 I haven't seen the whole interview. I'd like to see what else she said. I'm sure there's some other pearls of wisdom in there. She did an interview with Tanehasey Coates. Tanehasey Coates is probably the most influential African American intellectual in the United States today. He is an interesting guy and a very good writer. Even if you dislike a lot of what he says, he is very mixed in terms of what he does say. But here he is, asking Coates about billionaires. It is moral for individuals to, for instance, do we live in a moral world that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome? No, it's not. It's not. And it's not. And I think it's important to say that I don't think it's that necessarily means that all billionaires are immoral. It is not to say that someone like Bill Gates, for example, or Warren Buffett are immoral people. I do not believe that. But I think he kicks his dog. Right. Yeah, I don't. I'm not saying that. But I noticed that that morality, well, conventionally, is viewed as, you know, you're immoral if you kick your dog. You're immoral if you like steal a cheat. You're immoral if you, you know, hood other people. That's the standard of immorality. Very different than the objective standard of immorality, which, you know, which places a huge, huge emphasis on what you do with your life and how productive you are with your life. So the attitude towards somebody like Bill Gates is, and Warren Buffett is so different not because they don't kick their dogs, but because of what they have done and what they have achieved and what they have produced in their lives. It's exactly the fact that they become billionaires, which is suggestive, not approved, but suggestive of virtue. And to them, of course, it's meaningless. So let's let's hear the rest. But I do. But notice how good she is on, on, on a feet. I mean, I'm sure this was not her question. She's good. She she gives the she gives the answer that her audience expects the answer that I think she believes in. And she distates, she makes sure not to make it a personal attack, particularly not on those very large billionaire Democratic donors, but generally on, on, on people that she might actually like because they're philanthropists and so on. But yeah, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates also happen to be good Democrats. But she's she's good. And now this is, I mean, this is the highlight, right? Not saying that, but I do think a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong. And I think it's, it's wrong that I think that it's wrong that that a vast majority of the country does not make a living wage. I think it's wrong that you can work 100 hours and not feed your kids. I think it's wrong that, that corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid. They can get paid for the, by the government essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public for paying people less than a minimum wage. And not only does it make economic sense, economic sense, but it doesn't make moral sense. And it doesn't make societal sense. So we have to tell you guys, she's good. She's dangerous. You gotta watch her and she's gonna set the tone for the Democratic Party for the, for the next few years. And if you think Republicans have an answer to that, they don't because what was the criticism on Fox News to what she said? Well, they made fun of the fact that she said that in Alabama people get ringworms. And, and one of the commentators said, well, what's a big deal about ringworms? I mean, people don't die of ringworms, right? That's, that's the level of criticism. That's the level of discussion. And notice her critique of Walmart and Amazon is paying minimum wage of not paying so-called living wage. That, that's straight out of Tucker Carlson. She must have been listening to Fox News before she did this straight out of Tucker Carlson. So if you're gonna, if you're going to be able to criticize what she has just said, if you're going to criticize Elizabeth Warren's proposal for wealth tax, which we're gonna get to in a few minutes, you're gonna have to do better than that. You're gonna have to make a moral case for a system that allows for billionaires. Because her argument wasn't the billionaires are bad. She's not even say the billionaires are thieves. Although we'll get to her, one of her economic goos actually did say, I need to find that tweet, but did say that billionaires are thieves. But she didn't not say that. She actually said, you know, they could be nice guys. But she said the system that allows them to exist, the system that makes it possible for them to exist is an immoral system. It's an immoral system. And of course she's proposing a 70% marginal income tax rate on all income above $10 million with an attempt to stop people from becoming billionaires and redistribute the wealth to those people who need it, to the people who are not surviving on a minimum wage and the people who, I guess, who get ringworms and the people who are poor and the people who are needy. So to actually combat her, to actually fight her views, you're going to have to be able to attack the welfare state. You're going to actually have to make the case that the welfare state, redistribution of wealth that she is proposing is immoral, is wrong. How many politicians are going to do that? So she wins. She wins. Because nobody is going to challenge you. Now I'm going to do a series of stuff on Cortez because I'm going to take on Medicare for All. I'm going to take on the Green New Deal. We'll take every one of her proposals and analyze them. We'll do the same. We're also going to do the same with Elizabeth Wan.