eplorables moment.

Do you think that Hillary should have been criticized for calling half of America deplorables? What do you think? Should Hillary be criticized for calling I don't know 40% of America deplorables? Because I did. I criticized her for that. Because the difference is it's a political elected politician who's saying something bad about a class of people who are Americans.

So I tolerate a politician making fun of another politician who's running against him. You can say anything you want, politician against politician. I don't really care. That's just part of the process. If it's a non-politician who says something about a class of Americans, well that's okay. That's just free speech.

But if you're an elected politician and you say something that clearly identifies an attitude about a class of Americans, well then I can't support you. So anyway, he's got 48 hours, but he lost my support. Not that I was necessarily going to support him, but what do you think? That's too harsh? Who thinks I'm too harsh? You think I'm being too sensitive?

But why can't I? Do you think that I'm reacting to my personal feeling or do you think I'm acting on principle? Am I acting on principle or personal feeling right now? Are you reading my mind?

Now when Hillary called Republicans deplorables, did you disagree with that on principle or because it hurt your feelings? Which was it? Did it hurt your feelings or did it seem like a bad thing for a leader to identify people within the public as deplorable? I think it was based on principle, wasn't it?

Because when I was anti-Hillary for saying the deplorable thing, it wasn't just because it was an insult. It was because she was insulting the public, a group in the public. So I think I'm being consistent. Do you think that I'm being consistent? Hillary insulted deplorables. DeSantis insulted a class of Americans.

That's not consistent because even if you think that both of them were based on my feelings, and maybe you'd be right, but at least I'd be consistent. They'd both be based on my feelings.

So now let me turn this around. So some of you have made the accusation that I'm operating on my feelings instead of my logic. Do you think that's a fair, well you can't know for sure, but do you think it's a fair concern? Would you say that that would be a reasonable hypothesis? I think so. Reasonable hypothesis.

Can I give you that? Can I admit that if you have the hypothesis that I'm acting on emotion and not logic, that that's a reasonable hypothesis? Now I'm going to make a reasonable hypothesis about some of you. That you care about winning more than you care about that point. You don't care about that point. It's just not important to you. So you care about winning a little bit more. Is that fair? Do you think you're a little bit more concerned about winning than you are about this minor point? Yeah.

So I don't think you're disagreeing with me on the point. I think you just like winning. Is that a fair hypothesis for some of you? Well maybe the lesson here is that you can't read minds and neither can I.

But would you allow me this? That it is at least consistent to say that if a leader talks against a class of Americans for something they can't change, that that would be disqualifying. No, I think you have to give me that. It's consistent, even if you don't like it.

Anyway, I don't think DeSantis will be running for president, so I don't think it's going to matter.

Remember I told you yesterday it would be funny to do the Trump method of telling people he has a high IQ. So I told you there's a list of presidential IQs which can't really be known, but the only thing we know about Trump is that there's some claim of him having a high IQ. So his claim, given that there was no other information, was enough to put him number three on the smartest presidents list, which to me is the funniest thing.

So I asked you to help me with an ongoing prank in which you would on Twitter sometimes you would just mention that I have an IQ of 185, which I don't. It's totally made up. But Mike Suarez, whose Twitter user, and I assume Mike you're probably watching me right now, but Mike Suarez started doing this on Twitter. And here's one of his comments he put on somebody else's comment. It doesn't matter what the topic is, but just read how funny this is.

So this is, it doesn't matter what he's commenting to. He says Scott Adams has a reported IQ of 185. Now the funny part is you should say reported because you don't claim it as a fact. You just say it's reported, right?

Scott Adams has a reported IQ of 185, higher than Bill Gates and Elon Musk, on par with Einstein. He's literally a super genius, smarter than 99.9% of the world, and you're coming at him with these low IQ arguments. Please just stop and let the man focus on saving the world.

Oh, I think Mike left two of these comments. Maybe I saw the same one twice. But here's the funniest thing. I saw the response to the comment. The response didn't deny the fact. It didn't deny the fact. It just got angry for some unrelated reason. So I think that people are going to accept it as a fact and it's just going to live out there. It's going to live on the internet forever as a fact.

So thanks to Mike Suarez for that.

All right, here's a, do you like conspiracy theories? Anybody? I got a conspiracy theory for you. You're gonna love it. It goes like this. Have you ever thought it was unusual and kind of a big coincidence that our presidential races always seem to be so close? Has that ever struck you as odd? Like why would that be exactly? Like why would it be that they're close? I feel like every time they're close.

Now that's not true of local races, right? In local races it's not unusual for 75% of the vote to go one place.

Now let me ask you this. If you imagine that there's somebody behind the curtain, somebody you don't know about exactly but you suspect is back there, if they're really the ones in charge, what would they want to do with the political process to stay in charge? Again this is just speculative. If you were to imagine, we're just imagining, right? We're just using our imaginations. Imagine there's somebody really in charge behind the curtain. Would they want one of the sides to get all the power? Would they want for example a strong Republican to get 75% of the vote? No way. Because if any individual got 75% of the vote that individual would have too much power. Am I right? Yeah.

There's no situation in which, if you imagine and it's a big if, if there's some power behind the curtain, they would never allow one candidate to get 75% of the vote. Because that candidate would then actually have real power. The public would back that person for almost anything and that would take the power away from the people with the real power. Even if they thought they had control over that candidate they would lose control. The candidate would be more powerful.

Now Reagan was probably an exception because a second term president is a little bit of a different situation, right? But the second term president they know they can wait out. Right? Just for now. You saw what Joe Manchin can do when things are deadlocked, right? When Congress is deadlocked the only person who has power is Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema a little bit, right?

So let me ask you this. If you were looking for the power, the real power who's running the country, there's a tell. And the tell would look like this. They would sometimes back both either side because they would back the side that they need to put the brakes on. You know if they need to put the brakes on one side, keep things in balance, you would see them operating to influence both sides.

All right, name somebody who interfered with Hillary's election, Trump's election, and then the Biden election. Name one entity who absolutely interfered with all three elections. The FBI.

So the FBI was accused of putting their finger on the 2016 election when Comey talked about Hillary's emails. They were confidential but we didn't yet know if there was going to be any legal liability, right?