 and issues take two. This is the greatest country on earth. That's what my mother always used to tell me. I'm starting another year in a divided Congress, and the Republicans repatriate themselves into a civilized government. So we have today my co-host Tim Apochella, we have Stephanie Dalton, our regular contributor, and we have our special guest Colin Moore, and we are going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to examine the likelihood and political effect of indictments, they're always in the background against Trump. We're going to discuss, I suppose this is the top of the news, Kevin McCarthy's efforts to be speaker, so far unsuccessful, the troubled composition and agenda of the House Republicans, and the policies of the GOP going into the sessions. It's plans for investigations, impeachments against democratic targets. This is really a lot of issues all rolled into one. So let me start with you, Colin. Is the country okay? No, although I don't think I feel more optimistic than I did before the November election. I do think that what concerned me the most, which was election denialism, that seems to have lost a lot of its influence. I mean, you don't even hear as many members of the Republican Party talking about that, talking about Trump's election denialism that really concerned me. So now I think what we have here is just the Republican Party, which is, as we've seen with the Speaker election, totally divided against itself and unable to govern. I mean, it looks like we really have three parties. The Freedom Caucus, Hard Mago Right, the very conservative Republican Party, and then the Democrats who are eating popcorn on the sidelines here and watching the show, none of which is really that good for democracy. I mean, and I think what this Speaker election shows is even in the Republican Party, there isn't, for the hard right conservatives, people like Lauren Boebert, Matt Getz, there really isn't an incentive anymore to compromise. I mean, why do we have this crazy Speaker's election and why hasn't happened in 100 years? It's not as if there aren't always disagreements over who gets to be Speaker and all sorts of party infighting. But eventually, people care more about trying to get money for their districts or accomplish certain policy goals and it forces them to compromise. I mean, that's what the whole American constitutional system is based around, that to achieve your self-interest, you have to compromise at some level. That's what the system assumes, that not that everyone is going to be a virtuous citizen, but that it's worth my while to compromise with you because that'll allow me to get what I want at some level. I think we're seeing a failure of that here in the Republican Party because Kevin McCarthy, as he looks more and more pathetic after every vote, there is nothing he can offer to the group of 20 that oppose him because I don't really think that there's any policies they want. Lauren Boebert was on Hannity last night and she basically said she agrees with most of McCarthy's policy positions. That's really not the issue. She just doesn't like him. He's not enough of a true conservative and so there's nothing he can offer that I think will change their mind. I don't really understand why he keeps beating his head up against the wall. Now we're in the ninth vote, which he's going to lose. What they think is going to change, I'm a little surprised that his people haven't told him at this point. Look, we're not going to be able to deliver this for you. We have to find somebody else that likely a candidate will probably end up being Steve Scalise from Louisiana, but I don't even know if they're going to go for that. I think their motivation really is to get back on Fox News. They're more scared of that than actually delivering any policy. Tim, let me go to you. What's the influence this Trump have in all of this? Freedom Caucus seems to be driven by people who like him, who agree with him about the big lie, who would like to see him stage a comeback. How much influence does he have directly or indirectly on the chaos that's going on among the Republicans now? Well, certainly a diminished influence. If you watched yesterday, Loa Boper on the floor as she's going through a nominating process, she called out Donald Trump to say, don't think you can call us and change our minds. In so many words, that's what she said. There was a direct public insult of Donald Trump right then and there. I think it's a diminished influence. I think he's made his calls to the group. I don't think he's personally lobbying any of the 20 that are preventing Kevin McCarthy becoming the speaker of the House. I just don't think they care about him anymore. They know that he's still a force to be reckoned with, but they're willing to sidestep that. Stephanie, we've often discussed the fact that the base is based largely on people who have not been sufficiently educated on the Constitution and the way our government is supposed to run. They accept the big lie on that same level of ignorance. But there is the thought that the Freedom Caucus and maybe a lot of the Republicans involved in the chaos now are, they don't understand what it is to be a representative in our American Congress. They don't understand what Colin was talking about. They need to compromise. They need to make way to develop policies to govern the country. Do you agree with that? Do you think this is a question of people who are simply ignorant of the obligations of representatives? I'm not sure of the full explanation. I am struggling with it. My questions, while I listen to these people nominate and talk about potential candidates or speaker, how much of what they say America needs now and that people need to know and be served for? How many of those people said any of that on the campaign trail? All of the things that they talk about with the investigations and the countries in a mess and the inflation is unsufferable and not fixable and nobody's working on it. How many said that? I'd like to see some video of their campaign presentations to hear what they said to their voters that got the voters to vote for them. That discrepancy bothers me a lot. It's possible that they did say these things and the voters did like that. That gets back to your point, Jay, that maybe they're stuck in these belief systems that are governed by, as you say, Fox and previously all these other radio programs. I think it's a very good question. I don't think we know the answer, but we do know we have to live all together. We all have to somehow make this work with this polyglot diversity. Colin, she says we have to, but I'd like to ask you the Charles Dickens question about Christmas future. What if we don't? What if this just continues the way it's going? Where is Congress going and what effect does that have? Well, in the short term, it'll mean that no new legislation will be able to be passed. I think that's true no matter what happens with this speaker election. The Democrats will block everything, and the Senate and the Republicans, if they can't even elect a speaker, they're not going to be able to pass really any bills. I'm sure there'll be a lot of noise around these investigations, but in terms of actually passing legislation or managing the country's problems, there won't be any movement. There won't be any legislation passed. It probably doesn't matter that much in the short term, because I also don't think, on the other hand, the Republicans have enough support or votes to implement some of their more radical ideas, like allowing the country to default on its debt or things like that. Their majority is so slim, they wouldn't be able to pull off a really credibly threatened even to do those more radical, terroristic moves. But in the long run, I think it just means that we're not able to plan for the future very well. People have increasingly less trust in government, they have more disgust with public officials. These kinds of open, what looks like to a lot of voters like theater, of course, there's people on the sidelines who love this stuff, who love to cheer on folks like Matt Getz, who are really just showboats. This really gives most voters a lot less faith in the process that the government is even capable of solving any problems. I just think it makes us less competitive on every level, less able to deal with international crises, less able to reform our economy, less able to respond to social problems. It continues to be the empire and decline. I don't think there's any other way to put it. I'll just leave it at that. If there's no functional government, which there really isn't, then we're not going to make much progress. Alternatively, the other thing that happens, which I also don't think is very good, although I think you see increasingly this happening throughout presidential administrations, is more action through things like executive orders, more action through the administrative agencies to the extent that they can, and Congress just becomes less and less relevant, which is not really what you want in a democracy. Yeah, well, to go into that, the Keynesian future, if we have a Congress that like doesn't exist, can't do anything, and we can't address problems, and everyone agrees from all sides of the aisle that we have problems, serious problems, structural problems. What happens? You said decline, but what does decline mean? What does it decline mean in terms of Hawaii, of my life and your life and people across the country? What does it mean in terms of our influence, the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency? If we keep on going this way, it's hard to predict what's going to happen, and I know it's a hard question, but, Queery, what happens to us? I mean, people certainly younger than us live less prosperous lives. At the end of the day, that's it, that there are more problems. I think with a government that doesn't function well, what happens? I mean, you can look at other states and nations that don't have governments that function particularly well. Inequality increases, the wealthy increasingly opt out of participation in common conversations, barricade themselves in their own communities. There's just less investment overall in the civic life of the country, trust erodes. I mean, you can connect that to all sorts of things, to people's health, and we're just all worse off. I mean, we're worse off on every level, from wealth to health to public safety. All of it gets worse. All of it gets worse together. And what exactly breaks? I mean, I don't think we're going to see, I mean, it's potentially true, but I think it's unlikely you're going to see some dramatic break. I mean, big empires like the United States slowly fall apart. And I don't think there's going to be some dramatic event that happens where I've never been a believer that we're going to have civil war in this country or anything like that. I think we're just going to continue to decline and more and more people are going to opt out. You started off this segment saying, reminding us that your mom used to always say the US was the greatest country in the world and people would often say that, not ironically, you don't hear people saying that much anymore. I'm not even sure people who say it really believe it themselves. And that was a powerful thing to believe. I mean, I think that level of, because that meant that you cared about the civic health of the country. If you don't care about that anymore, all of this, the stuff that makes civic life works requires people to volunteer their time, requires them to care to show up to the city council meetings, care to vote. And that is, once was part of the pride of people had in this country. And I think as that's declined, then everything else just starts to fall apart. That was always kind of the magic that made American democracy work that when we tried to export it was often the hardest thing to get going. You could easily export the institutions, but it was these attitudes, these civic attitudes that are the hardest things to develop. And now we're losing them ourselves. And losing them means it's very, very hard to ever get them back. I'm thinking of Norman Rockwell and the Four Freedoms. I'm thinking specifically of the one called Freedom of Speech where this fellow looks like an automobile mechanic is standing up in a town hall meeting expressing themselves and everyone's listening. I think I agree with you that's gone. So Tim, we had an insurrection on January 6th, obviously, and it was profound. It was remarkable. It was emblematic of deeper problems, of course, but it had a huge effect on the country. But what is the connection, if any, between that insurrection and those problems and what we have in Congress today? Well, I think Jay, what you see right now unfold on TV with the potential election of a House Speaker, you're seeing elements of those political arsonists, those political arsonists that might have been involved on January 6th and some of the planning there. We don't know yet. We don't have a DOJ indictment. Certainly, there were things implied in the January 6th Select Committee House Report about some of those in Congress that were cooperating with January 6th events. So is there a causal connection? Sure. We have political arsonists that aren't really concerned about governance. They're more concerned as Colin pointed out. We have some showboats out there, and they're not interested in getting things done. They're interested in retainment of power. One of the congressmen was putting out a mad today for asking for money because he said, look at what we've done. We've prevented Kevin McCarthy, become Speaker of the House, and there's a campaign request for dollars using that as a basis for money. So we have people looking for money. We have people who are looking for public exposure, the showboat factor, if you will, and it will continue. I think they're taking the wrong tact. I think they need to say, okay, who's going to be identified as a political arsonist that is solely dedicated to gridlock in Congress? Set them aside. Put them in the corner. Let's go to the other side of the aisle for votes. Let's compromise. Let's find what consensus we can arrive at and what can we do to pass legislation for the benefit of the public. And become kind of a congress that we used to be back in the 70s where there was compromise. There was not the polarization. And I think this is an opportunity for that time to start to occur again. Go to the Democrats. They'll pitch. They'll play ball and see what kind of things you can agree on. And set aside the Laura Boeberts and the Matt Gaetz. Put them in the corner and basically nullify them. From your lips to God's ears. So, Stephanie, what we have here and Colin referred to it is a crisis in public confidence. The public in general does not have confidence. For example, in Supreme Court, hold on. And that's not going to be changed for a while until new appointments are possible and better. And we have obviously a crisis of confidence in Congress. So my question to you is, how does this affect the normal threads of news, the news cycles that we've been, you know, watching and listening and thinking about over the past few months? How does it affect Mar-a-Lago? How does it affect the other indictment possibilities against Trump? How does it affect, you know, the campaign for 2024? How does it affect all these things that we've been focusing on? But now, you know, the news is being occupied by Congress. In response to the issue of where we are now and are we going to go towards, as Colin says, you know, being in a executive rulings and or agency regs, is that what's going to run the country while all this other shenanigans goes on in the Congress? Does that not mean we may already be in decline? And if we are, what's the better example we know of than Iraq? When we went to Iraq and went into Baghdad, and we found that after 30 years of Saddam Hussein dictator, that everything was completely down, including electricity, we're air conditioning and water, et cetera. But the point is that it all starts with this kind of chaos and disorganization and budgeting that maybe doesn't work anymore. And the Republicans say they're going to fix all that, but they never have come up with, even when they've had leaders that said they would a lot, Paul Ryan, we've never gotten the kind of budget that they they seem to admire, but they've never produced. But as all of this declines, all of the agencies and those institutions decline too. And all of the activities and products and outcomes and services that those agencies provide go away to. And you end up with a situation after, as we did in Baghdad, going in with Paul Bremer into that Coalition Provision Authority, which goes into not one single one of their agencies or ministries, as they call them, was operable, including the banks. They didn't even know how to write checks. I know that because my roommate was from the central bank. But I'm just saying that it's frightening to think that we may be on some trajectory like that if we are going to be so chaotic in this process. And if we're not going to have a happy ending soon, that they get somebody in place, even if it is McCarthy. Colin, you know, the liberal world order is at risk here in Ukraine. And it's a long, it's a long haul. It's not clear what's going to happen either in Ukraine or in Russia as a reaction or for that matter in Western Europe. But if the United States for the lack of political will or what do you want to call it political, political action, stops funding, you know, help to Ukraine, we have greater risks than just in this country. The Keynesian future includes the whole world, doesn't it? Absolutely. I think that, you know, that that is one of the dangers, a retreat to an extreme isolationism. And you actually see those elements, those isolationist factions on the left and the right in this country. And I think as domestic problems grow, more citizens are going to ask themselves, why, why is this any of our business? Why, why do we care? This is a luxury that this country can no longer afford to, you know, be as involved in international affairs, to be the world's policemen. And, you know, unfortunately, I also haven't seen, you know, the major Western European countries stepping up to be able to fill that void, even in their own backyard. I think that there was this movement early on in Germany to take more responsibility. But my sense really is that has largely faded. And it's still mainly the United States who is responsible for leading this effort to assist Ukraine, certainly militarily. So who does that provide opportunities for? I mean, I think it provides opportunities not just for Vladimir Putin, but mainly for Xi Jinping and China, who are watching very carefully how the world reacts to Ukraine and the extent to which it's provided American support. And, you know, I think there's other larger damaging effects of the dysfunction of our own democracy, which is, I mean, you saw a lot of this discussion leading up to the November election, which is that, well, maybe this grand experiment in liberal democracy, maybe it's just not all it's cracked up to be. I mean, if the United States can't make it work, the oldest mass democracy in the world, then, look, maybe the Russians and the Chinese have a better idea. Maybe kind of this soft authoritarian model is a more effective model for running a society. And that may be, I mean, I think that's the dangers that we're going to end up joining that club as opposed to defending our own liberal democratic vision. And there's more support for that. As Congress looks more dysfunctional, as our political system looks more dysfunctional, as we can't get anything done, then I think more people find that authoritarian model more attractive. Let's just cut through all the BS and elect a leader that we can all get behind. So those are, I mean, those are the multiple threats that I think we're facing. And I think without American leadership, there's nobody, there's nobody left. I mean, there's no one who could step up to the plate and fill that void. And as much as American foreign policy is rightfully criticized, I think most people would rather have the United States there than anyone else. Could it lead to war? Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, we would get war by increasing instability. I mean, I think we would get war by, well, I mean, we would certainly get war if there is a sense that, you know, from one of these, well, like Vladimir Putin has been trying in Ukraine, if the Chinese tried the same thing in Taiwan, I think we absolutely would get war. And I think that would come if there was a sense that the American resolve really wasn't there to defend allies. And I think, you know, I think there's a good chance they might be right about some of that. We may have lost confidence in Congress and for that matter, Supreme Court, but we still believe in him that he'll come up with something. What should he come up with? How can he ameliorate the chaos? Well, I think if there is a way, you know, you and I have been fairly critical of some of his positions in the last two years. And maybe some of that was founded or unfounded, but we certainly took, you know, the opportunity to point those out. I think yesterday is classic Joe Biden. And that was a bridge ceremony in Ohio where he had Mitch McConnell and other leading Republicans all gather at the microphone and not necessarily sing and hold hands in Kumbhaya, but certainly the image and the tone that we disagree. But for the people, we are willing to come together on a consensus basis and get things done. I think that was a really powerful message for us to see in the midst of this chaos that we see in the House of Representatives. I think he could do more of that. And again, I think at some point, if Kevin McCarthy is not placed and we're without a rudder in the middle of the vast ocean of nothing getting done in the House and Congress, you may see some overtures from the Democrats to say, come work with us. Come work with us. Let's find a solution, a candidate that we'll support, we'll vote for. And let's begin new on a new bipartisan governance. But I love my aspirations. Would that be nice? Yeah, it would be nice. But Stephanie, do you think there's any feasible chance that's going to happen? Let me put it this way. How is this going to end? Even 100 years ago, they did find an end to it. So how is it going to end this time? Well, what Tim is talking about is really my fantasy. And that Joe Biden might be doing some things along the way that had drawn from his enormous experience in Congress and his ability to pull people together. And maybe he has been underrated with his boasting that he could do that sort of stuff and nobody believed it. But is he actually increment by increment doing that? And then does this crisis in the in the speakership election, does that mean that there might be more opening for some of this bipartisan work again? And with his leadership and what he's shown us already so far that he knows a little bit about how to push those buttons? Is it that we could go back to having the Congress work to problem solve, make decisions, do things in a bipartisan way? What can Democrats do? Can they do anything? Can they achieve the leadership necessary to solve this problem? Well, how do they step? It's my question. All of the ones that are the Jeffries people in the Casa Rep. So they're six short or whatever it is. Does that mean they're down and out totally? What are they supposed to? Can't they work really hard to relate to their colleagues there that are Republican? I mean, maybe there's some models here and some some way, you know, ways to bring this about. I mean, it is my secret hope that this could evolve and under the leadership of Biden and what he's modeled and set up, you know, in his presidency. He hasn't taken the bait. He hasn't gone that case. And he has not thought that he's done things that are about building, building coalitions and trying to build the amity. And he's he's doing all of those things, maybe right. So it's something to watch. I think it's something to watch. Well, certainly we can get back to that. Yeah, because I just desperate times, you know, bring desperate measures and desperate measures bring profound change. And so Colin, I want to ask you, you know, changes will come out of this, however it resolves. Changes, for example, through the Republican Party. We looked at a very interesting interview of Mona Sharon, who was in the White House under Reagan, and who is very accommod about this. And she said, nobody is going to have confidence in the Republican Party again, that it's done. Now, that's a pretty strong statement. But my question to you is, how will this change the Republican Party, which has already dramatically changed under Trump? And how will it change the Democratic Party? These are going to be remarkable changes, no? Yeah, I mean, well, I think you're also just seeing changes to the party structure generally. I mean, one thing that social media, Twitter has given rise to is that relatively unknown politicians, if they say things that are outrageous enough, or they somehow have enough social media followers, can be extremely powerful and influential. They don't need the party anymore. And you see this on the left and the right from AOC to Matt Getz, that the party infrastructure that used to provide the money to run campaigns, you used to want to rise in Congress because having a more powerful committee position would allow you to bring more benefits to your constituencies. I mean, that's why party hierarchy and congressional hierarchy work, because what you wanted, you had to play ball to get through the party organization or through the congressional hierarchy. Now, it's less clear that that's really true at all. I mean, what is it that Matt Getz wants? I think he wants to be on television more, and he already does that. He can already do that himself. It doesn't matter what Republican leadership thinks. And for Trump, I mean, what's interesting to me is that Trumpism now exists independent of Trump. I mean, Lauren Boebert's comment about my favorite president, and then ignored what he just said, I think demonstrate that perfectly, that these are Trumpists, but Trump doesn't control Trumpism anymore. So what does this mean for the Republican Party? I think it's basically going to become a party that can no longer govern. It's split into these two factions. And I don't know what's going to happen. I would not be surprised if some of the Republicans either become independents and or the Freedom Caucus Party forms their own separate faction that operate. They would never ditch the name Republicans, but operates as their own independent party in all but name, which will make it impossible for the Republicans to govern. And then for the Democrats, I think that one of the strengths of the Democratic Party has always been that it's a big tent party. People used to complain about that because they never had the kind of discipline, at least when the Republicans really got it together in the 80s, following the crisis and the party that happened after Nixon's resignation. And that was led by Reagan. It became this ideological, but very disciplined party that led it to just tremendous success for the last 40 years. That really has crumbled. And the Democrats now, though, I think are in a pretty good place. I mean, they are kind of going to be willing to take all comers. And I think that that Joe Biden is in some ways the perfect president for this moment, because he just is such a pragmatist by his nature. I don't think he really has ever been particularly ideological. And I know there's been criticisms of President Biden, but I actually think he's been a tremendously successful president. I think by almost any measure, the amount of legislation they've been able to pass is extraordinary in this very polarized environment. So pretty soon, I think you're going to see the Republicans will be responsible, particularly when American capital begins to believe that they're no longer able to effectively govern the country. I mean, I think you're going to see more and more of a shift over to supporting moderate Democrats who are going to continue to look like the party that can actually govern. And that's not to say that Democrats don't have their own issues to manage, but I actually think under Nancy Pelosi's leadership, the kind of insurgent progressive faction now has realized that it makes more sense for them to play ball as part of the larger Democratic Party. I think the very dysfunction and insanity you see from the Republican Party is going to keep the Democrats more united, because I think their brand is going to be, look, we actually are functional. We can get the job done. We can pass policies. We're not interested in the circus. I mean, politically, they're not going to be able to really do anything with the speaker's election, but I'm surprised you haven't seen more of the Democrats go on TV, and maybe you have to some degree, to say, look, we're ready to govern. We would welcome a partnership with some Republicans who would support Jeffries, and we understand we don't have a minority, but we just want to get started. Let's get started. Let's make the House functional. That's going to be a tough thing for the Republicans to counter. And of course, the faction of 20, the Freedom Caucus, I think there's going to be enough Republicans who realize after this that it's impossible to compromise with them, that they're not interested in anything but creating controversy and getting themselves more and more attention, which from their perspective provides them more campaign money, prevents them from being primaried in their own district, the things that they're worried about. But I think they're going to be sort of dead to the rest of the party who realize that there's nothing they can do to compromise with those folks. And knowing politicians, there's going to be some sort of revenge. They're going to be waiting, but these moderate Republicans, these McCarthy types are going to stick the knife in at some point to these groups because they've done the thing that no politician can forgive another politician for doing, which is they have publicly humiliated them. You can have all sorts of disagreements in private and yell and scream, but this sort of public humiliation is the thing that most politicians hate more than anything, looking weak, looking silly, looking pathetic. That is an unforgivable sin for most of them. Well, one thing you said is what I want to turn around to Tim, but we're in final comment, so shall I say final profundities. Tim, can you provide your final profundity? Can you deal with something that Colin raised? That is that big capital has a confidence level also. It may no longer be interested in the Republican Party, which it has been for a long time. And maybe this is reflected in the stock market. If the country in general and big capital loses confidence in government, what effect in the stock market? Anyway, your final comments. Well, as Colin was speaking, I saw visuals of the past. And that was when Barack Obama suggested that getting a Supreme Court nominee through the process of a divided government, he offered up Merrick Garland as an acceptable candidate for a Supreme Court. And we're not too far from those days again where what to prevent the Democrats from approaching the Republicans and say, find another candidate, a Republican candidate that we can support and we can vote for and we can get a new speaker of the House in. And it could be a Republican and let's, as I said twice before on this program, we can work together on this. That's my hope that we don't go for a week now without a speaker of the House and a government that's not functional. It's not going to function on any form. And we're looking quite fragile right now before the international viewership, particularly to those democracies where they're fragile. And this has to be concluded rather quickly. And if this continues on to next week, although it's allowed, we don't look great. And Big Capital made this depart. Thank you. Stephanie, you know, the press has been having a field day on George Santos, of course, and Kevin McCarthy. It's a field day with the name calling and the characterizations. It's even fun watching a football game. But it's not necessarily healthy. And, you know, there was an article in The Times about how these Republicans and, you know, Colin alluded to it, how they live for publicity. They live to make the next tweet. They live to be on social media and it feeds them. It feeds their misogas. So my question to you, of course, I'm looking for your final profundity. But my last question to you is, oh, should the media do, you know, how much responsibility should they take for the chaos? Well, yeah, that issue with that man, he's a hollow man. It's astounding that he's in leadership. And as the media has made clear, it's going to be called honorable. It's almost intolerable. So I don't know if you're asking about the media creating that well, you know, in all of the other influences as you all have been talking about, the influence now is not the leadership of the Congress. You know, it's about getting these other places to put you on TV. And if that's what satisfies your needs, that's where you're going to go. So anyway, I mean, as far as media is concerned with him, people like that. And I think they're maybe doing it a little bit more. And with Trump, which they always should have, which is to be mostly ignoring these idiots unless it's just absolutely necessary to put up their words or repeat their words or show them on film. So I don't know, for final profundity, I'd love to see the media learn some lessons about how to handle these situations better. We weren't informed enough about Donald Trump when he came out and started to run. They could have done a much better job of doing the history and the research to let us know more about him. But also now they can learn how to maybe be more measured in who it is that they're going to show the country over and over and over again in pictures and words. So it's a tough call. I think everybody's under the gun. It's kind of an inflection point. Everybody's under the gun to learn more about how to do democracy. It's really funny to say the inflection point. From the time we started Trump week, it seems like a long time ago. Every time we meet, we say, oh, we're at an inflection point. Yet again, it never stops. Colin, your final assimilation of all of this discussion, what do you have to leave our viewers with? I'm going to offer a hopeful conclusion, which is that I really do feel, and it's the sense, this isn't me as a social scientist, that the fever is beginning to break, that we have now moved from danger to these sort of farcical representations of real politics, and the country is getting sick of it. People are getting sick of it. It's not everyone. There's always going to be enough to support this radical fringe element, but I think that this performance that we've been watching since Trump got elected in 2016, I think people have seen enough. And yes, and we're out of time. Thank you very much, all of you. Colin Moore, Tim Apachele, and Stephanie Staldall. Great discussion. Hope to see you all again soon. Aloha.