itizens on TV being asked who they support. And you've seen it both from right-leaning entities and left. You know, even Don Lemon doing his interviews. It sure looks like a lot more than 20%. Or is it just that people were willing to do the interview maybe have a certain perspective and people who were not willing to do the interview maybe had another one? So that you know you have to wonder if the street interviews are really representative. They might not be representative. I mean there's a reason you do polls instead of just talking to people on the street because one's not reliable.

But as I often say, one of my BS filters to figure out what's BS is if your direct observation doesn't match the science, it doesn't mean your direct observation is right but it certainly should leave room for skepticism. So my skepticism is 20% sounds low based on observation, which is not reliable, but it should be noted that they're wrong. All I'm saying is they don't agree. One of them might be right. No way to know. Feels low to me.

All right. Trump has come out strong in favor of IVF, in vitro fertilization. He says that either the government or the insurance company should be forced to pay for it because we basically need more Americans. We need more babies. Now this is brilliant in my opinion. I think it's brilliant because he's fighting against the "you're going to take my bodily autonomy." And of course the Harris campaign acts like he didn't say it and he doesn't mean it and he's going to lie and everything will change. No, I think he means this. I think he completely means it. I think he 100% is in favor of people having babies and using a little science to help it out and making sure that America can create its own citizens. I think he's completely down for this. My take on this is that it's 100% genuine, his actual opinion, and that he would really follow through with it. So that is a perfect response to the criticisms in that area.

On top of that, there's some Florida bill. I don't know the details, but some abortion-related thing. And Trump was asked how he'd vote just as a citizen of Florida I guess. And Trump reminds us that he'd always been against limiting abortions to under six weeks. So I guess that's the current law in Florida. And he said he would be voting for whatever, you know, something that's longer than six weeks. He thinks he called that a terrible mistake when it happened in 2023.

Now here's my question. How are you going to get young people to live in Florida if your abortion thing has a six-week limit on it? Now if you're new to me, I do not give you opinions on abortion. I think women need to work it out. They should take the lead. And though I don't abdicate, I don't give away my vote, it's just that I think women should be the lead on that just as I think in some other domains men should take the lead such as circumcision, stuff like that. So you're not seeing my opinion. I'm just talking about the topic.

So how does Florida survive in the long run? Because Florida is going to get lots of senior citizens who don't care one way or the other about abortion. I mean it's a retirement place. But can you survive if you don't have lots of young people who are willing to live there and stay there and move there? It'd be kind of hard to have a high-tech environment if you had abortion laws that were at least to maybe 60% of the tech workers look like a place you'd never live. Oh I can't live there. So it would be the test whether Florida is forced for their own demographic reasons to loosen up on this and get a little bit closer to what young people want. Because I don't think this is what young people want. Obviously the left and the right have different opinions but I would think there are probably two-thirds of young people at least who would want a more, let's say, a more forgiving set of laws.

So my question is can Florida even survive as a state? And again it's not an opinion on abortion. I'm just doing a prediction. What happens if you discourage 60% of your tech workers from living there in the long run? Feels disastrous in the long run. But we're not talking about the ethics of it, right? You might prefer it but economically it looks like a disaster in the long run.

All right, let's talk about CNN had their big conversation with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Here are my takeaways. She looked uncomfortable. She did not appear like a smart person. I think she would be the dumbest, maybe the dumbest candidate that the Democrats have run for president in my lifetime. Would you agree with that? Now Biden was, you know, before he was dementia-riddled, you know he was certainly not the brightest light. But I feel like he chose a vice president who was obviously less good than he was. And sure enough she seems to be the lowest intelligence candidate we've seen.

So just think about how smart some of their past candidates have been. Obama, no matter what you think about him, brilliant guy. That's my opinion. Brilliant guy even if you hate everything he did. Bill Clinton, brilliant, even if you hate him. Al Gore, almost brilliant, smart guy, even if you hate everything he's doing. These are really smart people. Jimmy Carter, terrible president, smart guy, very smart guy. So I think the Democrats have given up on smart. Like that didn't matter.

Now Vivek Ramaswamy had a comment about it. He said Kamala's interview last night was a reminder that we're not running against a candidate. We're running against a system. They require a candidate that can control, which means having original ideas as a disqualification. That's why we get Biden and then Kamala Harris. Is that why? That hypothesis is pretty strong. That the system wants to do what the system wants to do and that requires a weak candidate so they can control it. But why did they have such smart candidates before? Is this so different than the past that they could have a Jimmy Carter and a Bill Clinton and an Obama and they could be strong and brilliant and the system was okay with them? Or is it you have to be either dumb or easily blackmailed? Is that it? So you have a choice. Well you can either be dumb so we can manage you or you have to be easily blackmailed so we can manage you. Either way.

So I saw somebody use the word lightweight. That Kamala Harris didn't even sort of look presidential. She looked lightweight. That was exactly the word I was going to use. I was going to say lightweight but I saw somebody else use it so that made me feel smart like oh okay they saw the same thing. So she didn't look bright. She didn't look comfortable. She looked kind of lightweight.

She had a little word salad problem. Quote: "The climate crisis is real. That is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time." That's a lot of nothing right there. That's a whole bunch of nothing.

So it looked to me like she had the questions in advance. Now I don't have proof of that but I'll tell you what made me think she had the questions in advance. There was one point where she would look down and she would be using her fingers to say points like you know this point, this point, this point. I think that's a memory device for somebody who knew the question was coming and had said all right if you get this question say these four things. And so she was actually counting them off on her fingers. Well they're physical fingers like she was trying to recall them from memory. So it didn't look like somebody who had her own opinions and could easily speak to her preferences. It looked like somebody had to memorize the test. That's not a good look.

But I'll tell you the real tell. The real tell was Harris was asked the question that involved a little girl that I think was her grandniece or something. And she was watching Kamala Harris accept the nomination, a historic female person of color, and the idea is that the iconic photo captured a young person of color and female being inspired by Kamala Harris. So she was asked about this which is the ultimate softball question. They only had 18 minutes that they showed. Imagine out of the 18 minutes that one of the questions should be about somebody's photograph. But to her credit Kamala Harris did not say oh yes you know it was a special day for us blah blah blah without first saying, and here's the part that tells me she was prepared for that specific question, she said, "When I ran for president I ran to be the president for all people." And I said that is a suspiciously good way to start the answer to that question. Not just good, it's perfect. You know you can talk all day long about how there's something special about the situation and it won't bother me at all if you start that way. I ran to be the president of all the people. I go okay well now you can call out that there's also a special interest in it. But if you start with a special interest I'm not even going to hear you if later you add in but I'm really the president of all the people. I'd be well why'd you start with the special part first? Like sounds like you care about that more than you care about just doing the job.

So to me that sounded like she was well prepared for that specific question. Was she actually told the questions in advance? I don't know. There was also the question she was asked about Trump's comments about whether she was really black or had always identified as black. You know the real red meat. Let's get into this. And you know certainly it's a place that she can win some points. And instead she did an uncomfortable smile and said next question and refused to deal on the personal racial part of it.

Now is that because she was prepared for the question? She sure looked prepared for the question to me. But that doesn't mean that she was given the questions in advance because you could pretty well guess what the questions might be, right? So anyway she did her best to avoid questions that were good to avoid and avoided really a whole bunch of stuff. So it's basically her stump speech. A lot of memorized stuff that you could tell was memorized because she was looking down. So she did a lot of looking down like her eyes were down toward the table but there was nothing there. Or was there? Is it possible that the wide shots showed the table with nothing on it but is it possible that when they did the close-ups where you could see her from the chest up that there actually was a piece of paper down there? Is it possible that since there was an edited event is it possible she had notes?

I also saw a part where if you replay it you'll see maybe in the first third or so of it there was a point where she started to answer and then she did a hand gesture toward Tim Walz that was sort of the you know don't jump in hand gesture. It was like she was giving him the stand down hand gesture. That didn't make any sense unless there was an edit we didn't know about. Did he say something that got edited out because it was out of context? That she was waving him off when he wasn't doing anything. He wasn't even in the picture. He wasn't even in the frame. So what was that? I mean it suggests there was an edit there but can't know for sure. Maybe she expected him to jump in and she was, I don't know. I don't even know what that was about.

She also had what I call liar eyes. So most of the time she was looking down and her eyes were in a normal mode so they were either a little bit closed or they were looking down. But every once in a while she had the big liar eyes. I was watching in the man cave last night pointing out the big lies. Her eyes would widen and then the little lines would form on her forehead when she's doing the thing that she knows you're not going to believe. But if she says it with her eyes wide open you might because look how honest I am with my eyes wide open. That's called liar face. If you play it back with the sound off and then you find the liar face then turn the sound back on and find out why she was saying at that moment what. Once you learn to spot liar face it's hilarious because the politicians use it all the time. It's just so obvious when they're trying to sell you something they know you're not believing because you shouldn't.

All right what else? The physical arrangement of the people at the table has been questioned reasonably because they had Walz on one end of the table opposite from Dana Bash and then Kamala was between them on the far side of the table. Now because of the dimensions of the perspective of the shot plus the fact that Walz is just a bigger human being than she is he looked huge and in charge. If you were just looking at the pictures you'd think it would be an interview with him and his secretary came along to take some notes. Sexist? Yes because the country is sexist. We're you know so it's worth mentioning. It's not my opinion it's just what one imagines people are going to think in their little sexist brains. So she was tiny and looked unimportant just visually and the visuals are kind of a big deal.

She also made all kinds of weird funny faces when Walz was talking. She wanted to show how proud and smiley she was so she does the I-ate-a-lemon-but-I-enjoyed-it face. You know I'm doing it now. If you're just listening you're missing the best part of the show. Yeah I ate a lemon but I'm really happy about it. Nailed it. Nailed it. You're laughing at home I could tell.

Let's see. Yeah she basically avoided most questions. When Tim Walz was interviewed you really got the sense that there was no reason for him to be there. I felt CNN was slapping him down because they didn't ask or it didn't make the final edit anything about policy. They asked him about his son's reaction at the convention to his speech. Okay interesting human story but you only had 18 minutes. You only had 18 minutes. That wasn't in the top 100 of anybody's interest right then. Then she asked about the stolen valor especially the part where he had used some words that indicated he'd been in a war zone but he had not been in a shooting war zone. He wasn't physically in a war zone. And his defense was well you know somebody points out you know my grammar isn't perfect sometimes so he kind of made it sound like it was just a poor word choice and then moved on. But because this was not any kind of a real news event this was just a puff piece he was asked no follow-up questions. Harris was asked no follow-up questions. Or actually she was on the question of whether she had changed her opinions on things because fracking for example she changed. And even Daniel Dale came on and fact-checked her and was lying about her fracking opinions because she said I had clearly said in 2020 that I was okay with fracking and then Daniel Dale checked and said nope you never said that in 2020. You did say that your boss Joe Biden was in favor of fracking. That's different. So the only record we have of her in the past is she's 100% against fracking. Later she said Biden is in favor of it and he's not going to change. And then she said well I told you that you know I changed a while ago. Just not true. Not true anyway.

I would compliment Harris just to give back to that thing where she said next question about the black identity thing. I do think that that was a good way to handle it because I don't think that issue worked in her favor. If that issue worked in her favor she would have certainly brought it up and wanted to talk about it. But I think that the more she talks about the question of is she black the more black citizens catch it and they go wait a minute what? Wait what? You're not. Oh I thought you were 100% black. Now do black voters care about her identity being as black as the blackest you could be versus living a life as a black woman? And my guess is probably some do. You know if the entire game is identity politics and it has been for years if that's their game doesn't it matter if you got the identity right? That feels important. If you're going to play identity politics you can't make up your identity.

So my take on this is that I'm not the person who gets to say whether somebody's black or not. But what I observe is that there's nobody like her. She's the only one. I would love to see her say that. That would be a strong message by the way. So you know what instead of saying whether I'm black or Indian or one quarter black or whatever anybody saying how about we agree on this. There's only one of me. Bam. That would be a home run. It's just that sometimes the identity politics works in her favor so she doesn't want to run from it too hard. It's better just to skip it and let people make up their own minds. That probably works in her favor. So I think her advice was good. They probably advised her to stay away from that. Also advised her on the picture of the little girl. So those are two situations where she could have gone identity politics and she ran from both. Probably well advised. I liked it. You know it felt more like a legitimate candidate for president by avoiding it. That to me avoiding the identity stuff is it's got to be number one. You know right up there as your most important personal quality is that you're not focused on identity. And so basically yet again she's finding a Trump point of view where that shouldn't have been important. The fact that Trump brought it up is because they think it's important. That's what makes it funny. So it could be that Trump just ruined identity politics as a good strategy for running for office. You may have ruined it forever just by bringing up the question of well you know maybe aren't you more of an individual? You know I'm not sure that you fit into this category everybody else says you fit into. Just adding some doubt into that I think was brilliant. As much as Trump will be forever criticized for bringing up identity and black identity and stuff things he shouldn't be talking about you would think. I thought that worked because it created the conversation. It wasn't what he said about it that mattered. What mattered was you talked about it. If he could get you to talk about well I think she is I think she's not I think she's partially he wins. So avoiding it was her best strategy. Yes I think.

All right what else happened? There were no questions on her taxes on her tax proposals. Just imagine that. The number one thing that everybody says is a horrible idea you know her unrealized gains on taxes especially didn't even come up. It's the number one bad thing that she recommends didn't come up. Or did it? Because we don't know how much got edited out. Is it possible that and she could have no good answer to that question especially if there was any follow-up to it that they just cut it out? What do you think? I'm going to double down on my assumption that when there's a lack of transparency and it's not individuals it's organizations involved that I think it's appropriate to assume they edited it out. Because what would make you think they didn't ask? How in the world would that not be one of the top 20 questions? And you'd probably get to 20 questions if you did talk to him for an hour. So I don't know how much they talked beyond the 18 minutes. I'd love to know that.

And then Harris apparently was coached. When she was asked about her flip-flopping so to speak on topics her answer was my values have not changed. And I saw somebody smart say okay you just gave Trump the kill shot. Trump wants you to believe that her old socialist views are still in play. She's just hiding them. She just said he's right. Now she didn't mean to say that. What she meant to say is maybe my policies have changed but they're all coming from the same place which is absurd and stupid and obviously not true. So it's a stupid thing to say but it could convince stupid people and since most of her voters are stupid could work out fine. But my values have not changed gives Trump the ultimate weapon which is show what she said and then play my values have not changed then show what she said again on another topic and then go right back to my values haven't changed. You do that on like five different super socialist stupid ideas she had in the past and then you make sure that she said today my values haven't changed. Nobody in the world is going to think that means that she's got different policies than she used to have. And by the way as misleading as that might be it's directionally true. You know what I mean? It is directionally true that if you're willing to say over and over again my values haven't changed we as voters get to say well those other policies were based on those values were they not? It seems like you're trying to not answer the question why you changed your mind which makes it sound like you haven't which makes it sound like you're some kind of Trojan horse. You know once you get inside the gate Lord knows what happens then. So that could have actually taken her out of the race. Just think about the impact that would have if you saw her dumbass you know no fracking etc. followed immediately by my values have not changed. There's no way you would think she would have a different policy even if she does.

Well here's some other things we learned. I feel like we learned why she doesn't do debates or doesn't want to do many. And I think we learned why she doesn't do interviews. I would rank her performance as poor and I can't imagine that she would do better on a debate. So I guess the reason we haven't seen much of her is exactly why you thought it was. She's just really bad at this. This being you know being a presidential person.

All right she was asked about the DNC and she said it was good work which also sounded like a prepared answer. So as if she knew what the question was going to be. Yeah DNC was good work anyway. So then Daniel Dale came on and did a fact check on her fracking claim and you know as I said showed that she had lied about having said in 2020 that she was in favor of fracking because she didn't. She only said Biden was in favor.

But is anything missing? Was there anything that you thought logically should have been part of that interview and yet it was completely miss