Pom bump bump bump bump bump. Everybody come on in here. Stream on in here for your morning, streaming and your morning simultaneous which is coming up We get enough for you in here worth thirsty and ready for a bit of simultaneous and I think we're there all right, you're, not you need to play along doesnt they much. All you need is a couple: a mother, a glass but agro jealousy was dying, can't in drug of last a vessel of any kind fully with your favorite liquid, impartial to coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dominion of the day, the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous sip go. Ah, ah

either a few things going on number one Michael Chauvelin Burger. It will be on C span. Testifying very soon any minute. Now to the House Committee and Science, space and technology and you'll be talking about the quote Green Nuclear D, yeah. So in other words, our Congress and the house that the committee and Science based technology, which I imagine is exactly the right place, will be hearing a positive message about the potential for nuclear power. So they'll be hearing it from the right guy at the right time and the right place. That's good news now. Will that message break through and change everything we'll see, but it's definitely the right person talking to the right people so system wise. The system is working,

Flynn has withdrawn his guilty plea. Apparently there are some some disagreement and whether General Flynn did everything he whispered to do, and whether the government did everything they promised to do, which is keep a man. If he copper but apparently now they're talking about policeman jail because I don't think he cooperated enough and so they withdrawn their political. Suddenly, it's starting to make sense. Why he hasn't already been pardoned. Do you see it yet because I thought the end of the year would be sort of a perfect. Pardon Flynn but might be a smarter play here, is entirely possible that General Flynn is gonna win this thing flat. He might not need apartment. He might win this. The old fashion.

Why am I say this a lot, but if you ever get in a dispute, they become sort of a chess match, which is what this is, This legal proceedings against Flynn are kind of a chess match. The last person you wanna be in a sort of a strategy just match the last person you wanna go against a general, literally somebody learn how to do stuff like this, word, somebody who knows how to play a chess game so it could be. The slim is trying to win it outright. And get just cleared in the normal way, because if he got pardoned or whatever? The word is. If you haven't been convicted, it would always looked like he was guilty. Wouldn't it

it would always look a little like he was guilty if the president had to bail him out, but it looks like he's gonna fight at the old fashioned way, and I think the president probably not directly, but I think because it seems likely the president would pardon him if things went the wrong way. It changes is risk assessment. If you thought, if you thought you had no help and no hope of any help from the outside, you may play a little cautiously say: well, I don't want to go to jail, but I'd better, take this six months, as is better them better than white. But what might happen if I find it, but he is risk profile. Mother changed, you might say now I myself fight it. I've got, let's say a one in three chance of winning it outright, but if I don't

no worse off anchors I've. I've always got the the pardon option and I'm assuming I'm making a gigantic assumption year that the pardon is in the bag, which I think it is because I think the the public, the the public support It seems pretty firmly on the side of of helping out Flynn. So what for that? I will talk about the debates. Did anybody does anybody enough of them ass, a that you watch the debates. I literally fell asleep. I mean actually blacked out and fell asleep about half way through the debates, so I had to catch up with them by looking at the coverage now think looking

at the coverage of the debates, the sort of everything you need to do, because any impact that the debates are going to have are going to be because of those few moments that percolated up and Lee the press decided that those moments of the ones they're going to emphasize so you couldn't just look at the press coverage and you know what matters, because if the press does report, but on a particular answer. Well, cannon. Matter, because not many of the public are watching the debates a lot of my watch, the reaction to debates, I would say absolutely nothing happened and I loved Van Joneses take. Where this Van Jones said quote, there was nothing I saw tonight. There would be it there would be able to take Donald Trump out. There was nothing I saw tonight there were be able to take Donald Trump out. There wasn't one person on the stage

the Van Jones things would not be absolutely obliterated by trap and then he said, Van Jones said. None of them are prepared for a quote. What Donald Trump will do to us? He says us which is accurate. I guess I love the facts. First of all, I am a big fan Van Jones, so you, you may disagree because he's a Democrat and you don't like that, but as gross, go he's the smartest one. Now. The most interesting thing about hearing Van Jones say Nobody on the stage look ready for running for president is that if Van Jones were running he'd be the top guy. Am I wrong? It evangelists had been part of this mix and he were on stage

What do you mean? The nominee I mean seriously? It is there anybody on the stage who could who could last against Van Jones. Now I don't, I don't think you showed any interest in being president but he's stronger as a candidate than every one of those people in part because he's not a partisan meaning Well, he's he's clearly prefers Democrats and says that directly, but he is willing to look at issues on both the problem, the common side, which you don't see that off you don't even see it from pundits, so he would absolutely be in the front runner if he were up But it looks like the Democrats have set themselves an impossible task, so here's here the expectations from the Democrats own support,

right. So in order to win the democratic candidate, who wins has to do two things at the same time, Be really nice to the other, the other candidates, because those that nice party and they they made a big deal about being civil, a nice to each other, so whoever wins has to be civil and nice to the other Democrats. At the same time,. That person is tearing the other ones apart. Another word to show enough toughness to be qualified to run against trump you're gonna have to show your toughness, but the only way

We can do it at this stage is by showing it on other Democrats, but you can't those are two impossible, as well as an impossible that they can both happened. At the same time, she see the Democrats setting themselves up with a no win situation. We have to be kind and also rip apart are or other people in our party. There is actually no space for them to do the thing they know they have to do and they ve created this situation themselves. Did you ever see the Republicans do that? What, Maybe I mean. Maybe there was some Republican who said well. We should be nicer to each other. That probably happen, but anybody really try to talk trump, I'm doing other being Trump not really, I don't think so.

I mean a lot of people said it was a bad idea to be so caustic and stuff, but I feel as though that the Republicans letter candidates be their candidates and the Democrats who just absolutely killing themselves the other the syrup circular firing squad reference seems too Now I turned on the debates primarily to watch I felt like I- was watching the Democrats doing everything they could they got to lose. The black lope didn't feel like that to you all I could see was all, but your wife faces losing the black vote in real time, because of here slip into the station was even pay too much attention. You are you one of those voters who you. Serious closer due to election day.

Right now you just label noise play out way for the noise to die down. You get serious. You float ear flippancy channels. Did you come to the debates is I haven't been paying too much attention was savers who is running, for it candidate to be our next president, why person, wipers wipers wipers wipers wipers about. I don't see how the hell the Democrats can possibly compete with. Not a single minority face they're. Well, you could say that actually, women are no longer minority. Since the last woman who ran got most of the popular vote, Elizabeth Worm said. The two women on the stage are the only ones who have what everyone is their elections, which was a great line by the way

very well, then meanwhile trumpets at his rally and while the Democrats are up they're, losing the black vote by being as wide as they can possibly be standing in the same place. Wellbeing regrets because where's your diversity, tromp. So this quote in his speech last night, Republicans are fighting for citizens from every background and from every race, religion, color increase.

We are movement for all Americans who believe in fairness and justice equality and take the opportunity and safety. We are a big tent and a big party with big ideas for the future, so President Trump is saying directly and forcefully that the Republican Party is the place for everyone. Now. I've said this before, but it's one of those things that get smarter over time. If you just wait for this just keep getting smarter. When I first that it sounds kind of stupid, but just watch is gonna morph overtime from well, that's stupid, Scott! That's the dumbest thing! I've ever said too! Well, that's starting to make a little bit

The now wait wait for six months from now when people say that makes total sense now and here's the statement, the most natural fit for black voters. Does the republican Party? Here's why the Democrats are obsessed with identity and black people are only one of the identities southern scrambling and fighting for a place at the table in their own party, who asked a fight for a place at the party a place at the table in their own party. Why are black people fighting for your representation in their own party? Meanwhile, Republicans have one overriding characteristic, which I say all the time but the most important thing and

if you can find an exception to this good luck, but here's my statement. I want you to fact check this all you want that if you're, a typical Republican here, they're always weird exceptions to thing, but if Europe, a typical Republican, are you ok with anyone who is a legal citizen who respects the constitution and follows the law a plus? If that person also is religious question, for example: well: extra credit for Republicans another Republican by the way, I'm just describing

If your black- and you only have to do those things to be completely accepted completely, no, there is absolutely no there's no way to render the republican view. If you did follow the constitution, follow the laws Great Europe so. If you wanna be respected for who you are instead of who you look like Republicans, are the best game because if you, if you were hang around with Democrats, you know that they are going to judge you by strangers. That's right, democratic, a judge you by other black people who were not you because I have decided to

you're a group here and identity yeah. You must be treated as a group. Republicans say nonsense. You are an individual. Why should you be held back by the group because Republicans are holding you back, There's no Republican who says you can rise to any level you want. President. Obviously republican is gonna help you Republicans gonna help you get a job. Republicans gonna help you network republicans, gonna help you with it and mentoring republicans are very helpful if you, wanna get ahead, make some republican friends they're the ones were going to say, hey try this do this! This work come to church.

If you want to get ahead, make a Republican threatened as one of the best advice is elaborate. You'll oversee, you're, good luck, finding better advice in them. So over time, in six months, you're gonna hear people saying wait, a minute isn't the most natural place for black waters to be an republican party where everybody can be exactly equal? I mean exactly equal cause if you're a citizen and you're following the constitution you're exactly equal, there's, no wiggle room. If your Republican, that's exactly equal, especially, you know, if you're a Bible, Levin Republican Ex vehicle, whereas the democrats- well, you gotta figure out. If your little group

of Democrats? Is liked or respected as much as the other little group Democrats, that's a whole different game and at an age when that one, so the natural place for the black voters, as can the cylinders been telling people for three years now is republican Party and again another Republican, I'm not a republican, I'm just saying that's where the fit extends to me and also you'd have the most leverage republican Party, because there are fewer members, there are fewer black people in the Republican Party and anybody was got. A good idea then again is compatible with Republicans and

the constitution, everything you gotta be heard, you have a much better chance of being a notable, important voice in the republican Party. If you black, just because of scarcely let's talk about more on the debates who apparently Elizabeth Warren, I couldn't tell if she refused to shake burning sand at the end, or it was just an awkward moment where, when Birdie put out his hand to shake hands, she was still several steps away and I think it just seemed awkward, maybe walk with her hand up It was not entirely clear to me that she made a decision to not shake

it might have been an overseer just an awkward situation, but on camera it looked like she refused so to the public all the matters it looked like it. I think that's how people will interpret it now, as by now most of you know that the weirdest thing happened when Bernie was asked about his statement that a woman couldn't win the presidency, which of course need never said he said his response was so the Suzette

By Lissy Abbe Philips, I think one of our beef Abbe, Philip asked about their statements and Bernie said well. As a matter of fact, I didn't say it s pretty clear. As a matter of fact, I didn't say it embodies very credible love a moray them. It's not likely birdie is lying is very unlikely. I mean so deeply unlikely. I don't even count as a possibility because he has earned. Let us say this over and over again Sanders has,

turned their credibility, which I am assigning to him in my mind, my my own personal view his arm. He absolutely earned trust on the statement at war and has absolutely not earned our trust on this disagreement. So so, after a dirty says was met effect. I didn't say it then then she asked. Are you unequivocally denying happened, and Bertie says that is correct, as is clear, as you couldn't be unequivocally denying that is correct and then Phillips ignores the. His categorically denied it happened and she didn't. She goes to warm quote. What did you think when senators Anders told you a woman could not when the election, so she acts like it's a fact.

After the guy who was in the room. Fifty percent of all the people who were in the room just told her. It didn't happen and is far more credible. That warrant is on this question now. Let me tell you what almost certainly did happen: I'll finish this boy, so if CNN is trying to act as though there not actively trying to kill Sanders, this time, too, are not doing a good job of acting because his sword, a look like CNN, doesn't was Anders to be present. There are the ones who they reported that he said this about women and then the way this question was asked like he's just a liar, which is not the case, I'm sure that's just so biases, It's even even other Democrats noticed it so even other Democrats or man. So we have this weird situation.

That whoever wins the nomination is gonna have a whole bunch of other angry Democrats, doesnt matter which way go. Imagine if Warren wins the nomination. What will the Bernie supporters do? they just say well. Similar policies will just moved a warning after warring said what she said about Bernie. Most of them, if not all of them. Believe it's not true. I dont know if they're gone, I dont know if you I dont know. If Bernie supporters will leave the most credible, whether you like his policies, will not suffer question but as a human being, as a politician he's the most authentic, credible person, the Democrats have, if you support that, will then take incredible. How do you switch parties which parties with switch candidates to warn if, if she won the nomination, had he do that

El thank you. Do I think tromp picks up a lot of those votes. Just like last time and no matter which way goes. I think somebody's gonna be angry at whoever, let's go through our. So here's what I think happened without Sanders Warren conversation and see if this doesn't sound. Like your experience all the time, I imagine instead of worn and sanders it save married couple. This will make it easier for your watch us imagine that, instead of being politicians worn and sanders or just a married couple and they had a private conversation and then when they talk about it later the two versions. Bernie says I didn't say I didn't say that unless we weren't says you did say a woman can't be present what really happened winding backwards,

yup reverse engineer it. Let me tell you what happened worn and sanders we're talking, because Warren was, I believe fact check in this Warren was telling Bernie she was going to run against them or thinking about it, or probably that was the conversation. What was burning going to say to Elizabeth Warren when he found out that she was going to run against him using essentially his policies? What would Bernie say about that? Well, smart, which he is, if he's persuasive, which apparently he is, he would say something that didn't sound like women care when, but certainly suggested. We'll be harder. So does seem to me that what birdie was trying to do was talk around of running if you're,

to talk somebody out of running against Trump and the person you're talking to is a woman. One of the good way Do it to say you know, you're gonna be drawing attacks, free or gender that I would not be drawing So you can have a hard time because Bernie believe there being a woman will attract more kinds of heat, that birdie would not attract, which would be sort of suggesting indirectly that maybe she couldn't win. But that's not a definitive statement is only a statement that she has an extra burden because he's running its trump and it might not be an extra burden if it were somebody else now, two people are married couple. They walk out of that conversation, the husband, let's call him birdie, said

can be hard to win. As a woman, you ve got extra young extra obstacles. What would be the way, the wife and this analogy Elizabeth worm? How would she characterize that same conversation? Well, if she's, like everybody else in the world, she say my husband just said: I can't win, because I'm a woman is that what he said now now he would have been talking about the extra the extra obstacle which is completely different from woman care when, as birdie rightly says you Hilary Guy, three million. More votes he's been saying for thirty years or forty years that a woman can be president is the most

consistent thing. Anybody can ever say there's no way in the world. He said that to somebody who can tell somebody else, he just didn't happen, but, like every other personal conversation in the world, if you say there is a problem with something and the other person doesn't like that, you're saying: there's a problem with something: how will they characterize it? They will characterize it

as an absurd absolute it's what you see everywhere all the time. The absurd absolute is where you take somebody's assessment of the risks: hey there's extra risks and then you turn it ill legitimately into his. As it can happen, happens all over Twitter happens and all of your personal conversations it happens in every relationship is the most common misinterpretation than a probable gets turned into account is the most common thing. Yes, I believe us in my book loser thick, so that's almost certainly will happen, so I think warns. Credibility is falling. Now, let's talk about the first question that I think Wolf, blitz arrest was

why they thought they could be commander in chief, and I can tell you that was the weakest bunch of potential commander in chief I've ever seen. Let me tell you what they all did wrong like so wrong, so wrong that even I could have done it better. I mean seriously with no practice. I could have gotten on that debate stage an answer that question better totally honestly completely seriously. I could have done better. I'm saying that, because many of you could do better, almost anybody could have done better here's what they did wrong now, of course, they're talking to their base, because as the primary so they're not trying to win the general, but

You say: why are you qualified to be commander and chief hears the wrong answer? Well, I would never go to war. I would never use my military. I would I would just negotiate what I do is I negotiate. I wouldn't be going to war. What did they just tell every foreign country them I want to get a little adventurous. What did they just tell Russia take whenever you want? That's what they said. They basically just said. If Russia takes over, Ukraine that they're gonna, negotiate with what Maybe maybe that's all you can do. But my point is my point is not even whether it's smart to be thinking, negotiate first

yes, but the way they presented to the world is as surrenders and chief. It seem like they were competing to see. Who would be the least threatening to the people we want to throw. Now. Is our situation and ran better because they believe the President Trump would launch the missiles. I think so I mean to me. It looks like president trumps. Continuous credible threat of violence looks like it makes The difference to me looks like it works. How would you rather be acting if the only thing they had to worry about is the commander in chief of the United States, wouldn't negotiate a little bit harder,

I'm negotiate. You you better, you better! Stop funding. Those proxies are watch me negotiate you. I will negotiate you so hard weapons, no knocker using weapons. They carry me another. Cyber cyberattack gazettes like a weapon to, but I wanted to she you like surrender and chief negotiates. I think you ve been Jones is correct. When you see them, they all look week, particularly for a job which one of the greatest assets of the job that you could bring to. The job was the impression of strength. Trump did that tromp brought to the job the impression of strength, that's important, they're all offering to bring the impression of what

are you kidding me you're running for president to be the commander in chief and yours, you're telling the world I'd like to bring weakness to the job? not with those words, but when you say negotiate Negotiate, don't want he was a military. It just sounds like you're gonna, anybody do anything they want, and maybe that's a good answer, so even Democrats or angry about why the Democrats are not fighting with each other, but of course they can't they're all stuck now. I didn't see the whole debate, but it seemed to me I'm I'm having trouble understanding

why climate change was in pretty much the only thing they wanted to talk about, because it seems to me that climate change, if it's the big problem, lay that they claim feels like fashion to bend the central point of all of their presentations. They should have worked it back to the late. They all mentioned it, but it just seemed weak because I just feel like attack honour I've to throw this includes the sounds good. I'm not sure I believed any of them were serious about it. I guess that's the thing: none of them looked yet and steer style did make a seventy seven. The comments style did make climate change more of a central thing, but since dire himself has not to important the race

at this point. Is you sort of a sort of a sideshow it just felt like it wasn't getting the level of importance that their own team believes it believes it should have? When Biden was asked about his qualifications for commander in chief, he was asked to defend his his record on Iraq, which he says to his credit. Wasn't mistake so then the front runner for the Democrats is running for to be commander in chief and is claiming that the most important decision has ever made there was

that realm of foreign defence things he got wrong and that's the only thing I remember about his answer, because there are other things you sort of on the team right there were those situations where or bomber did something and binding was disordered, he's on the team and vice president, he I'm on the team, I'm part of this, so he he took credit for some things which he wasn't too directly involved in. He was just one other people in the team. I called at the walls. Play if you're familiar with the Dilbert Comic Strip, Wally's lazy, the lazy one in the office and one of his taxes. They always joins the project that is going to succeed whether he does good work or not, and then he can always get credit for being on the project. So I think Biden is pursuing the Wally approach. Well, I was on the outside the Obama team, when some

I'm good happen when he, when he killed Osama Bin Laden, even though I told him not to the two most famous things famously were the war in Iraq that he says he got wrong and telling Obama not to try to kill us. The London that day until he had more information, I'm thinking of those are the only things I remember. I dont remember everything else about Joe Biden record. Do you quick mention all of Is in that area I can't think of any, but I can think of two

really big high profile things they want. Do you miss? He got wrong and the other one ages, Garabin, that's that's tough. To sell and still the field is so weak. He still the front runner. I I think you're reserves. Scott, wasn't scared scared for using a Democrat Scott somebody who talked about the year, the Democrats big in a quoted, pitiful crouch, which was a great a greater plan words. What is his name Scots now you'll tell me, is one of the regular Democrat pundits unseen,

but the IRAN's nuclear deal was working or what is I mean? What does it mean that IRAN's nuclear deal was working wasn't around killing Americans and yet the funding proxies to do terror attacks? What about that? That counts for nothing. What does it mean that IRAN's nuclear deal was working wasn't around killing Americans and here the funding proxies to do terror attacks. What about that that counts for another? What about the fact that, after the Rand Nuclear, Ill timed out, they would have done all the research in the then ready to just become a nuclear force and they how many years left- and they have a long long time frame? If you don't mention the fact that IRAN was definitely going to get a nuclear weapon at issue, There is not really qualified from commander in chief,

every one thing to say the random- clear deal would keep them from getting a nuclear bomb for x number eight years. That might actually be a pretty defensible statement, but to state, but to save the deal, prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon is exactly wrong. It guarantees them a nuclear weapon after the end of the deal guarantees, because I have all this time to do, research which they are allowed to do, and then they just put it together kind of a guarantee. So let's talk about the the bottom line on the debates is that it didn't move the needle. So that's good for the front runners I thought Buddha Judge has by far the most clever,

and I can say this because Buddha Judge Is- is a white male, so I can call him articulates. If you dont know this, you dont want to use the word articulate about Eddie. Who's. Not a white male you're allowed to sail in that case, but its it becomes like a back ended insult. If you say, if you set you sent a black in Dayton, was articulate. They concern an insult because war why're you bring it up, then why do you have to mention unless you think it's some kind of weird exception, but that's it be Buddha Judge is articulate as heck and man can that guy put his sentence together, he's clearly The smartest, I think, also what we're seeing is the benefit of youth. When you say people to judge handle the question you're saying somebody operating at

I would say, is biological pique I mean you could even better and smarter and more experienced, but man is he on his game? the the complexity and the level of his answers was actually really impressive. However, there is a, however, here he was the smartest most articulate complicated speaker. However, nobody was that nobody wants that seriously it the Euro. As a mayor, he would have been better as a city manager. You know the guy who does the actual work I think Buddha judges looking like a really good senator if Buddha Judge will say, doesn't make it to the nomination, but Sunday decides to run from the Senate. He looks like exactly the kind of guy you one is the senator assuming they use them

because I like the guy is really in the details- can really analyze something he's a good you're communicator clue. Please can understand thing a deeper levels, a man you see him standing next to Trump and tromp is gonna. Make him look like professor duty is going, is gonna? Look like! one key professor, who can communicate with the public, be put a judge, did a great job of communicating with people who watch democratic debates. They're, probably above average, and intelligence and knowledge about things, and so it was probably pretty impressive if you're CNN watcher of debates, but if you're, just a voter I don't think he was somebody that smart. You know what I mean

Oh really, don't love that smart? They want you to be smart in a street wise way, smarting political. Way smart enough, a leader away, but they oh, really want you that smart that Smart is off putting because people don't relate to look. So this is biggest problem. I thought clover cheer, there's something about the way she talks the sounds weak. Does anybody else picked up? Isn't her voice is not because it's a female voice, and I say that so what I'm gonna say now has nothing to do with her gender at all, but there's something when she's she sends she talks with some kind of urgency that makes her voice quiver a little bit. There's something.

The confidence of her voice. This missing, which again, would make her a great senator, but president, you just need a little bit of extra gravitas. Confidence is it maybe it's missing some confidence. I don't know what it is. Wavery somebody What are you thinking that up to now, by the way, I think closer is a really strong candidate. I think she's smart. I think she got this far as she said. She's one everything she is. She would be strong in the midwest she's centres, cheese, where the voters in her party are she's, really strong candidate experience, wise and skill eyes. She got this far and I would say that my opinion of her, as has gone up every time. I see

because she's just a solid, solid candidate. I think, but the voters are not, for whatever reason the voters in the Democratic Party or not finding her, let's say inspirational, so I think she lacks the inspirational element and I think that's gonna put a cap on bernie- was okay and by then I thought binding is like you was barely avoiding the gaff the entire time use talking. It felt like an old man driving without his glasses, I think there is a right here, I'm pretty sure the speed, It is twenty five years that a car- or I can't tell you most all the other pedestrians, but I felt like

in their own mere mrs. It felt like he was right on the edge of gathering because you he would stop and correct what he said make it more accurately would clarify as he went it felt like he was struggling for coherence. Now he was cohered. If you know it was easy, spoken generality, so there wasn't much there too to grab onto but feel that so maybe that's good enough. The start well something else. So there's new evidence, new evidence in documents and texts and messages and stuff regarding Ukraine and the impeachment process, and if you haven't following it, let me explain the new evidence

an arch I'll, try to give this in the simplest way, because as a complicated story here, the players Marie of Honor- that's you D, Giuliani, robber, hide president's Lansky, love partners, Joe a hundred Biden, General Yuri, let's go and Victoria tensing, that's all you need to know. That's the end of the story. Now, there's some details to the story, but here's the rules. Are you ready? If there are more than three people in the story, it doesn't matter watch how often that rule works now, not every time but are used.

Have a roulette. I was it used to be in a relationship in which I had a girlfriend who would tell stories that had too many people in them, and I realized that when you got to the fourth character in the story, I couldn't follow it anymore. It became to complicate So her stories were all ok so than Bob was over there. He was with generous and Genesis brother came in and he was saying that their her, sister and I'd be will hold on hold on. I am not going to follow any of the story for characters. That's too much story.

If you can get down to three, I'm gonna follow along, but here they have a one two three four five, six seven eight at minimum is an eight character. Story must not even carried the president, as without Trop is an eight character story. How many people in the public are going to follow a story about Ukraine on something that feels like old news that involves eight characters operating in a way that corresponds to and connect to a story with ten more players about something with impeachment in Ukraine and something about the letter in there was the perfect letter, but maybe it wasn't perfect and who did Trump talk to and what were the dates of that and who exactly?

Information about the new stuff there was an doesn't even matter can care. He do that anyway, the most complicated story receive and watching CNN wrestle with us is Larry S cause it's a story that can't be told it literally Kapital I mean you. Could you could write it down an accurate way which all the details of their but nobody's gonna understand it if they bother to read it, it's all just becoming this. What seems yesterday said conflate in the comments all starting to conflate into the same stuff. It doesn't even feel like new, so here's a little tests be ready for this

Find an article about these new, shocking bombshell, revelations that involve love, Parnassus, some kind of a loose associate of Rudy Giuliani with us. You create some find an article and then see how far you have to read into the article. Where you can find what the point is. I've never found it. So I read a very long article on CNN Com and I was trying to figure out. Ok, it's a bombshell, this new information that damn what exactly everything in reading looking for the part where they say and here's the important part, here's. Why were telling you this here is the main point here is the bomb. And I kept reading in reading, and then I ran on the text

I don't know what it was. I mean I actually done now. What was the barbershop? I keep reading stories and seeing stories manner now and even tried Ipod, workin I actually I put some muscle into. I tried to understand the story and I couldn't there's nothing there. Here's the funniest comment from Representative well demonstrate Florida Democrat in the house,

intelligence, judiciary committee- and this is what she told CNN when asked about the parnaz documents, which is what I've been talking about. She said quote, I think it's something we can't ignore, and do you know what this is? This is something you can really. You could really ignore all right. So Bella is down to two says: I'm very disingenuous and I'm not that stupid. Well, you got, Reasons only insults to your host are not allowed Youtube continues to democratize me.

For no reason, and so I do a crucial date which I'll do again. So my content is also mirrored and bit shoot, be idee c h, you T and Iraq. Then you have to be a subscriber to see it on. Rockland are ok. If I up, if you Google, either bit shewed or rock him, you you'll find their sites in just Google defined and an eye, and let me tell you that my youtube General is this content. Do you think, there's anything about this content that an advertiser should be afraid of compared to other content where they were. They do just better really well. Well. Well, also, there's somebody you Tuesday monetizing me. So one individual, whose actual job it is, who says my goddamn says: ha ha demonetized.

I'm watching the story about the law, enforcement and billboard wants an apple to help them break into an apple device that terrorists had an apple either camps or longer, there's some disagreement about whether their helping or not, I tend to believe apple in there They probably are helping, but there's nothing. They could do they made it. They made an encrypted for a reason and I'm kind of torn of this because on one hand I do want law enforcement to be able to fine terrorists and all that. On the other hand, I kind of like the fact that nobody can get into my phone number save my password, a kind of like that. So I'm gonna turn on this.

They go either way on this, but I definitely respect apple for having privacy under from that. That's a completely supportable position, even if their privacy is working against the governments, interest in law enforcement of your seemly Bernie video. It's about project very task as a video in which a Bernie one a burning, sir. What we call campaign people I forget, who I don't care, what his name is,

we're saying that a burning, doesnt win with was council would burn and that the police would please would get beaten up. I'm thinking is that guy not fired yet because if that, guy still on the campaign, I think Bernice gonna have some questions to answer has hidden fire. Yet so, MRS yes, anyway, if he's not fired by the end of the day, I think you have to worry about burning now. Here's a Bernie thought. Let me ask you this: lotta people think that Bernie at his current age, he's not too old to new presence. Would you want a president who is too old to drive because Bernie does drive? I believe I just saw video him pulling out of his driveway and this seems to me.

Some may say that the name of the burning campaign guy was Kyle, directness, sounds rights, but it seems to me that if you think a guy were a woman would not be qualified to driving. Mobile, because you're too old and I'll be real, worried about getting in the car with Bernie. Wouldn't you I mean seriously. If Bernie is driving, do you want to be in the passenger seat, serious question? Would you feel safe and if he don't well, maybe should maybe she finds a meaning in this one of Rupert Murdoch. Sons is mad at a Fox news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch parent company, because Fox NEWS is blaming.

Our list. Some of the funds are not the newspaper. People for some of the funds are opinion pieces opinion. People on Fox NEWS are blaming the fires that are devastating Australia Blaming it on arson instead of climate change, to which I say losers, thank losers. Egg is there to reason for a thing and you're only willing to say there's one reason for a thing: you should not be listened to If you are saying that the problem with us really is only arson, Are you saying that is only climate change? You should not be listened to why it be both. Wouldn't that be the more likely thing That is climate change that you wouldn't have to worry about that. But if not for two hundred arsonists You didn't have two hundred arsons. What do you care that there was a climate change because nothing would be on fire?

I mean if it was, it would be limited compared to two hundred fires. So the same way, I criticized Hillary Clinton for saying a new reason why she lost every week when in fact it was a thousand mentions, a thousand things had to happen just the way they happened for the result to be just what it what's so this old climate change versus fire thing is just dumb. People argue with each other. If you can say it might be both you don't belong in a public conversation about it. Now I would respect people who say there is no climate change element at all, but I think you have to say that if there is a climate change, you need both

the climate change and the arson to get the problem we have? If what you should take any one of those away, you might have a different outcome. Although the climate part people will debate, I saw a very convincing graphic. They showed that showing the earth warming- and I would say at this point that the earth is warming, probably is as close to a fact as you can get- and probably also that co2 is part of that, we don't know how much you know that their personal horror

but I think that sports, in fact, to the part, the only part that I think you're serious questioning, is the economic projections that come from that over eighty years. Nobody can project an eighty year thing and if I had to predict, if there were any kind of abetting market, I would say this. This is what I would say if they were abetting market. I would bet that we'll be fine and fewer people will die in the future from major disasters. That in the past is, as always, always been and will probably continue. So I don't think there's gonna be an earth. Killing is, and what is worse, worrying about. How does global warming stop reigned? Well, they really want the answer that, if global, if

global warming changes the weather patterns, you would expect some places to get warmer some places they get cooler, Some places to read more than the usual some places rain less than usual, so it's the disruption. That's the problem is not some general continuous warming that affects everybody in the same way, you're talking about disrupt which make everything different than it was in a few builders.

Society around a certain temperature and climate and the changes while you're societies can have just that and that could be expensive, dangerous sun spots, plate tectonics yeah. I said before, and I say again the worst take on climate change. Is that it's the sun now, even if your right is the worst stake, because Arabs, it assumes that these scientists haven't really looked into that they have. They have they looked into the sun like rain on their heads in the top five of things you looking do. If you're kleiber scientists cause the sun creates a marked, so you gonna look at the sun, so everybody uses.

Climate scientists forgot to look at the sun or they got it wrong, that's the worst take even if you're right, you could actually accidentally be right about that. That is really the sun and, amazingly all the scientists got the sun wrong or they forgot to look at it ideas possible, but it's not good. Take what The optimal seo to level will here's the other worse to take on climate. Here's the other worse to take,

see or too used to be much higher in the past that isn't uninformed. Take true is the true statement, but is also true that when co2 as high a number of other variables, including the sun, were different so looking it was, he who was in the past is irrelevant. If you go past, if you go into the far past cause you're too many other things different about the earth. So it's not a conference, not a comparison. Sorry, Scott, the IPCC, is adding the sun to the next report. That supports what I'm saying that doesn't review what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the scientists have looked at the sun and that's not what they consider the primary mover of climate change, surface included in the IPCC report. It won't be written included, as are without doubt, is just the sun. That's not gonna happen. I, the sun was different. Yes in early earth life once Whence Co2 was much higher,

the brightness in the words of the sun was substantially different. That is correct. That is one of the big variables that were there was different in the best. What, if climb climate scientists are lying someday, says wire scientists automatically beyond reproach? I never said that now the US. Oh, you thing is confusing me because, even if its climate change, why are they? Blaming their own government does that make sense. The australian seem to be blaming their own government for climate change. What is the total percentage of climate change? The Australia is responsible for. One percent, one percent, there's nothing that Australia can do myself. Loon make any difference to climate change.

So I dont even understand what the protesters complaining about. They should be protest in China, Russia and India. Never hear them talk about solar cycles because it's not to relevant apparently. You will take a lot to convert me. Somebody says somebody saying that the Co2 one of the bad information on the internet you find is that co2 follows temperatures instead of the other, where out you'll see only on the internet, the sceptics will say: no, these, the the warmth happens first and then the co2 follows: that's been debunked. If you dont know that spending bond just google it and you will see that the banking

apply, both venues reporting rule bright button, Bright Barton Fox. I don't want your topic. Is there. See or too has never been higher. Well, there are expert saying it was once higher. Failure to do controlled burning there may be part of it. I don't know enough about that topic Somebody says you're two's lagging indicator. I just told you if you google, it that has been depart so it is one of their common things, sceptic say, but this did not yet the scientists have looked at it and they know that this is not the case. It doesnt follow

But you will remember: I've read the debunking and as something to do with the way the graph is made over, so that it is just not true that it follows how many here there was cooling during the industrial revolution here. All of those things are then debunked, so basically, every everything that you believe is a deep on King scientific track as battled about by the actual scientists I dont. There are no exceptions that if you think that you have one that has not been easy. Just Google, it, Google, what you think is true that hasn't been debunked along with the word debunked operator.

No. Now I want to say very carefully that none of this means the science is right, because often there could be a consensus. And they could be wrong. I'm just saying that the people who know how to debunk this stuff have debunk all of these common skeptical. Things. If you haven't seen that the bank, you shouldn't be believing believing the people who were make these claims we can only simple them. That's all I got for you and I'll talk to you later.