Speaker 1: All right, welcome in What's Driving the Great Episode four
Speaker 1: ninety one. This episode of What's Right and the Great
Speaker 1: is presented to you by boost Mobilers, our Friday bonus
Speaker 1: episode where we do mailbag stuff where you know, some
Speaker 1: topics that we didn't get to in the week. Sometimes
Speaker 1: we stray a little more from sports these in this episode.
Speaker 1: And so here's what we're gonna do today. It'll be
Speaker 1: a relatively quick episode. Uh, but Dan Orlofsky did his
Speaker 1: quarterback rankings and it's just too good not to discuss.
Speaker 1: So we have that. Then there's three or four emails
Speaker 1: that I want to get to, and then maybe one
Speaker 1: sports media note on the back end of the show.
Speaker 1: Reminder everybody like rate, subscribe, and review. Also reminder to
Speaker 1: everyone next week, ty Butler and Damon Bruce will be
Speaker 1: filling in for me and de Monday the next couple weeks.
Speaker 1: Then i'll be back August thirty first, back in the
Speaker 1: States September first, right back here in your guys feeds again.
Speaker 1: Damon and Tyle will be filling in. But I'll be
Speaker 1: back in your feeds on YouTube September first, and we'll
Speaker 1: be rolling for football season. But Dan Orlovsky. Credit to Dan,
Speaker 1: who again I know a tiny tiny bit. Everyone who
Speaker 1: does know him speaks about what a great guy he is.
Speaker 1: He is. Some of his opinions have been the subject
Speaker 1: of my scorn over the years, but it's never been
Speaker 1: a personal thing with Dan. I think, I hope I
Speaker 1: would assume he knows that. So he discusses in Credit
Speaker 1: to him for having an opinion people care about. To
Speaker 1: where I'm discussing it. Here he ranked. I'm gonna read
Speaker 1: his words exactly. I ranked the top ten quarterbacks by
Speaker 1: seven different traits arm strength, ball placement, mechanics, decision making,
Speaker 1: pocket presence, second reaction, second reaction, creativity, pardon me, and
Speaker 1: rushing ability. These lists are based on current performance and
Speaker 1: expectations for the twenty twenty sixth season. It's how I
Speaker 1: would rank the QB group at this exact moment. I
Speaker 1: only included starters and leaned on what I see on
Speaker 1: tape to form the rankings. Okay, great sounds fun. I'm
Speaker 1: going to jump right to the reason we're discussing this,
Speaker 1: and then we're going to do a bigger picture chat
Speaker 1: on it. Briefly, the category decision making with the football
Speaker 1: and he then describes it as here are the league's
Speaker 1: top problem solvers. Being a good decision maker means making
Speaker 1: the right choice when things are going to plan, but
Speaker 1: it also means making the only choice when things are
Speaker 1: falling apart. Find the correct outlet, but avoid mistakes, turnovers,
Speaker 1: and negative plays. Okay, the number one decision making with
Speaker 1: the football quarterback in the Year of Our Lord twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, according to Dan Orlovsky, is Josh Allen. And
Speaker 1: this is where so much of my Josh Allen frustration
Speaker 1: comes from. I think he's the same you guys at
Speaker 1: this point I'm in reruns. I think he's the second
Speaker 1: best quarterback in the league. Of all the quarterbacks in
Speaker 1: the league who don't have a Super Bowl ring, the
Speaker 1: one that I am, I think has the best chance
Speaker 1: of getting one over the next I don't want to
Speaker 1: say ever, because the younger guys have an edge there.
Speaker 1: But over the next five years is Josh Allen. Josh
Speaker 1: Allen at his best is the only quarterback in the
Speaker 1: league that, if both guys play their best, can go
Speaker 1: toe to toe with Patrick. That is Josh. I have
Speaker 1: given him, I think a ton of credit for those things,
Speaker 1: but the frustration that you guys hear in my voice
Speaker 1: when discussing. Discussing Josh Allen so often comes from the
Speaker 1: way he is covered in the media, and I've already
Speaker 1: had to hear that from Greene. No one's ever played
Speaker 1: the position better. I've had to hear from folks for
Speaker 1: years that he's the best quarterback in football. And now
Speaker 1: what I consider to be one of his only weaknesses
Speaker 1: decision making, not panicking, avoiding awful mistakes, one of the
Speaker 1: only actual verifiable weaknesses the player has. I'm Toldi's the
Speaker 1: best in the league at it, the best, number one.
Speaker 1: The last game we saw him play, he had one
Speaker 1: of the worst turnovers in playoff history, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: the pick that lost him the game.
Speaker 2: The the last playoff game he played against the Chiefs
Speaker 2: AFC Championship game two years ago, tried to throw picks
Speaker 2: on the two of the first three passes of the game,
Speaker 2: and the year before that, bumble the ball three times.
Speaker 1: Since he's come into the league, no player in the
Speaker 1: league has turned the ball over more. And he's number
Speaker 1: one at decision making like that's it's just crazy. It's
Speaker 1: just and again, I think he's such a great player,
Speaker 1: but This is damn near the sports version of gaslighting,
Speaker 1: where we're taking one of the player's only fair weaknesses
Speaker 1: or critiques and saying, not only is it not a weakness,
Speaker 1: he's the best in the world at it. Like I
Speaker 1: don't even think Josh Allen thinks Josh Allen is the
Speaker 1: best decision maker in football. It's just baffling to me.
Speaker 1: And then we can and then we get to the
Speaker 1: the other piece of this Orlovsky list that is a
Speaker 1: little frustrating, which is again, according to this to Orlovsky's rankings,
Speaker 1: there is not a single quarterback trait, not one of
Speaker 1: the seven, not one, that Patrick Mahomes is better than
Speaker 1: Josh Allen at not one. Arm strength Mahomes five, Allen one, fine,
Speaker 1: so be it arguable, but fine, ball placement Alan seven,
Speaker 1: Patrick Mahomes on ball placement not top ten in the league. Okay,
Speaker 1: mechanics this one, I actually probably agree with Allen number nine,
Speaker 1: Mahomes not ranked in the top ten decision making a
Speaker 1: guy who again I'm not gonna read Mahomes resume decision
Speaker 1: making Allen number one, Patrick number nine, Patrick a worst
Speaker 1: decision maker. They end Burrow and Lamar and Dak and
Speaker 1: Jaden and Drake May and Jordan Love and Matthew Stafford
Speaker 1: and of course Josh Allen. Pocket presence, pocket presence Josh
Speaker 1: not ranked. Mahomes not ranked number one pocket presence. Somehow
Speaker 1: is Drake May, who we just watched get sacked a
Speaker 1: thousand times in the playoffs and they were not all
Speaker 1: snapsacks number one Pocket presence Drake May, Mahomes not ranked.
Speaker 1: Second reactionability Mahomes number three. Oh finally, something is better
Speaker 1: than Allen. That Nope, Allen number one. Rushing ability fine,
Speaker 1: Mahomes number seven, Allen number two. I this is what
Speaker 1: again writes about second reactionability. I'm looking for creativity here
Speaker 1: as well as the ability to throw from weird arm
Speaker 1: angles and platforms. Mahome's not the listen. Mahome's pretty good
Speaker 1: at that creativity and weird arm angles and platforms. But
Speaker 1: he's no Josh Allen. I mean, what are we doing? Like?
Speaker 1: I just I I am verklempt. No, that's the wrong word.
Speaker 1: I think verklempt means hold on. Uh oh no, that's okay.
Speaker 1: He usually is positive, not always with this, and again
Speaker 1: credit to Orlowsky. He got me going. But there's not
Speaker 1: a single thing on the football field. Patrick Malmes is
Speaker 1: better than Josh Allen, and Josh Allen's got the best
Speaker 1: decision making of anyone in the league. Come on, I
Speaker 1: mean really, listener emails and then a little sports media
Speaker 1: budsman thought before we wrap the show. But first, boost
Speaker 1: Mobile is proving you don't have to overpay for great wireless.
Speaker 1: Unlock the savings with the twenty dollars a month forever
Speaker 1: unlimited plan, permanent price, no contracts, no price action, Keep
Speaker 1: your phone and your number, but you save up to
Speaker 1: six hundred dollars a year compared to the major carriers.
Speaker 1: Stop overpaying and switch to a fair price at boostmobile
Speaker 1: dot com today based on average annual single line payment
Speaker 1: of AT and T, Verizon and T Mobile customers compared
Speaker 1: to twelve months on the boost Mobile Unlimited plan as
Speaker 1: of January twenty twenty six. For full off for details,
Speaker 1: visit boost mobile dot com. All Right to the mailbag
Speaker 1: a wild headline from Owen or subject line did Magic
Speaker 1: and Kareem underachieve? He writes, If you have Magic fourth
Speaker 1: best all time and Kareem's second best all time and
Speaker 1: a full group of Hall of Fame teammates around them.
Speaker 1: Isn't five titles in nine tries almost underachieving. That's gonna
Speaker 1: be a note for me, dog Like. First of all,
Speaker 1: let's give a little context on the Kareem piece of it.
Speaker 1: Kareem was an MVP caliber player for the first five years.
Speaker 1: There was only really five years, six years, no, yeah,
Speaker 1: five or six years that Magic and Kareem were both
Speaker 1: MVP caliber. Magic was an MVP caliber guy basically the
Speaker 1: moment he walked into the league, and Kareem was ten
Speaker 1: years into his career when Magic walked into the league,
Speaker 1: and Kareem had prior to Lebron as long as a
Speaker 1: prime as anyone ever. But again, they didn't get Magic's
Speaker 1: whole career with Kareem being Pete Kareem. One of the
Speaker 1: reasons Kaream is as high as he is on my
Speaker 1: list is for what he did in the seventies when
Speaker 1: he won five MVPs. When his second year in the
Speaker 1: league he won MVPs, scoring title finals, MVP, he had,
Speaker 1: you know, the longest winning streaking history of the league.
Speaker 1: That was eight years before Magic walked into the league.
Speaker 1: Once Magic got there, though, all they did was win
Speaker 1: the title. Then in eighty one, they lost in the
Speaker 1: first round in a best of three after a fifty
Speaker 1: four win season. Then in eighty two won the title.
Speaker 1: Three lost in the finals to maybe the greatest team ever,
Speaker 1: the eighty three six ers. Eighty four lost in the
Speaker 1: finals in seven to Bird and the Celtics. Eighty five
Speaker 1: won the title again, eighty six stunningly lost in the
Speaker 1: conference finals to Young Young Akeem and Ralph Samson, and
Speaker 1: then eighty seven won the title. Eighty eight won the title,
Speaker 1: eighty nine lost in the finals to Isaiah Kareem's gone
Speaker 1: now and then Magic makes the finals again in ninety
Speaker 1: one lose to Jordan. I mean they played nine years together,
Speaker 1: they made seven finals and won. No hold on, what
Speaker 1: am I skipping here? Oh okay, yeah, my apologies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: played ten years together. Pardon me. They won five titles,
Speaker 1: lost in the finals three times. Pretty good. So no,
Speaker 1: they didn't underachieve. I don't know what more you'd want
Speaker 1: from them. You're not gonna sweep the decade they ran
Speaker 1: into the eighty three six ers, they had to deal
Speaker 1: with Birds, Celtics, they had to deal with Isaiah's pistons.
Speaker 1: They got clipped in a full series one time. I
Speaker 1: mean the best of three magic second year is weird one.
Speaker 1: They got clipped pre finals by the Rockets. Once. That's no,
Speaker 1: That's what the Lakers did in the eighties. Now, I
Speaker 1: understand the West was the easier conference, but still what
Speaker 1: the Lakers did in the eighties, we're not gonna call
Speaker 1: that underachieving. Angus asks Lebron number one pick status for
Speaker 1: how many years? Hey, Nick, love the show and the pot.
Speaker 1: Thank you question, At what age in his career would
Speaker 1: Lebron James not have been the number one overall pick
Speaker 1: in the NBA draft? Also, did you once say you
Speaker 1: are not the type to go to a wedding, but
Speaker 1: you would send a gift, So you're cordially invited to
Speaker 1: my wedding later this year. Shout out, Angus and Jamie,
Speaker 1: thank you for so much you do. Sincerely one of
Speaker 1: the three Chargers fans out there. So let's do it
Speaker 1: like this at what so if we obviously Lebron would
Speaker 1: have been the number one pick for all of the
Speaker 1: two thousand aughts, it's pretty undeniable. Twenty twelve. Peek heat Lebron.
Speaker 1: He is twenty seven years old. Yeah, as good as
Speaker 1: Anthony Davis as a prospect was it's like, hey, you
Speaker 1: draft ad or you can draft Lebron. At his current age,
Speaker 1: Lebron goes number one. So post Anthony Davis' number one
Speaker 1: picks Anthony Bennett Andrew Wiggins, Towns Listen Towns was an
Speaker 1: amazing prospect and people loved him, and Lebron at that
Speaker 1: point is thirty years old. This is you know, right
Speaker 1: around you know, the famous. Thankfully this fucker he won't
Speaker 1: go along much longer. But it's also Lebron fresh off
Speaker 1: those twenty fourteen finals, showing no signs of wear and tear.
Speaker 1: He's the number one pick right there. Still even at thirty,
Speaker 1: you feel like you're gonna immediately have the ability to
Speaker 1: win the championship. Off twenty sixteen. He's the universally recognized
Speaker 1: best player in the world. Seventeen to eighteen same, I
Speaker 1: think the first year, I think the first time Lebron
Speaker 1: would not have been the number one pick of the
Speaker 1: draft would have been thirty four year old Lebron the
Speaker 1: summer of two thousand nineteen, after his first year with
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles Lakers, where he got you know, Torres groin.
Speaker 1: It looked like, okay, you know, he finally suffered his
Speaker 1: first injury. Plus the number one pick of that draft
Speaker 1: was Zion Williamson. That's the first year so Lebron would
Speaker 1: have Again, we're not talking about you're getting to draft
Speaker 1: eighteen year old Lebron. It's Lebron in that moment in
Speaker 1: time where the team would have said, we can have
Speaker 1: the number one pick or just get Lebron as of
Speaker 1: this moment, the first year where a team would have
Speaker 1: said we'd rather go with the number one pick would
Speaker 1: have been the Pelicans in twenty nineteen to take Zion,
Speaker 1: and Lebron then went on to win the championship that year.
Speaker 1: But that's the first team that would have done it.
Speaker 1: The first team that would have been correct in doing
Speaker 1: it would have been the following year. Anthony Edwards is
Speaker 1: the number one pick twenty twenty Lebron when he's thirty
Speaker 1: five coming off the championship. But that's the answer to
Speaker 1: that email, And I like that email. I'd never thought
Speaker 1: about it quite like that. Anthony's got a sports betting question, Hi,
Speaker 1: huge fan of the show. Two questions one A shorter
Speaker 1: one is longer question one? What's the longest odds on
Speaker 1: a sports bet that you ever won. What's the story
Speaker 1: behind it? I hit a one Chiefs related same game parlay.
Speaker 1: We talked about it on the pot. I think once
Speaker 1: that culminated in like I needed, I don't know, eleven
Speaker 1: more yards from Kelsey and he had a twelve yard
Speaker 1: catch on the to seal the game. So that's probably
Speaker 1: the longest odds I ever won. Was that that one
Speaker 1: chief same game parlay? I think? But then here's the
Speaker 1: longer question. The sports betting market is a largely optimized market.
Speaker 1: Sportsbook used mountains of data and simulation, set lines, and
Speaker 1: those lines move slightly based on betting activity of the public.
Speaker 1: Even if public betting activity isn't as data driven a
Speaker 1: sportsbook line setting based on the wisdom of the crowd's phenomenon,
Speaker 1: the betting line eventually settles into a correct spot, or
Speaker 1: at least somewhere close to the correct spot. For you
Speaker 1: or anyone to consistently make money sports betting, you essentially
Speaker 1: need to see something that data doesn't see, or feel
Speaker 1: something that crowds don't feel. Short of having insider information,
Speaker 1: how do you go about doing this? What is the
Speaker 1: strategy for you and other sports betters to win the
Speaker 1: seemingly unwinnable game. I'm hoping for an answer more specific
Speaker 1: than vibes. What specific things do you look for? How
Speaker 1: successful have you seen different strategies? I want I'm glad
Speaker 1: you asked me this question because I want to make
Speaker 1: this very clear. And I say this as a partner
Speaker 1: of sports books, as someone that uses the prediction markets.
Speaker 1: It's someone that talks a lot about gambling. I never
Speaker 1: ever want people to be misconstrued on how I think
Speaker 1: they or how I view sports betting. I view it
Speaker 1: as a way to spend my entertainment dollars that I
Speaker 1: convince myself that hey, I can break even ish in this,
Speaker 1: and that's it unless you have dedicated your professional life
Speaker 1: too developing some type of you know, algorithm or real
Speaker 1: betting system that has been tested out over years your
Speaker 1: and to where you can really become a sharp better use. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and I hope when we're advertising it, you guys don't
Speaker 1: think I am, you know, saying hey this is a
Speaker 1: great way. You know, it's like having a second job
Speaker 1: to pick to create additional income. That is not what
Speaker 1: it is. It is not a thing. Okay, Well you
Speaker 1: know this year I'm gonna make this much at work.
Speaker 1: Plus you know, I'm gonna this year, I'm gonna hit
Speaker 1: fifty five percent of my NFL bet so I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make this much. You've got to be looking at it
Speaker 1: as any money you ever make as a bonus. So
Speaker 1: that's first thing, because if you are not a true
Speaker 1: professional sports better Yeah, the uh, it's almost impossible to
Speaker 1: be lifetime profiting. Okay, So that's the that's the and
Speaker 1: I hope everybody understands that. Like again, and I love it,
Speaker 1: and I talk about it, and demand's into it all
Speaker 1: this and we try to give you our best expert opinions.
Speaker 1: But again, the vig is the viig, and it is very,
Speaker 1: very very difficult to lifetime be a winner. And I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody we've never run from that. It's why
Speaker 1: we take so much pride if at the end of
Speaker 1: the year we eke out, you know, one unit above
Speaker 1: break even, which is what we shoot for every year.
Speaker 1: As far as my strategy, I you know, I do
Speaker 1: think I might have because it's what I do for
Speaker 1: a living. As far as talking about the teams and
Speaker 1: the sports, I might have, you know, a better grasp
Speaker 1: on it than just the casual average fan, But I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna have an edge on the sharp professional betters,
Speaker 1: even if I might know more about football than them,
Speaker 1: so to speak. But I think the biggest edge and
Speaker 1: it's not even an edge, but it just removing the
Speaker 1: casino's edge that I have, And that one of the
Speaker 1: things I try to preach to you guys on is
Speaker 1: staying far more dedicated to single team straight wagers than
Speaker 1: the lottery ticket parlays. Again, if you're trying to eke
Speaker 1: out anything close to above five hundred or the fifty
Speaker 1: three percent that you've got to hit to actually be
Speaker 1: profitable with the VIC. Now, I am not at all
Speaker 1: opposed to the lottery ticket style same game parlays, player parlays,
Speaker 1: all of that, as long as people recognize you are giving.
Speaker 1: You know, you're risking little to potentially win a lot,
Speaker 1: and because the casino knows people love to do that,
Speaker 1: they can take an extra piece, like the big on
Speaker 1: those bets is very significant, and so you're just not
Speaker 1: going to be long term, you know, profitable if you're
Speaker 1: making a bunch of twenty to one, forty to one,
Speaker 1: fifty to one same game parlays. But again I'm not
Speaker 1: saying the goal should be lifetime profitability goal might just
Speaker 1: be I mean, it's more fun for me bet ten
Speaker 1: bucks on a game. I can win a couple hundred.
Speaker 1: If I lose the ten, it doesn't hurt me. If
Speaker 1: I win the two hundred feels good and I enjoy
Speaker 1: doing it. I hope that's a good answer. Vance asked
Speaker 1: about hypothetical duos. Which duo would win the most championships
Speaker 1: that they play together. He gives me Shack and Durant,
Speaker 1: Dream and Steph, Bron and Pippin, Jordan and Duncan, Kobe
Speaker 1: and Giannis. All Right, I so I am looking at this.
Speaker 1: You know what, when I first read this email, in
Speaker 1: my head, I was answering a question different than the
Speaker 1: one that I think he's actually asking. In my head,
Speaker 1: I thought he was discussing it as a two on
Speaker 1: two game, like as opposed to these guys being two
Speaker 1: pieces of your championship corps. Either way, whether it were
Speaker 1: a two on two game or two pieces of your
Speaker 1: championship corps, Vance, you really did my guy Bron wrong.
Speaker 1: Shaq and Durant a top twelve all time guy and
Speaker 1: a top twenty all time guy, Dream and Steph two
Speaker 1: top twelve all time guys, Jordan and Duncan two top
Speaker 1: seven all time guys, Kobe and Giannis a top ten
Speaker 1: all time guy, and Yanni's top twenty all time guy.
Speaker 1: And then Bron gets Pippen, who again I really you know,
Speaker 1: appreciate and things a little underrated, but does not sniff
Speaker 1: anybody's top thirty. All the other legends get either another
Speaker 1: top ten all time teammate or top fifteen ish. Bron
Speaker 1: gets Scottie Pippen and again no dispective Pippen, but also
Speaker 1: some positional redundancy there. So whether it's two on two
Speaker 1: or for a full team, you know, Bron's got the
Speaker 1: shortest end of the stick. My snap answer whether or
Speaker 1: two on two or five on five is the first
Speaker 1: two options the best options Shaq and Durant or Dream
Speaker 1: and Steph, Kobe and Giannis. Don't you know neither guy
Speaker 1: is a plus three point shooter. Say, with Jordan and Duncan, uh,
Speaker 1: Bron and Pip and I just talked about the drawbacks there,
Speaker 1: Shaq and Durant or Dream and Steph, you just have
Speaker 1: elite shooting to go along with dominant elite center play.
Speaker 1: So here's my answer. If it were a two on
Speaker 1: two competition, the Shaq Durant duo dominates these other five.
Speaker 1: If it were I can have two of these guys
Speaker 1: and just have you know, competent role players around them.
Speaker 1: Which duo would I pick? Dream and Steph? Dream the
Speaker 1: greatest defensive player post Bill Russell in the history of
Speaker 1: the league, Steph the greatest shooter. Those you would have
Speaker 1: peak spacing on offense, and the greatest again defender the
Speaker 1: league's scene in sixty years on defense. And Dream himself
Speaker 1: give you thirty if you need it so. They would
Speaker 1: be my pick for to your best two guys on
Speaker 1: a five man team of these duos, Shack and Durant
Speaker 1: would be my pick if it was a two on
Speaker 1: two competition. All right, last, but not least, a plea
Speaker 1: to my media colleagues. I find it very frustrating that
Speaker 1: and this is political adjacent. Everyone is a life out
Speaker 1: to have whatever politics they want. I think that's pretty
Speaker 1: well established. And I am of a belief that you
Speaker 1: do not have an obligation. You know, the listeners are adults.
Speaker 1: People are you know, it's discerning viewers. You don't have
Speaker 1: an obligation to hide your political leanings. When it's relevant
Speaker 1: to the conversation. You know, I've talked about that. I
Speaker 1: talked to this a lot last week's episode when we
Speaker 1: were talking about the Rogers thing. I find it insulting
Speaker 1: to my intelligence and the intelligence of the audience. A
Speaker 1: trend that has become more and more I think pervasive
Speaker 1: over the last few years, and I feel like we
Speaker 1: saw some of it this week, which is folks who
Speaker 1: claim to want to be viewed as a political entities
Speaker 1: and as someone who if they were political, they do
Speaker 1: the old well you know, I agree and disagree with
Speaker 1: both sides type of thing, which again I'm not saying
Speaker 1: there are people that actually feel that way, but yet
Speaker 1: in every opportunity that they are given, they make it
Speaker 1: very clear where they actually fall politically, and for some
Speaker 1: reason don't have the courage or the gumption to just
Speaker 1: own it. And I don't think it is expecting the
Speaker 1: intelligence of your audience to be claiming you're not political
Speaker 1: and don't want to be political if you are consistently
Speaker 1: hanging out with the most powerful politicians in the world,
Speaker 1: and you are certainly allowed to be, Like I have
Speaker 1: an opportunity to kick it with the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, and while maybe many of you find him polarizing,
Speaker 1: I don't I like the guy or the stuff that
Speaker 1: you guys find polarizing, I actually think is positive. Or
Speaker 1: you know what, I actually you know, I don't pay
Speaker 1: attention to politics, so I don't really get into any
Speaker 1: of that. But even if that's the case, you understand that,
Speaker 1: you know, we are in politically fraught times. You understand
Speaker 1: that we are becoming an increasingly polarized nation, for good
Speaker 1: or for bad. It is a little disingenuous whether you're
Speaker 1: a talk show host or a sports league. What the
Speaker 1: UFC did where Dana White said forever we're not political,
Speaker 1: We're not political. Here's our event at the White House. Again.
Speaker 1: You're allowed to have the event at the White House,
Speaker 1: and you're allowed to endorse whoever you want for president.
Speaker 1: You're allowed to talk at any convention you want. But
Speaker 1: have the have at least the you know, belief in
Speaker 1: your convictions and be like, hey, this is what I believe.
Speaker 1: I vibe with this guy. I don't think he's as
Speaker 1: bad as some as you guys think. And by the way,
Speaker 1: a lot of the country agrees with me. You know,
Speaker 1: just we just had an election. He won. I don't
Speaker 1: understand that the wanting to have it both ways of
Speaker 1: I'm not political. I don't pick aside. I don't root
Speaker 1: for either thing. And then whenever you venture into any
Speaker 1: type of political discourse or any type of political social engagement,
Speaker 1: you're all it's always in the same exact direction with
Speaker 1: the same exact people. Come on, we're all adults. We
Speaker 1: can agree to disagree or agree to agree on certain things,
Speaker 1: but we don't have to pretend that we don't believe
Speaker 1: what we believe. You don't got to do that. And
Speaker 1: so I just I I'm not a huge fan of
Speaker 1: the believe what I say, not your lion eyes. And
Speaker 1: I think we are getting more and more of that
Speaker 1: with certain folks that want to say, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: care about politics at all. Yeh. By the way, here
Speaker 1: I am with the single most powerful politician in the world.
Speaker 1: Strikes me as not totally earnest, and I think we
Speaker 1: should do better on that. I'm going on vacation. Tye
Speaker 1: and Damon are going to do a great job. See
Speaker 1: you guys first day of September. What's right