topic? There's a hermit living in the Alaska outback. American citizen so American citizens get to vote, get to have an opinion. But doesn't have a kid. It's a man. It's a hermit living in Alaska. How is that person in any way important to this question of transgender athletes? Completely unrelated.

Does that person's opinion should count as much as somebody who is the very center of the question? Which is non-transgender athletes who would be affected by having people on the team that are superior athletes. What is fair?

So forget about the question. Forget about the topic. Forget about the topic being transgender athletes. Just forget about it. Just answer the question in the generic. If the people who are most affected, victimized if you want to call it that, say let's do this by a strong majority, this is a strong majority right, it's overwhelming, shouldn't they get what they want? Why is it the hermit in Alaska who gets an equal vote?

Somebody says stop. All right you're going to go away Rose. You don't get to be here anymore. A hide user on this channel. Okay you're gone now.

Again, I'm open to any counter arguments. I like counter arguments. And in fact this is weird but I enjoy being proven wrong because I think it makes this better. You know the thing I do, anytime I can be proven wrong and it's confirmed, that's kind of exciting to me because I don't feel any shame from that. I feel like everybody's wrong. So if you can learn something, good.

All right. So my only thing I'm going to add to that is although legally everybody gets the same vote in this country, we don't want to change that. Sometimes you should look at who's affected. Right? And to me that matters.

All right. AOC is making more news by saying the minimum wage should be raised of course. But I want to show you her argument style. All right. So here's a tweet and we'll talk about whether the minimum wage should be raised but that's going to be separate here. I'm just going to talk about her technique, her persuasion.

Okay so I told you I try to teach you something every live stream and here we're going to learn from AOC's technique the same way we would learn from Trump's persuasion technique. Here's the tweet. AOC says it is utterly embarrassing that "pay people enough to live" is a stance that's even up for debate. Override the parliamentarian and raise the wage.

So she's asking her own party to act differently. Asking Biden and Harris to override this. McDonald's workers in Denmark are paid $22 an hour plus six weeks paid vacation. $15 an hour which is what she wants in this country is a deep compromise. A big one considering the phase-in. I mean considering you don't even get the $15 for a number of years.

Now let's talk about her technique. I love starting out with "it's utterly embarrassing" because she's taken an economic question and moved it directly into feelings. If you're going to influence somebody you want to go for the feelings because they'll always argue you on the data. If she made her argument entirely upon data people would just argue the data. They'd say well you don't know that and can't be sure. That's it. So arguing with data would have no real value. So she doesn't. That's what makes her a little bit better than other politicians. She doesn't do the thing that won't work in terms of persuasion.

Then she says that "to pay people enough to live" is a stance that's even up for debate. That is really, really good framing. Even if you don't agree with her point. We're not talking about the politics of the policy but that's just so well said. I mean it's just framed with perfect persuasion.

And then she goes on saying what she would like to be done. Again perfect persuasion. Your persuasion is useless if you make a point and don't have a specific thing you're asking for. So she makes her point, goes right to the specific request. Again perfect form.

And then she says that. Then she does the comparison thing where you make a big first ask so that whatever you're asking for sounds not so bad. So she uses the Denmark comparison because 22 is such a big number. When you're only talking about raising it to 15 that your brain starts to say wait a minute, Denmark's at 22 and the country is not falling apart. Denmark's doing okay. 15 doesn't sound so bad.

Don't get ahead of me. Don't get ahead of me. I know what you're going to do. I'll get there. I'll get there. It's not all good. So I read that. I thought well that's pretty good argument.

Now for background AOC has a background in economics. A lot of people don't understand that. In college she actually has an economics degree as do I. I have a degree in economics and an MBA. And if you were to ask me, Scott, forget about the morality part, forget about the morality, just does this work economically? Because the things you're looking at is you're not just raising somebody's pay is coming out of somebody's pocket. So how many businesses will go out of business? How many fewer employees can be employed because now you can't afford as many of them? How do you do the math and figure out what works?

Now wouldn't you say Scott every time you depart from the free market and you put the government in there you get a worse result? How many of you believe that? In the comments tell me. Is that the fair thing to say? There's a good general statement that whenever you remove the free market and insert government control that's never good, right? Never good.

Well if you believe that why