of her two to fail and were watching their happening right now. Am I right? We are watching the top three fail, and that was the prediction. The prediction was the ones above her would fail. So I looked at a year analysis by Joan Navarro reason is an expert on body. Language I recommend him one of his books in my list of persuasion. Reading So if you, Google, the persuasion reading lest you'll, see vartos book on body language, and here we ve got some conversations on twitter. Just brief,

say disagreements on some body, language stuff, so I would say he's definitely the export compared to me, but I'm not too bad myself. Moreover, advanced hobbyist on body language, where he's little we publish export here's what he says about, so you went through the body language of the various groups and limit. Let me give you some of his take ways. So his main take ways that leadership body language would look like this. So you, your arms would be wide and it would be slow, smooth motions.

Blood last for those of you didn't see me another. If you listening to it, you don't know what I'm doing, but imagining I'm putting my arms are wide and I'm moving them smoothly and not too quickly. So that's what your Lavoro says is more typically, a leadership look do remember, Bill Clinton used to do the thumb and he be like there was. The sun was gave him a little space, basically, the more space you take up and the less friend. You lucky in them the less jerky. Look, the more leader literally look. If you look at tramp, he does the ear the hands out like this, and he does some of this ass. A trump does take up some space as well, but let's get to. Let's get to harass you ve. You have already heard my criticism of her physical demeanour, Stage- and you heard me say that she looked jumpy literally

like your shoulders were going up and down, she talked and it made her look on literally because she was jerky I watched it again just this morning of the video clip and there was there was something happening there. She needs to correct eyes some free advice. Or a couple hours. If you look at again you'll see that she was wearing a sort of it I need blouse underneath their blazer. The blouse was a little just rumpled by just the position that you standing or jack or something. The though the rumbles on her her blouse were exaggerated. Lee jumping up and down. Because she was moving a little so the little bed she was moving when she was talking. She asked. You can see shoulders sort of going up now cause.

This whole ocean motion on her blouse and she's gonna change, a blouse mean actually get a different material and design of a blouse because it made her look less leader literally. Yes, that's not the sort of thing she could possibly seen coming so would I wouldn't call it a mistake in the sense that she should have seen it as a problem, because nobody would assume that his problem now Joe tomorrow, I made the following comment that she does she kept her hands to close her elbows took restore body when she spoke- and I had not picked up on that- but he's totally right- the the elbows in and the jerky motions

are totally non leadership body language, and that- and you know how I can tell you that she's terrible at this when I said she's terrible at it, did you ever hear me say that her words or bad know? What I'm saying is one of the worst campaigns public complainers I've ever seen, and I've never once said that the words are wrong. The words this uses are good enough, the mere you could argue whether the best in the world or not, but their totally good enough hurt her or her ideas are good enough. She's, medium enough at she's, she's close enough to the the center of the Democrats. This is better than the top three.

I remember, I'm not telling you that you should agree with her words or is it worth? Thoughts were policies. I'm saying that as a Democrat running for president they're, pretty solid they're, not great but they're at least Hillary. Solid. Wouldn't you say there are at least as good as Hilary was, which was very good, really wasn't a great campaigner, but she had enough to get to win the popular vote, so that's good enough, but when you combine Harris's laughing at her own jokes, a huge problem, let us be honest: the laughing at her own jokes, Wilfer from being present. It will prevent her from getting the nomination if she can stop two things and here's the track. They're both easy

easy first thing she has to stop is laughing at her own jokes. She can do that now. That might not easy. She might not be able to do it like in a day, but pretty much people can learn to stop now, I got their own jugs, she just ass. The now is a big deal. I dont know that anybody close hers telling her cobbler. I want to ruin your enthusiasm, but when you left, Your own jobs, you look like, moreover, dork than a leader. Stopping laughing at your own jobs is probably one of the easier things you could do if it became a priority. So I think the only thing that keeps her from from discontinue that terrible public check is a nobody has told her honestly how it looks. So if there's any,

campaign wants to clip out as part of the video and give it to her. You will increase their effectiveness about twice, percent and when one day with you could shower thirty seconds of what I am saying in her effectiveness would go up to twenty percent in one day because I get it She can do it. She just need somebody to be honest. Whether inside don't do that anymore like zero times there are no times you should do that. Secondly, the body language. The body language is really easy to change. I know that, because over my lifetime of your public presentations and speeches in various public appearances, I have learned to intentionally modifying my body language,

it's my my normal body language. Now I dont have what I would call normal bonnet body language. I have a a trained body language for release for public purpose, so you ve noticed even when I talk on interviews even when I'm here, I'm video. If you knows how much he had no motion, I do that. I wasn't born to that, but I also don't think about it. What I'm doing it, I'm thinking about an axe and talking about, but normally, if you see me wave my hands around It's not a conscious thought. It's now, just what I've train myself automatically to do. The training is easy. You just tell yourself larger motions, are better smaller emotions and tied to your body and jerky motions, or that you have to practice it, and it might not be the first day that you can do it, but by the third day again it's not that art. It is really not hard to say

They open up. You open up your chest. You you put on a more serious demeanor. You learn to get your motions right and I would say that calmly Harris if Sheikh issue corrected to things number hers were laughing jokes and maybe and maybe not even tries hard to tell jokes, I would love to see her same witnesses I haven't seen a list of them, but I would like to see her at the same level of witticisms, delivered with arise, smile, your understanding, that is the audience who should be laughing at her just to see if it works, I don't know she can deliver the the joke and if she can deliver, she is avoided. So at this point, after this less debate, I would say that Harris's odds of getting the nomination

are the highest ever been and she's a terrible campaign. Think about that she's literally, like varied she's, no really bad at her public appearances, and I still think she has the best chance of getting nominated as of today. Now that could change the sort of a straight line. Says the top three or unelectable she's terrible, but terrible is still better than unelectable, and her two biggest problems are easily fixed. Somebody just ass. The taller tell her to do it the assembly she trusts. So let's talk about health care. I had this question Gunnar the board for a moment scares me for the bad image. You say he cares more of a question that point. I was trying to rank in my mind as an ignorant consumer of news which healthcare p

and, in a very general sense, are the ones that are likely to be the least expensive, and I have a preliminary opinion, and so I want to see if I guess in fact so here's here's the thing, our current system, you said the top and better care for all our too that you could argue. One is more expensive than the other and people do now. The problem is that its apples and oranges. Our current system is more expensive for some types of people but, of course, doesn't cover. Everybody said the sailor. Come from now covering everybody. If you want to cover everybody, Bernie says that doing so will be so efficient. You can actually save money overall, but he's talking overall, he is not hiding the fact that some people will pay more money and some people will get free healthcare and abandonment,

So so you aren't you all day long about these. Two things are which for saving money but really is apples and oranges. They both save money but in different ways for different see you sort of an unsolvable dilemma which one saves money, because we don't no we're not smart enough. Economists will disagree. And some people will pay more someday topic will be less either way. Beers. My curiosity, the third plan, the sort of I think a few Democrats were pushing this common was one some kind of competitive situation where everybody can get covered through the Medicare for all. If they wanted, they just have to take it, and but at the same time you can keep your private plan and then those would compete so you'd have competitors, competing, unglossed, etc. So here's my question.

How is it that the health care is the biggest deal in the country policy wise and you, and I don't really know what any of it would cost even in a ranking cents? Is one thing: if you don't know if it's going to cost you fifteen billion or thirty trillion. That's a big deal. Fifty enjoy about this big deal, but you can still make the decision if you could at least rank them right. You wouldn't have to know which ones fifty in trillion, which one thirty try him. If you knew for sure what ones, where the most expensive in the least expensive, because then you do whatever you could do you take the least expensive. There still get everything you need and and you'd know you made the right choice, even if you could not estimate with any kind of accuracy is launching could rank. So why can't we? Why can't we rank,

what what's? Why are we at this point and the news business has failed us so much. That you and I and consumers is country can't even tell which is the most expensive. Give us a little hand here. We need some help.

Did you see that nearly every states attorney general? Italy's generals are going after the big tech companies? I think Facebook and Google for antitrust Chelsea their story. I don't think I've got enough playing in the news, but just think about that almost every states attorney general's Celeste Democrats Republicans, but we finally found something that everybody agrees on that Google and Facebook might have too much power Manette monopoly power in particular. So that's happening. It's keep your eyes on that thing. Come let me use for is that she noted that in the three our democratic

eight, the ABC horse, didn't ask one question about abortion: think about that it was a three hours. Ten democrats talking mostly to their base. Now once mentioned female reproductive rights. It didn't even come up are you kidding me now. Maybe ABC would defend that by saying there, basically all on the same side, which actually wouldn't be a terrible risks, could they be seek as a but you sort of all. On the same side, there is not much to debate a map which might be the case. The other thing that Joan of ARC said is that Andrew Yanks choice did not wear a tie is unambiguously a mistake.

Let us see your opinions gimme your opinion in the gods. Taken in the comments say: do you think that a Yang were not wearing a tie? Was that a good move or miss I'm looking at comments now, so I'm seeing different, so the people were on both sides. Let me tell you why this is easy, ready. It's easy to know whether this is a mistake or its good here. It is who's gonna sell for him, because he because he didn't wear a tie, how many voice you get four year for being Tyler's, none right! There's, not a single voter, who's! Gonna say you now:

I dont like his policies, but man. I love that fact. It doesnt work time because I dont worry time, none. Where are you tie, earns you zero zero? How many votes might he lose by not looking, as President According to some voters who Maybe a minority there, my not many of them, but do you think there is anybody out there who said I, like my present, less like oppressed, I'm a traditionalist and I think that matters sub the answers some so years, there's ways an unambiguous mistake. I left torpid America, as I took all my neckties and literally through them trash and said to myself. I am never going I would wear a tie. Nobody is more anti necktie than the guy who joint Jos dealt right,

The first thing I did when I left corporate America, as I took off my neckties and literally through them, trash and set myself. I'm never going to wear a necktie again now, of course I like, because when I visited the way asked I bought an actor, thus maybe I kept one round for emergencies, but buying, enacted to visit the White House just out of his back, but even I, the most anti necktie person you will ever meet in your life saw. That is just as clear mistake friend of ours, right

made a an error. It did give him. Maybe a little attention by the President pay for itself in terms of votes. Is it Gmail Hill? I hope I have the right name right. There's an african American. I think she was a sports commentator. I may have some of the facts wrong here, but what she said was so provocative. I wanna quoted

So I think it was Gmail Hill factor me. You said something along the lines of them. Paraphrasing that the reason that Biden has so much respect from the black voters is that black voters, they don't think, he's qualified, but they think he's the only one that way voters will vote for now I laughed when I read that, because, first of all, I can't I don't have a sense of it myself, because she's talking about a yell, the black immunity and unlike represent, I can get another people's heads. But does that ring true to you, because I never heard it quite express this way and the reason I laughed is because it was a novel way to look at it, so that my first reaction was not that I agree or disagree and just that it was not.

And so I automatically like that. Just for that. But do you think, is true that black voters are have no love for Biden whatsoever, but they just like you see only one. Otherwise, the way people for so they want a winner against rub, maybe maybe I like it as a thought. I don't know if it's true this was the most that this is the tell that place everything about our environment right now ever was, while the be some small thing that happens, that, even though it's a small thing is sorted, describes your entire, like reality for a moment with the political reality and assess it again. If he didn't watch Joe binds answer to the legacy of slave.

The question. You dont quite appreciate what I'm inside, but he was completely incoherent in Babylon and it was clearly didn't have control of his mental faculties yeah. You say that he I think we can pass through the opinion on that and state that, in fact, I think, that's fair. I think the Democrats were seen things that got the spot and, despite that, he's the leader in the polling and despite completely breaking down mentally in public, a complete mental breakdown, the complete mental failure to him be able to form sentences and public. What is it that way? don't even saying disqualifies. They're saying is disqualified because it is all Toby reference to playing the record player and lack households took too the more language skills,

in other words, complete mental incompetence, here's a funny part complete an obvious and total mental incompetence did not disqualified Biden from being their choice. For present by his comment about a record player which they can interpret his vaguely racist where'd, you wasn't I'll get back that that's enough to disqualify so complete. Mental incompetence in public doesnt disqualify? You from me the democratic candidate by saying something that wasn't racist, but they can interpret as racists is too small. By now. The reason I say it wasn't raises is because Joe Biden is not a racist end of story

say whatever you want to say about him, say he's mentally incompetent. I just did say you don't want to be your presidency. All of its policies are bad say: did you go to bed? things with China, the Ukraine or whatever, whatever rumour you wanna, say, sniffs people's hairs, say, anything bad, you want to say about Biden but must be asked, is not a racist he's, an old guy he's an old guy who speaks a certain way and maybe he should update that, while his daughter, racist, still less good me enough to take him out o us here is the most provocative thing that you probably didn't notice. There was one point were bite me said that non violent criminals should not gonna get.

Now shouldn't at them like the major headline. Never by talking about that, but here's the thing nobody's quite sure. If he really meant it are you because it could have just Miss spoken, I given his mental frailty I don't even know if he meant it, I dont know if he knew. What are you saying literally, I dont know if the words that came out of his mouth were in any way connected to what he thought he wanted to say, because you have to ask a question of this affair question so I dont know if you meant it, and I am my four- reaction to a had to be the same as your your first reaction, when you hear hey, maybe non criminals should not even go to jail. I thought, are you kidding me so yeah Bernie made off destroyed young how many families complete is million dollars fraud for years every bit,

intentional, you tell me that guy doesn't go to jail. Are you kidding me and then, on top of that, we see Felicity Hoffman actual is gonna get a little jail time fourteen day is there a bunch of community service for of violating some crimes related to getting her daughter into college? Very white collar crimes were where the victim per se exists in a conceptual sense, but not a specific person. Which one we can identify. So I'm lucky if these two stories- and I had the following thought: what if binds right and here's, why? What binds ahead of us? time. What, if binding, actually maybe heard somebody come up with a decent explanation of why we could actually have a jail free punishment

for non violent crimes. I'm gonna make the case for here's the case number one don't count the birdie made us. So if we were to say listless create a policy where non violent crimes don't go to jail, just deal with me, and I hope that a global so thought experiment, I'm not proposing it. I know some of you get confused. This is not a proposal were thinking through it adheres was changed, jail takes wail of your freedom and it takes wail of your privacy and, as was bad about it, no privacy, no freedom Now what is different about twenty nineteen compared to all the years before twenty nineteen and sort of gradual things are not suddenly twenty nineteen, but was different, is that today today, We can take away your privacy without taking you to jail, think about

you don't have to go to jail to have all of your privacy removed. Imagine if you well- and this is just a mental experiment majesty- will this worthy lesser non violent crimes. I still think you need a separate category. Four the Bernie made off is so you should. There should be some Accounting for the the depth of the victims, the more the victim, the worse it is for the victim, then you have to take them into account. Somebody mentioned the sentinel dealers, those that these are good edged cases. So what if there is a major fundamental dealer who you dont know killed anybody, but could you just don't know they were just a major event in a dealer that that person I'm if ever the death penalty for dealing fanciful? So

even if you can identify the specific victim here? That's my personal preference. So let's start with the assumption that there are some non violent crimes which, by their nature or bad enough, the usual still gives some giralda. So it's all agree there can be exceptions, but that leaves out of seventy five percent of all non violent crime than you could go to jail for today. That are within the the realm of dispute. Imagine your life! If I gave you these two choices, I ready choice. Number one you go to jail for one year, cuz whatever you did wasn't the worst thing in the world. White collar crime, so you choices did go to jail for one year. Your second choice five years of zero privacy, I'm just picking fibres to the top five years of zero privacy. Now how you do that is another discussion, maybe

We don't quite have the technology, maybe after where an apple watch leave you have to have your cell phone with you, maybe are all of your credit card purchases have to be public. Maybe you, maybe you have a record so every time you pay for something you have to pay for it with a credit card that indicates that you're under the control of the judicial system, So now not talking shop dollars, I'm talking literally your punishment is a complete lack of privacy. Now, let me ask you: would you consider it a punishment for you to have a complete lack privacy, you would, when you would you Would you want to live for five years with literally anybody,

the able to go online and find out where you are what you bought and your health records, and you financial records all every single bit of your entire life. They can be surfaced in any way through the government, involvement or or commercial anything. You give way a hundred percent of your freedom, you're you're privacy. Now now go back to buy this comment that we should look at away to knowledge. EL nonviolent criminals, and then you parrot with our current ability to totally punish you while you're free, you can be punished pretty darn pretty bad badly you can beat. You can be deeply punished without being in jail. Just lose all your privacy

Now this is why this is you have to think about for a I'm watching the comments by the way, and the comments are very interesting, because, usually when I have an idea, this wild I'm getting very strong, take samples You know, I'm not I'm not seeing strong takes on either side and other words most of you just said yourself, some version of holy grab. That's not the worst idea. I've ever seen now, if somebody is not incarcerated. What is one of the things that they can do? Well, one of the things they can do is get a job right. If you were an employer and you had a choice of her

somebody that you really couldn't know much about, they might take drugs, they might be a criminal on the side. You don't know much about him, but they evident resonate enough, so you can hire them or let's say you can hire someone who has exactly one crime was white collar crime, and now there completely transparent, you'll know where that employers all the time if they tried to steal from you, you'd know it because you can see their bank accounts, you can actually see their bank account and you know they stole from you, because they were, though, where that money come from, you would actually it would actually be potentially and again. This is, moreover, a thought experiment, but is not conceivable that convicted small crime criminals the way cholera

Nobody got to her kind of criminals could become safer employees than people that you don't know much about because they have privacy. Think about that. So now these people can get jobs now, because the President the restricted immigration. We need all the employees we can get. President says that explicitly as part of his judicial, for he says that we need all the place where you get, including people who have made their debt, so the people who are paying their debt could still get a job, could still work and was the best part pay back the victims. Thank you parameter

the act of atoms, Sannella, Segura, you're, a victim of a non violent crime. You have two choices: one is your person go to jail for ear to the person who victimize you loses all of their freedom for five years and they pay you back a hundred percent which do you choose, which one do you choose I might take, it might take the money now I'm no lawyers, I think you could still soup people the out to try to get your money back and civil court right. But if the persons in jail Anderson, never get a job again after jail or at least to good use.

Get your money back, so I'm just gonna put that other. I think there is at least a fifty percent chance, thereby didn't miss spoke, didn't mean anything like that, but especially when they saw the felicity. Often one is: is society better off With felicity husband in jail well were better off if she's punished right. Imagine a Hollywood star losing all of her privacy. Think about imagine if you personally knew where Felicity Hoffman was all the time you know she's in your bathroom you and Bill Sear, but you'd know she's because you could just check GPS anytime, you, if you were a celebrity, How terrible would there be for everyone to know where you are you put yourself in house arrest

did you ever want to leave the house? People wouldn't worry. Are they knew they track you down the grocery store, so at least so yours, We take way, do not rule out. That's all I'm saying nothing. It's a good idea. Do not rule out that we could develop away using technology and privacy and things that are more modern to actually do away with prison. For non violent crimes now also think about drug of enters drug offenders need something extra. What maybe they didn't like? Lots of? Privacy is a loss of privacy for drug users. If there are users, not dealers and loss of privacy, while for either one The dealer worry user drugs, a loss of privacy would say You put a cramp on you using as part of the lost privacy might be continuous drug justice.

Here's a question that I thought about another want to bring up the issue of guns and gun insurance, because I did that to death. But there was one takeaway point that was worth visiting number one. Somebody on Twitter told me- and I need a confirmation of this- that the state of Massachusetts is actually debating that right now debating that. The question of insurance and guns- I don't want that, looks like but I'll just put put into your head. The idea that list some stranger on Twitter thinks that at least one state is debating Ellie, some form of insurance and gotten sweater. North looks like, but I'd like to know beers. My take way so people said in One of them was a liar suddenly taken seriously, then it would never be constitutionally appropriate to force people pay for insurance for a constitutional right

which is the only got now, I'm a lawyer so that statement I can't even evaluate if that sounds reasonable, or but it doesnt matter to my next point. Imagine is the model. Was this: instead of making the gun buyer by insurance directly, to an insurance company, suppose the government said this we'd like to impose on gunmakers just manufacturers a requirement for insurance such that, if one of their guns- and they say you can limit it to maybe they're the ones that are the most destructive so maybe- but you would make exceptions for shotguns, for example, or or revolver, see my acts of exceptions of what the price would be for the insurance, but before the weapons there, let's say generally,

read it to be the most dangerous. Let's say the gunmakers were forced to pay a healthy insurance policy, and that is would pay the emergence these services and healthcare for anywhere, where one of their guns was used for a crime. Now you might the first theme I said yourself, his hey. Don't do that it's a bad idea from so the question, and I am not going to deal with the question whether the good or bad idea as a separate conversation, gas specifically with that model in which the gun manufacturers were required to have insurance on their own product. Would it be unconstitutional would ever be unconstitutional to force a manufacturer,

to cover insurance for a product that is constitutionally valid sucrose. Here's the thing you're, the consumer and you walk into the store any biogas. That gun has all kinds of course pass along to you from the manufacture. The insurance costs would just be one more. One more cost. What it doesn't feel like that would be a constitution, something mixed agreements are mixed opinions here. So some of you are saying it would be. Let me ask you this: would it be unconstitutional for the government to require gun sellers to collect sales tax at the point of purchase is unconstitutional to require sales tax on a constitutional right to own again through you didn't, because

There is a sales tax, I'm guns right and if there's a sales tax on guns, the government is already imposing limits on your ability to buy something. This constitutional right dire, remind everybody, use nude, my periscopes, I'm I'm strongly programme pro second amendment, but I'm also willing to at least consider all of the different angles and guts. So my willingness to consider all animals should not be missed misconstrued us wanting to take your gun, cassettes lasting. I wanted so that's a question. It seems to me if it's legal and causes Israel to collect a sales tax on guns. It should be at least as legal to require the companies to have their own insurance simply to cover the costs that they have some role in creating.

Through society. I dont think you ll ever become law, but who knows here's some good news. Apparently the United States killed been lobbying son, one of em, I don't know how many a Bin laden sons we ve killed so far, the happy there are a lot of them. But my first thought when I heard that we killed Bin Laden son doesn't have a whole bunch of sounds like a dozen or something I don't know what the number is. But she said there was a big number and the beauty of this is we can keep killing Bin Laden sons like once a for years like came, get we killed deadline, Sun again, didn't we just do that? All the other one is another one that the next year we got. We got Bin Laden's on which work. I think, we're up to twenty three now And normally, I would not feel happy about killing somebody, except has been one son and I'm totally any

the terrorists and I'm totally happy about killing that guy, I dont know how I can ever feel bad about. That here is an interesting contrast. Somebody was saying in the news that the Democratic shield, the candidates, are the weakest field of candidates of all time, now would agree with that. It is the weakest field of candidates of all time. Here's the fun fact, bear to it. You remember when Trump ran for present and they were all those republicans running against him. What was the most common thing you heard about, the field of Republicans running suppressed,

why you heard was consistently is the strongest strongest group of candidates you ve ever seen so and drop one? He beat the strongest field of candidates on his own team ever field it, and I We agree with that. That was a strong field of candidates. Now there was nobody. There was a superstar like Trump yet in terms of his ability to move the public, but they were all strong everywhere, every one of those people can you see this present some better than others, but they are all president enough factor. Wasn't one person at this stage. I think that's true. I. There is one person in those days there that I would have worried too much about becoming president. I might have disagreed with policies in such by wouldn't when be panic,

and then you look at the Democrat group and the Democrats were saying, this might be the worst field of candidates we ve, run so. They're gonna run the worst field of candidates and pick the best and the worst to run against the person who beat just absolutely destroyed the strongest slate of candidates in the history of the United States has outlook as a as a match up. That's pretty funny. I think that's all I want to talk about today. Did I cover everything? Is there anything else you want to urban? Oh yeah. The drones forget about that. So the in Yemen, the rule is that the ethnic booties. I think I'm saying that right are at war with the ethnic groups that nominally the government there

Saudi Arabia, backing the government you ve gotta ran allegedly, although they deny it the backing the hoodie rebels saluted in it Just say you got the visual or Saudi Arabia. Maginnis young, big countries, Saudi Arabia and then along is lower border than the main is made, we're only southern neighbour? Is Yemen, so Saudi Arabia has a strong interest in Yemen, not being an arabian proxy because its red on the border spray dangerous situation if they become them, so they of course been backing the governments, so that they can have their person in charge of Yemen? So the hoodie is who are the scrappy rebel group that I don't know too much about managed to launch a fairly subject, while substantial, not fairly substantial, is substantial drone attack

against saudi oil refinery. I think it was an oil facility M M, pretty much destroyed the thing. Maybe if you, if you base and other pictures, it was like a lot of it was on fire, and so the first thing I don't know is what at Johns, where they were they, the big candid rooms, are like aeroplanes, or were they a hobby size drones that they ve weapon eyes to the point that even a bunch of hobby size drones can take an oil refinery. So somebody says was a big drone, yeah so away to find out if you now, obviously, if they were big Germans, they came ran right if the hoodie is used, big military drones, came from a random at random salad.

Baby are now the war. Now they made all users words, but if those were full size, military ones that hoodies didn't make em themselves is it who sees subleasing survey is strange, prudent, correct, my pronunciation. That might be the case, so we have to wait to find out what what's the deal with it. These drones, but even if they're, not full size, military drones, it seems unlikely that anyone, but Moran was helping them.

So am I wonder about this, because if a ram is doing any the stuff to try to improve their negotiating position is certainly about play, so we'll say hey. We were aware that I remember fifteen years ago, so I made the protection that the that the terrorists would all be using drones and that their coming to this country, so that attack on the oil refinery you should expect to see those some of those in the United States in the next five to ten years at least could be a year. So you're gonna see swarm attacks terrorist acts in this country. As soon as

American put the resources together because all the sciences there they networks at this point and how hard can it be to smuggle drones into the country it feels like? That would be the easiest thing, because you could take the jobs apart and just shut the parts and different combinations just through Fedex and nobody's gonna, look at some little singles component and think that as a problem, so it feels like it just feels like there's nothing. You can do this. Stop it and we can't it would take. It would take. Fifty years before we had a drone jamming technology and every large gathering in the United States and every facility just seems like it's not going to happen.

Locally shut off the gps. I dont know if shutting off the gps is gonna work anymore, because my guess is that the drones either have we will soon have the ability to use Google satellite to navigate. If you, if you have access to satellite pictures, just from your Google, you can do sort of pattern recognition? You should be able to tell your drone even a little hobby. Only that you buy an Amazon if it can already do this: maybe can you should be able to do just look down? Nowhere starts from songs in those. Where starts from a good look at the ground and just follow the roads, Just as it should be all follow their outrage, I don't see it in any way that that's not completely doable. So even GPS can stop him

Somebody says Jennifer's safer from drones, relatively surgeon for nuclear technology, and that's it an umbrella term for a number of competing technologies. We don't know which one will be the good one yet, but their deal is that if they lose power, they closed down safely, the the older and current bottles and nuclear power. If they lose power for an extended time and the back a power isn't enough, then they start melting down ass, a big problem, so the Jennifer built opposite of that we're losing power, makes them safer instead of less safe. So

so the answer is yes, a drone attack on age and for plant for that reason alone would be far safer because power losses your big risk and then, depending on the size of the drone, could it or could it not penetrate anything this gap anything nuclear on the inside, and I guess that's just a size of drone questions. Thus I got now and I am going to talk to you all to Morrow have a great day out and by my book losing available for pre on November faith,