our screen with all your targets and I think the laser, maybe not version one but I think the laser can just go up up up up up and take out 300 drones in five seconds. I guess it depends how long the pulse lasts. But the other thing you could do is sort of like Babylon 5, the shadows, where you saw that the laser would just be continuous. So instead of firing bursts it would be like a sword in the air and it would just be a sword that cuts you and just paints all the drones out of the sky.

So I only point that out to say we're definitely going to have lasers in the military. Like that's, I would say at this point you don't have to wonder if that's going to happen. That's happening. We got lasers. And the next war is going to be small drones versus lasers because I think lasers are going to be the only defense against swarms of small things. Would you agree? I don't know that there's another defense unless it's electronic, maybe jamming I suppose. But certainly war is taking an interesting direction. Not a good way.

I saw a story that said that the RNC, the Republican National Committee, attracted a larger share of donations under $200 than the Democratic National Committee. This is according to the New York Times. So in other words if you take $200 as your threshold, and I suppose it would be different depending on which threshold you picked, but if you say anything under $200 is a quote small donation, the Republicans got more small donations than the Democratic National Committee.

Now could there be a better indicator of President Trump's re-election chances? That's really really good indicator because I believe President Trump not only got more donations from big donors but also more donations from small donors. I think he got more donations from everybody. Now you add that. So apparently the president will have just a tremendous amount of money for re-election that he did not have for election. So point one, the president won with very little money against what some people thought was the strongest candidate the Democrats have ever had. And then of course in hindsight Hillary Clinton looked like the worst candidate but at the time we thought she was super strong. And the president beat her anyway.

But now he's the incumbent. Incumbents don't often lose. And if an incumbent has a strong economy they really don't lose. And if the incumbent has all the charisma versus the challenger then they really really don't lose. And if the incumbent has way more money than the challenger then they really really don't lose. And if there are no wars that are a problem for the voters, well then the incumbent doesn't lose. So you have about five serious indicators to say that Trump is going to win re-election. And that's before you even talk about how bad the competition is. Who exactly is going to run against him? I'm guessing Kamala Harris will eventually be the nominee and I think she's got some game but she doesn't have anything like the charisma of the president. And she's going to have a lot to explain by the time she gets the nomination if she does.

So I would say the slaughter meter is at 200 percent. Meaning the odds of President Trump getting re-elected in a landslide is so high now that if you were to bet the other way it would seem irrational. Now of course it's still a long way off and of course anything could happen. Nothing is certain. But if nothing big changes, I suppose it'