 of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. The Iran Book Show. Great, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Thursday morning. As you can tell from my background, I'm not at home. I'm traveling. I'm in New York City for a quick trip in and out. No time. No time to visit anybody, unfortunately, but always, always enjoy being in New York City and being in this environment. All right. Let's see if... What am I looking at? All right, we've got... I know what I didn't do once. Let me just... On the road, it's a little challenging, but here we go. Almost there. All right, so today we will be covering doing a news show. Right? Let's see if that works. Yes. All right. We'll be doing... Covering the news quickly. I am on the road, so... And I do have a busy day in front of me. We'll try to do this quickly, cover the main items. I am available for any questions you might have. Hopefully to jump in with any Super Chat questions. Those of you watching live and, of course, don't forget to support the show on Patreon, SubscribeStar, or you're on bookshow.com slash support if you are not watching the show live and can't participate in the Super Chat. All right. Let us get started with... Trump is back. We know Trump is back. We've seen Trump being back. He's announced his candidacy for 2024, but he's getting serious. And I think he's going to try to take advantage of the momentum of announcing first and really know the Republicans have announced. Certainly, we've heard nothing from DeSantis. I have a sense that DeSantis is not going to run. I fear that he is afraid of Trump and we'll stay out of it. We'll see what happens. One of those political predictions I'll probably regret. But Trump is now asking officially, asking Facebook to be reinstated. There are rumors that he is going to be meeting with Zuckerberg in order to convince Zuckerberg to let him onto the platform and maybe set some ground rules for his return to the platform. That should be interesting. He is about to relaunch his Twitter. So he has been reinstated in Twitter. But as you probably know, he has not used Twitter. He's been tweeting out of his truth network. But obviously he's looking for a much larger platform and for much larger influence. And for that, he is going to reinstate his Twitter account and start being active on Twitter. All this suggests real seriousness on his part to engage in this campaign and to get going and to win. I think I made a prediction early in January that Trump would win. And I think so far it looks like he's the only candidate. So we'll see. But in terms of polling, there were some polls last year that suggested that DeSantis might be able to beat Trump. Well, the latest polls are all showing Trump basically trouncing DeSantis. The latest poll shows him leading by 17 points over DeSantis and everybody else's and is barely a blimp on the screen. Trump gets 48% of the support according to this poll, DeSantis 31. And then people like Pence, Cheney, Cruz, Nikki Haley get nothing. Two, three, Mike Pence maybe gets 8%, although I doubt that's real. I doubt Pence gets anything. So, yeah, well, after the races, and it does seem like Trump is clearly the front runner and is aggressively pursuing this. Whether DeSantis runs or not, we will see. I have no inside information. I have no additional insight. But he certainly is quiet. We're certainly not hearing much from DeSantis. He's not commenting on the issues of the day. He's not commenting on issues of Trump. So we'll see. I think he's playing it close to vest in order to see how it all pans out. Mike, thank you for the support. Roosevelt, thank you for the support. Really appreciate you guys. One last thing about Trump. I mean, what's really incredible about Trump and what's really, you know, what really needs to be studied about Trump is just the unqualified support that he gets. The fact is, you know, remember when he said, and I remember when he actually said this and I was shocked at the time, he said he could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't matter. His support would not change. The support for him would not change. And it's true. I mean, it doesn't matter what Trump does. It doesn't matter what Trump says. It doesn't matter how stupid it is. It doesn't matter how obnoxious it is. It doesn't matter how irrational it is. It doesn't matter what he does. It doesn't matter what Congress does. It doesn't matter whether, you know, whether his taxes are released or whether he is in his company, his company, Trump, is indicted for fraud and loses the case and is, you know, is supposed to pay the government millions of dollars. That his chief financial officer is going to jail. It doesn't matter what the Commission, the January 6th Commission reported. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Nothing matters. All his lying deceiving, all the revelations about how much of a real horrible person and really horrible president he was, none of that matters when IOTA to his committed supporters. 50% of the Republican Party will vote, it seems, for Donald Trump, no matter what Donald Trump does, including, I think, if you shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, nothing will actually happen. So that is a political, sociological, psychological, an amazing, just phenomena. And we should be, all of us should be very scared of this phenomena. Not that I think Donald Trump is going to become a dictator because I don't think he can win an election. I think Donald Trump will lose, I think, one of the great tragedies of Trump being the front runner is that he might win the nomination and as a consequence, a Democrat is going to be president starting in 2024. So that's one of the many bad things about Donald Trump winning. But what it really suggests is a certain psychology of voters, of supporters are willing to support him no matter what. And that suggests a willingness and an openness to authoritarianism, to a charismatic leader, to the worship of a personality, the worship of a person. It's not about ideas anymore. It's about the person. And that is a recipe for, ultimately, that is a recipe for authoritarianism. And while people are saying they voted the first time, they maybe voted the second time, but they won't vote again for him. If he is the nominee, all of those people will vote for him. But I also think that he was a nominee last round and he lost and there's no question in my mind that he would lose. That is that while he has 50% of the Republicans committed to him, a vast number of independents, a vast even of some Republicans will not vote for him no matter what and either will not vote at all or would vote for a Democrat. And that just makes it impossible, I think, for Trump actually to win a national wide election. So it's sad that the Republicans don't grow up, that the Republicans don't wake up and they don't nominate somebody else because the reality is that I think there are a number of people in the Republican Party today who would make great candidates and who actually would beat a Democrat. I think Democrats, as I said last time, super vulnerable, Biden is not popular, but to beat him, it has to be somebody other than Trump and we'll see if the Republicans are willing to do that and whether there is anybody. All right, TikTok, TikTok Bands. We've talked about this before but TikTok has been banned by the federal government for federal employees to use in their phones and banned by a number of states. And we're told this is security, privacy, although privacy is my business, not the government's business. Why is the government intervening here? Why is the government telling me where they cannot go? Okay, government employees, the government can tell them. But now what's happening is that because states are banning TikTok from their networks, states are banning TikTok from the phones of the employees but also from all state-run equipment. What that means is that TikTok has been banned at many of the large U.S. universities. University of Texas is banning it from its Wi-Fi network. So is Texas A&M, a number of other states are doing it. Basically any state that at the state level is banning TikTok from its networks. Well, state universities or state enterprises, the networks that run Wi-Fi at state universities are actually obliged to follow state law with regard to state-owned equipment and therefore TikTok is now being banned in many universities. I think this is a massive infringement on rights. I don't see how the government has any business in telling individuals whether they can use TikTok or not. My use of TikTok is not a violation of anybody's rights. It doesn't put anybody at risk. If I want to give up my information and have the Chinese use it, it's none of the U.S. government's business. The fact that TikTok is being attacked the way it is and really what's being attacked here is the right of Americans to use whatever app they want and to give whoever they want their information. The only role the government has is if I have revealing secrets, if I have a high-security clearance and the worry is that the Chinese might use it to control me somehow, it's a blackmail me somehow, although even that is far-fetching and far-reaching. The fact that TikTok expects Chinese propaganda, who cares? That's none of anybody's business. I've never understood the whole idea that Russia influences their elections, therefore the FBI has to investigate. No. The government has no business in the business of information. The government has no business telling me what I can consume or what not. The government has no business telling me this is false and this is not false. The government has no business telling me this is a Russian bot or this isn't a Russian bot. I mean, Facebook in order to keep the integrity of its platform has an interest in screening out the bots and screening out propaganda. Maybe Twitter has that interest, but the government has no business. It is a clear violation of my rights. I don't know if it's a violation of the First Amendment. It very much could be, but it's certainly a violation of property rights. It is horrible. I mean, if the government now has the ability to ban TikTok, what doesn't it have the ability to ban? In the name of protecting me, I can't be exposed to TikTok because TikTok might take my information. Why don't I have the right to decide who can take my information and who doesn't? Everybody who uses TikTok knows it's run by the Chinese and some of the data sets in Chinese service. It's none of the government's business. The fact that this attack on TikTok is bipartisan, supported by Republicans and Democrats only makes it scarier. It starts with TikTok. It could get a lot worse in the government intervening and telling us what materials we can and cannot consume all in the name of national security. This is how, again, I go back to my theme, this is how authoritarianism spreads all in the name of national security, all in the name of protecting you from those evil foreign manipulators who want to control your mind. And we're just trying to protect you by banning you do this, by banning you do that. But get the government out of my life and get the government away from trying to dictate to me what I can and cannot use, who I can and cannot listen to, what ideas I can and cannot consume. It is truly scary and what's scary to me in particular is the fact that nobody seems to care. And I think this is true. Nobody seems to care about all of Trump's lies, deceptions, misdeeds, corruption. Nobody seems to care about that. Republicans are still going to elect him. Nobody cares that the government is intervening directly in what information and what entertainment I can consume. Nobody seems to care. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter. Particularly here, I'm going after Republicans because they're the ones who should be offended by the idea that the government is intervening here. They don't seem to care, just like they don't seem to care about everything, everything bad that Trump does. All right, so that is the latest on TikTok. University is blocking TikTok from campus-wide networks. This is particularly in Texas, but it's in how many schools now? It's in nine or 10. I think nine states. So now we have California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Texas, Maryland. And again, as a consequence of this, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, as a consequence of this, the universities themselves are blocking TikTok. So just who, if I can like you. All right, quick update from Davos. I'm not in Davos. I'm in New York City, but I'm reading up on what's happening in Davos. Because we need to keep an eye on the World Economic Forum because what happens there tends to spread everywhere, and tends to have a huge impact on both intellectual, political, and economic thinking that occurs between World Economic Forum gets together. Anyway, one of the big stories out of the World Economic Forum is, and I mentioned this and I talked about this on one of the shows before the WEF. So I was on top of this story way before it became a big story. And that is the conflict between the United States and Europe over trade. And in particular, the fact that the Inflation Reduction Act that the Biden administration passed provides subsidies to U.S. tech and alternative energy companies in ways that violate trade agreements with the Europeans. The Europeans are super upset. Like, you know, China subsidizes industries. Now, I've argued that that does not help their industries. That actually hurts them. But China subsidized their interest. The United States feels like, oh, no, we need to start subsidizing our industries. So the United States subsidizes its industries and that gives them a perceived comparative advantage versus Europe. So Europe now looks at that and says, wait a minute, now we're being screwed. So we're going to subsidize our business. So what happens is once you start on the central planning, once you start on this government, you know, on state intervention into economics and subsidies and trade barriers and tariffs and the whole gamut of issues, which really, I think, were brought to the forefront by the Trump administration when Trump was president and have just gotten worse since with Biden, just taking on Trump's policies and making them even worse. This has accelerated. Europe is now because of the because of the Inflation Reduction Act and all the subsidies involved in it. And because of the CHIP Act and the subsidies involved in it, Europe is now saying, it's put its industries at a significant disadvantage. There's a lot of discussion at Davos at the World Economic Forum between different world leaders, business leaders and so on, and how to, in a sense, combat this, how to address this. And it looks like Europe is going to put together a massive economic bill that is going to subsidize. And so all the positive moves that have been made in the global economy in terms of reduction of tariffs, reduction of trade barriers, reduction of subsidies, reduction of state central planning, certainly in the sense of trying to across countries at least, you know, we were making enormous progress in those realms. I mean, subsidies were down, trade barriers were down, tariffs were down. You know, between, I'd say between 1991 and really starting in World War II, but after World War II, but certainly from the early 1990s through 2016, massive gains in terms of world trade, in terms of freedom of trade, in terms of reduction of subsidies and a reduction in the involvement of government in the economy. And since then, and this is even true during Clinton administration, during Obama administration, and starting with Trump and now definitely on steroids with Biden. All the bad policies Trump started, Biden has doubled up on, and this shows the unity of Republicans and Democrats when it comes to these kind of things. They have they have doubled up on them, and you're now seeing, you know, a deterioration in the terms of trade globally. You're seeing trade barriers going up, you're seeing increased in subsidies, increased in state controls. And all of this in my view stimulated by the US, all of this being led by the US. And right now, you know, Biden's trade representative is in Europe, telling them that we have now a new approach to trade. And that approach to trade has to advance the needs of American workers protect the environment and create inclusive prosperity that is reducing equality in the United States. So that means trade barriers, trade management, trade manipulation, bad news, bad news for all of us. So those of us who believe in economic liberty, economic freedom, Trump and Biden have been a disaster for us. So that is going on. So in the background, there's a lot of these negotiations going on around Europe's response to the latest Biden administration, parts of which were bilateral, both Republicans and Democrats supported to subsidize and support American industry. That's one thing going on in Davos, just to give you a sense of what Davos has these panels with all these important people. One of the panels that they had featured Republican Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, it included Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Kristen Sinema from Arizona, Governor Pritzker, Democrat from Illinois, all talking about the U.S. and the status of the U.S. But all really using the opportunity to pitch their states, their particular areas for more investment to bring people in. But Kemp was quite aggressive trying to pitch Georgia as a place where global companies should be investing. So they have these panels, a lot of people sit around, and I think the real action in world economic form happens in the back rooms where these leaders meet and discuss a variety of different issues and schmooze with corporate leaders and all of that is kind of intermingled. The mingling is where the real action actually happens. Okay, one other interesting story coming out of Davos. Over 200 million years, I don't know the exact number, but more than 200 million years signed a letter that was submitted to the World Economic Forum in Davos where they are urging the global elites, the politicians, corporate leaders to start working towards an advocate for much higher taxes on the ultra-rich on themselves. So we're talking about ultra-rich people saying, we want to pay more taxes, raise our taxes. The letter says, tax the ultra-rich and do it now. It says, it's simple, common sense economics, it's an investment in our common good and a better future that we all deserve and as millionaires, we want to make that investment. Now, of course, they could all write checks to the government that nobody has to force them to do it. But notice, I've always said this, people always think no rich people vote against taxes and poor people vote to increase the taxes on the rich. That's not how it works. The rich vote to raise their taxes on themselves all the time. This is the guilt, this is the ignorance that unfortunately our culture inculcates in the wealthy. They describe themselves in this case as a group of high net worth Americans who share profound concern about the destabilizing level of inequality in America. And they want their taxes raised and the focus is on America, but its focus really is globally. 206 signatures. Actually from 12 countries. So it's not just Americans, but the Americans dominate the list. But it is fascinating. They call themselves, by the way, they call themselves patriotic millionaires, millionaires who care about their country. So they want to have higher taxes on themselves and on the other millionaires who maybe don't care about their country. Just the association of patriotism with paying higher taxes is bizarre and offensive. But this is indeed where we are. And this is what they're doing. Okay, let's see. We've got a few super chats. We're still quite a bit short of a goal. Okay. All right, final quick story. And then we'll take the super chat questions. And that is there is a the United Kingdom. The British government is passing a new online safety bill. They call it more tax on what we can consume online. Now, the positioning this is primarily a defense of children and an attempt to protect children from what they see online. And to the extent that it is there to protect them from child abuse and sexual violence and things like that, particularly with regard to children. I have no problem with that. But the bill is much much wider than that. It is really trying. I mean, they framing it all is in the idea of protecting children. I think the job protecting children does not lay from from information from it does not lay with government. I think it lies with parents. You know, we've made that decision with regard to TV a long, long time ago. There are plenty of movies on TV that are being shown on cable TV on Netflix or whatever that are clearly inappropriate for children. And yet there's no barrier for children to watch these movies other than parents. And but that but social media is now a villain and the government is interested in the government is motivated to regulate and to control the content of social media, the content that we produce, the content that we place on social media and the content that advertised by social media as a consequence. They're using children as an entry into the ability to monitor the ability to to penalize the ability to control what social media, what information is on social media. It's not enough of them just in the background to be putting pressure on social media. They want to actually have control under this bill. Executives of social media companies could go to jail. They would be criminally liable. Notice for quote home for content consumed by children on social media. They purposefully do not define what home means. They personally they personally do not explicitly define what kind of content should be banned from social media. Again, the way the more vague you are, the more control you have, the more vague you are the more authoritarian you can be in terms of how you you control the discussion. But you know, they want they want, for example, they want to make sure that there's no promoting or facilitating suicide, promoting self harm. You know, do we know fraud? Do we have explicit definitions for all these things and what they mean by it? You know, they want to make sure the tech companies are required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age inappropriate content by whose definition by what definition politicians decide what age inappropriate content is. Parents decide. No, it's politicians. And of course, if they fail to do this, they are massive penalties, including 22 million or 10% of the annual global turnaround, whichever is greater. Well, 10% of annual global turnaround is much greater for for a company like Facebook or Twitter or others. Criminal action will be taken against senior management to fail. Again, governments are trying to control speech. Governments are trying to control what we consume and how we consume it. Jimmy Wales, the the founder of Wikipedia tweeted. He said the first two headlines are read today one Saudi Arabia jails to Wikipedia staff and bid to control content to pretty Patel calls for stronger online safety bill with powered to jail tech bosses and labor by the way is backing pretty. So this is a conservative labor joint venture. I've always told you when the left and the right get together and they agree on stuff. That's when you should be really, really afraid. This is clearly an effort to control speech. You know, England might be the first country to do it. For example, Sanders prohibition is about is around hate speech. What does hate speech mean? Who gets to define what hate speech is? What are the standards for hate speech? It's a purposefully vague and to a large extent meaningless term. And again, dangerous, dangerous. I mean, we're seeing more and more governments willingness, interest, motivation to control speech. I think this and the tiktok story are very, very similar and very, very disturbing. And we should all be disturbed by this. This is and if it's happening in the UK, I don't think they could do it in the US because of the First Amendment. But if it's happening in the UK, it'll happen all over Europe. And ultimately, people in the US will find ways around the First Amendment. Tiktok is an example of them finding a way around the First Amendment. All right. That is my quick update for the news for January 19th. Let's go to our super chat. Let's start with Catherine. Oh, Catherine Dawson, your thoughts about McCarthy's recent Republican appointments. I mean, I think they're horrible. I think treating Marjorie Taylor Greene as a normal, respectable human being is ridiculous. I mean, she is a horrible, horrible conspiracy theory. You know, she's expressed anti-semitic, ridiculous ideas, all kinds of conspiracies. And she's dumb. She's got a juicy committee appointment. Matt Getz for Florida, who's, again, just horrific, gets a juicy appointment. I mean, the Republican Party is particularly in the House and particularly the wing that is beholden to Donald Trump. And that starts with McCarthy and goes across almost the entire Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. And Trump has some opposition in the Senate, but none in the House. I mean, it is just thoroughly corrupt. It's thoroughly corrupt. There is no thinking about actual governance, about, you know, concerned with the well-being of the American people, concerned with the role of government, concerned with what to do about it. You know, the worst kind of human beings, you know, the left has its AOCs. But I have to say that the left is not given as much prominence, I think, to AOC within the House, when they had the majority, as the Republicans are giving to the AOCs. So I think it's just awful and horrible and makes me even more distraught about the state of the Republican Party. I mean, I'm constantly torn between my fundamental optimism about human beings, about progress, about, you know, ability to produce and create and improve the quality of life and standard of living and the ability of businessmen to do this and everything else on the one hand. And then watching our politicians just descend into the abyss, both on the left and the right, and know nobody in the political spectrum really representing even a mildly semi-rational position. I just don't see it. And, you know, yesterday I spoke at a company here in New York, a private equity company that invests in fintech, and what a pleasure it is to be surrounded by people who are productive, who are energized, who are trying to find great companies and invest in them and grow them and produce and create and make the world a better place. And then you open up the newspaper or you look in Google News or you look at any news source and it's just depressing. It's just, it's the exact opposite. These people are doing everything to try to cripple and maim and destroy the capacity of the good guys to actually have an impact on the world and actually make the world a better place and actually produce and create and build and shape the future. And God, politics is just an abyss. Thanks, Catherine. Really appreciate the support. Jordan, advice for someone in the mid-20s. I live in Denver, started a business which is gaining traction. I'm single. Thanks, Iran, for one of my inspirations. I'm not sure advice about what, you know, I just said this pessimistic thing. Look, I mean, you're in your mid-20s. You know, all my advice is really captured in my in my rules for living episodes. You know, live with a capital L. I think Denver is a fantastic, a fantastic city. The fact that you started a business is fantastic. You're gaining traction. I mean, your 20s and 30s should really be devoted, I think, ultimately to two primary values and seeking those values. I mean, obviously, behind everything is the idea of self-improvement and learning and learning more about yourself and learning more about how to deal with the world around you. And here I encourage you to do what you can to study Objectivism. Beyond the reading on Iran and studying Objectivism and taking those ideas seriously and applying them to every aspect of your life, two primary values I think you should be pursuing in your 20s and 30s. And as one is career, this is where you get established. This is where you're going to lay the foundations for your success in the future. So the fact that you've started a business is amazing. The fact that it's gaining traction is amazing. This is the time to really devote that energy and time and effort to really putting it on, laying the foundations and letting it grow and letting it rip. And then the flip side of that is, or the second aspect in the 20s and 30s to value to really focus on is a romantic relationship. I mean, don't let work serve as an excuse not to date, not to look for somebody, not to put energy into it. And I know that's hard because those sometimes conflict. There's only so many hours in a day. But go for it. Seek out a romantic partner. Those are the two things that I think are worth doing and that are important to do in the 20s and 30s. Because these are the years that lay the foundation for the future. And the flip side of that, realize that failure in your 20s and 30s is not devastating. Failure is part of life. Failure in business, failure in romance, failure in whatever. You know, you can recover from it. You're still young. Experimentation, risk-taking is what you should be doing at this age. So you don't live. Capital, push, take risks, be aggressive in the risk-taking both in Korea and in life and in seeking out a romantic partner. And accept the fact that some things will fail and you got to learn from them and grow and get up on your feet and start over again. So congratulations on the business and hopefully things turn out amazing. John says, did you see the astrophysicist who said astrophysics is steeped in white supremacy? It's championed individualism, exceptionalism, reason and instead should be viewed through the lens of race. God, no, I didn't see that. I mean, it doesn't surprise me because they think everything. All science is white supremacy and all science is science. Almost all the great scientists of the past were quote white, whatever the hell that means. And Europeans, Europe has laid the foundations for civilization. People resent that. They find that racist and they want to eradicate civilization in the name of race. But that's the bottom line. The bottom line is they want to end civilization. They hate civilization. They want to reject it. Instead of embracing civilization says, whoa, isn't it amazing what the Europeans succeeded? Let's learn from them and let's figure out how they did it and what they did exactly. Instead, they are choosing to reject it and coming up with massive excuses. And most of it reflects, I think, the inferiority complex that these individuals actually have. And it's sad and pathetic. I also think it's a dead end. It's a dead end ideologically. It goes nowhere. And if you're going to view everything through the lens of race, well, you know, whites are the majority in the United States. And, you know, they have the most quote power. And do the minorities really want people to view everything through the lens of race? I'm not sure they will be the winners in that if that actually happened. So horrible. Thanks, John. I'll look it up. It's just horrible that people can even think this way. Caleb says, started Lisa Van Dam's Read With Me app week and am absolutely loving what she's doing there. Just wanted to give that shout out. Thanks for continuing to do these news updates. Great. Thanks, Caleb. Glad you're enjoying the app. Let's see. Michael Sanders, is there a thin is having a thin skin and indicator of low self-esteem? Or are some people just more sensitive and hyper vigilant by nature? I think some people are more sensitive. So I don't want to say that everybody who has a thin skin is. But I think often and, you know, maybe in most cases, you know, having a thin skin is a lack of self-esteem. But, you know, particularly, yeah, so I do think it's a reflection of, for most people, not for everybody, but for most people, a reflection of low self-esteem. They take every problem, every challenge, every criticism. They take it personally and an attack on them. And somebody, again, with high self-esteem, basically has the attitude of, you know, if you're criticizing me and you're right, I should thank you. And if you're wrong, that's your problem, not me. Your errors are your problem, not my problem. So I think that's a proper way of dealing with the world. But, you know, but sometimes, and some people are certainly quite exhibit more sensitivity that is not related directly to self-esteem and differentiating between the two. I think it's psychologically hard and, you know, beware of making psychological evaluations of people you don't know really, really, really well. And even then, it's hard. You're not a professional psychologist, so be careful. Kim says, Yuan, thanks for changing my life for the better. My pleasure. Thank you for telling me and thank you for the support. Really appreciate it. Michael, this is the last question. If DeSantis was smart, he'd let Trump make a fool of himself then run in 2028 unless you think he'd be willing to be Trump's VP. I have no idea. I don't know DeSantis. I think there's a possibility he'd be willing to be Trump's VP. I don't know that for a fact, but it will see what DeSantis does. I think that I don't know if DeSantis could be Trump. I think he could. I think somebody who is willing to call Trump out on his BS, somebody who's willing to stand up to Trump, somebody who's willing to point out Trump's deficiencies could win. But that would require real balls. I just don't know if DeSantis has it. I don't know if DeSantis is capable of it. We will find out whether he has the courage to actually take on Trump. If he does take him on, does he have the courage to really engage with Trump and really try to defeat him? I think it's super depressing that Trump might be the Republican candidate again. It's super depressing on so many different fronts. Alright, thanks everybody. There will not be a show tomorrow, but I will be back on Saturday at 2 p.m. East Coast time. That is a likely time. I'm just being asked to be on British on UK TV on Saturday at 9.20 local time in the UK. I'm trying to figure out that is 9.20 would be 3.20 East Coast time. So anyway, I might adjust the time to make it possible for me to do the UK show. I'll be on GB News on Mark Dolan in the UK on Saturday. I think it's Saturday. I hope it's Saturday and not Friday. I'm just thinking Mark Dolan is on a Friday usually. Because tomorrow I can't do it, so I have to check in on that and figure it out. But anyway, it looks like I'll be on GB News on Saturday. Other than that, I will see you on Saturday the exact time I let you know. No shows tomorrow and then next week again is going to be on and off because I'm traveling. Alright, thanks everybody. Have a great rest of your week and have a fantastic weekend. Bye.