anies. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. i think he's having a midlife crisis join the mi'm not.of people taking back their privacy you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is.

today we're asking, following donald trump's impressive win in iowa, and his lead in new hampshire, is the republican presidential race essentially over? plus, a scathing justice department report on the deadly uvalde school shooting leaves us wondering, can we keep our kids safe? and one of madonna's song starts, time goes by so slowly. and for her fans, that's so true. they're now suing her. our gang is here and ready to go. so sit back, relax, and let's talk about it. first, the state of the presidential race. on the heels of a dominant victory in iowa, donald trump is looking effectively to sew up the republican nomination this week in new hampshire. the first in the nation primary

which could be the last chance to stop the former president. >> i'm thrilled to be back -- >> on tuesday, donald trump is looking to become the first republican ever to win contested races in both iowa and new hampshire. that may depend on the strength of nikki haley's momentum in the granite state. >> nikki haley is a disaster. >> the majority of americans think that having two 80-year-olds running for president is not what they want. >> haley is banking on independent who's can vote in the primary to bolster a huge upset. >> i promise you that our best days are yet to come. >> while ron desantis is polling in the single digits in new hampshire, he's looked to contest weeks from now. >> good afternoon. it's great to be with y'all. >> following monday's record-breaking win for trump in iowa, the biden campaign already

says, we're looking at a rematch. >> i'm still the only person to ever beat donald trump and i'm looking forward to it again. >> with me today, the podcaster cara swisher, the president of the manhattan institute, and national review contributing editor, "new york times" journalist and podcast host, and editor of the dispatch and "los angeles times" columnist. welcome back to all of you. you're all so busy. you were in new hampshire this week. is this race essentially over? >> what is it miracle max says in princess bride? not dead. just mostly dead. if nikki haley pulls out, which does not look likely right now, an actual win. not a really competitive second. not a better showing than iowa. if she actually wins in new hampshire, there's still a scenario you can see where it's not over. if she loses in new hampshire,

it's very difficult to see where anybody else can win going forward. there's some desantis people talking about the u.s. virgin islands which is not historically a conveyor of big mo. >> the delegates. >> yeah. this is the last shot. if she truly wins in new hampshire, that changes the psychology. that's a big lift right now. >> is there anything that either haley or desantis can do to stop or even slow donald trump's march to the republican presidential nomination? >> trip him, i guess. break a hip. no, no. the waiting, if something happens with these cases or something like that, that's what they're waiting to hang in. but that's not possible. the timing is completely off. including the cases which keep getting pushed down the road. so you know -- >> there's been talk that one of the reasons for this race is because he just figures, if something happens down the line -- i mean, it's kind of a

death march until that happens. >> exactly right. they shouldn't trip him. it's not nice to do to a really old person like donald trump. at the same time, they're hoping to be the top and then maybe get out. if something happens to him, they would be the first person considered. so staying in a little longer is probably a good idea and probably nikki haley is the only one with a chance of doing that. >> if you want to get a sense of how quickly this is devolving into a general election race, both biden and trump have already put out ads this year going after each other. take a look. >> there is something dangerous happening in america. there is an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs in our democracy. >> our vibrant facility offers delightful activities and outings. round-the-clock professional care. white house senior living where residents feel like presidents.

>> where residents feel like presidents. i have to tell you, they were playing that over and over again this last week in iowa and it was a devastating ad. given the doubts that voters have expressed, that they have about both these guys, especially independent voters, especially in swing states, is the only way for them assuming that we are going to be on a general election campaign sooner rather than later, is their only strategy to go negative at each other basically to say, you may not like me but the other guy really stinks? >> the short answer is yes. that's exactly right. we're in a moment. a national mood that is very dour and pessimistic. there are any number of reasons but it is pretty clear why. i don't think anyone will be affirmatively rushing to vote for the incumbent. when it comes to independent voters, there won't be this warm enthusiasm for donald trump. it will be all about disqualifying the rival candidate. >> do you agree with the idea

that trump isn't going to be able to effectively sell his record? biden won't be able to effectively sell his record, and the way they'll swing voters is by saying, the other guy really is unacceptable? >> i think that's what they're going to try. i don't think that will decide this election, if indeed those are the two candidates that we are having to deal with. on the one hand, republicans are delusional because they think that they have swallowed the kool-aid that biden is indeed in senior living, assisted facility in the white house, and that he's a dotard. and basically, we're living in a dystopian world filled with cultural marxists. on the other hand, democrats believe, have i think underestimated the power of donald trump saying we've won against him once. we can ride the biden horse into the sunset and do it again. and i think what will decide this election is really turnout. it will be issues like immigration.

it will be issues like abortion. and it will be, these are two historically unpopular candidates. and i just do not see that this will be about enthusiasm or even fear. it will be like who will actually show up at the polls and what do they care about and i don't think it is that they care about either biden or donald trump. >> i think that's totally right. you touched on something that drives me crazy. the explanation you get from the biden people is they have this play book. they've done it before. they've beaten trump. they did beat trump. he lost. but at the same time, that campaign in the middle of covid allowed biden to have a legitimate excuse to basically run a basement or front porch campaign where he wasn't out there and all that. they can't run the same campaign they ran in 2020. it's a completely different environment. he didn't have a record to run on as president. if they're going to fall back on, i beat him before. i can do it again. past performance is not predictive. >> they should still say that.

why shouldn't they? >> it is not reassuring. >> how reassuring is trump in a courtroom yelling at a judge? neither has a very good place to run this. >> let me ask you. which do you think is a bigger liability for voters right now? biden's age or trump's character? >> if they can make trump seem old, that will zero out the age thing. if he's, he sort of wanders a little bit, too. if he does more of that. i think probably, people are so ageist in this country. probably age, i would guess. it should be this guy is in court constantly. what's going on here? >> again, this race will be decided. i don't entirely agree with lu lu on this. i think it will be decided by a slice of voters in a half dozen swing states. and to the degree that they have to pick between how old biden seems, looks, talks, and the

fact that trump has all these legal problems, which do you think is a bigger pressing, decisive issue? >> my gut is it will be biden's age. not because trump's issues aren't real and serious. they are to some degree baked in. you have endless amounts of court cases surrounding him. i think that the age issue intersects with another one. a perception of strength or weakness. biden is perceived as weak and i think that is reinforced by the larger geopolitical environment. and i think that will be very hard for him to overcome and closely related to the age issue. >> you have really made me excited about this election. >> hope, hope. >> donald trump's supreme court picks are already playing a central role in our next story. a case they heard this week about fish could affect everything from medications you take to whether you have to remove your shoes at the airport. then you don't hear this every day. liberals asking conservatives

for help to stem a growing crisis in america's big cities. and later, do some dad jokes go too far? we'll discuss why the feds aren't laughing at what you're reading behind the wheel. wade,

considering whether to roll back another major legal precedent. a decision that could determine the federal government's power over our everyday lives. from the drugs we take to the food we eat. and it all starts with one little fish. these herring fishermen are taking on the government over a

regulation ordering them to pay for observers to ensure they don't overfish. something they say costs up to $700 a day. >> that monitor will make more than myself or my crew. >> this week the supreme court heard arguments that range far beyond fish. the case opens the door for conservative justices to reel in their own big catch. overturning a 40-year precedent known as the chevron deference which lets federal agencies create regulations to make up for ambiguous laws caused by congress. >> it encourages agency overreach. >> an argument some right-leaning justices seem to agree with. >> the government always wins. chevron has exploited against the individual and in favor of the government. >> but liberals on the court are skeptical. >> my concern is if we take away something like chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policy maker. >> judges should know what they

don't know. >> jonah, why do conservatives generally hate federal agencies? >> look, we don't like big overreaching government and all that. i don't think that's the right frame for all this. first of all, if you want me to make a prediction, they'll overrule chevron. second of all, and they should. >> but -- >> one of the ironies of this is that chevron which was in some ways the brain child of antonin scalia and justice thomas, conservative justices have realized they made a mistake in setting up the regime the way they did. the question isn't what the justices were just saying about whether court should be the decider or bureau kcrats shoulde the decider. congress writes it so vaguely, our constitutional system, the branch of government that's the most democratic has the most power. if congress wants to require monitors on these fishing boats,

it can just write a law saying so. this was an invented thing by a bureaucrat that should not have deference, so to speak, just simply because we think experts should be in charge. >> but congress can't pass anything. they can't even keep the government funded. the idea that they'll write a law for, in this particular case, you know, one federal agency, and say by the way, when it gets to herring, here's what you have to do. somebody will have to decide how these general laws and all the different ways in which they change, especially over time, will be applied. >> have you ever sat in a committee hearing? a lot of these lawmakers don't know anything about a lot of things. so i think, first of all, it's not practical. and more worrying for me is that this is an old battle, right? big government versus small government. the real problem is what we're seeing on the right is the idea of destroying the federal government. the idea of the destruction of the administrative state coming

from steve bannon and has now migrated to the heart of republican policy in so far as there is republican policy. i just interviewed the head of the heritage foundation, a storied conservative think tank. and their entire ethos at the moment, this is running on sunday, is that basically, when a republican gets into government, they want to get rid of entire agencies. whether it be the department of education, gutting the fbi. so this isn't just business as usual. >> you're a small business owner. i run businesses out of the back of my house, in fact. when i started my various businesses. and it is onerous. it really is. you don't know where they come from. i sound like a right winger. look, there's a median where congress should come up with some of these things. it should be elected officials who are making these laws. and so people get naturally

frustrated. and that's why it works for the right to do this. even i'm like, why do i have to hang it here? why do i have to do this? >> ryan, let me bring you into this. we're talking about very, first of all, very important issues that affect everybody's everyday life. like the drugs that you take or, you know, the safety of airplanes that you fly on. and these things keep constantly changing. here's what justice kagan said earlier this week. >> congress can hardly see a week in the future. does congress want this court to decide those questions? policy-leading questions? >> and that's why i take exception with you in this, jonah. i think ultimately, it comes down to either the agencies are going to set the policy and under the chevron deference, the courts have to defer and say, well, if the agency says it, it's so? or if you decide that it will,

that some regulation is onerous, you can go to court and fight it. who do you want deciding these issues? congress? not congress but the federal agencies, which at least have expertise in these areas, or a judge? >> i really do think that it is fundamentally about congress's abdication of its responsibility. and this is a place where conservatives make a crucial mistake. remember newt gingrich? way back in the revolution of the early 1990s, what he did was he hollowed out congress. he said we'll cut congressional staffs to the bone. we'll dismantle offices like the office of technology assessment. that actually gave congress some of those tools so they could go mano y mano with federal agencies. they could make these substantive decisions. what conservatives are getting wrong, i believe, yes, congress should be making the laws. they should be scrutinizing the regulations. to do that, you need resources in congress. so i actually firmly agree with

jonah. if you're lamenting the state of congress right now, the issue is that we elect certain times of people and they punt certain types of things because they can. if you have a world where it is punted back to the courts, guess what. you'll have lawmakers recognize that grave responsibility they have. they're going to step up. they're going to have to change. >> they're not. look, this is a perfect example. do you know how many tech laws have been passed in the last 25 years? zero. zero, zero, zero. they punt everything. and now it's all in the courts. >> because they can. >> i mentioned the brand x thing before. one of the problems is that because of the other form of deference, you can now have, with a new president, the administrative agencies can change the regulations to fit the agenda. so when you have, it's not like the experts have decided this is the best way to do it. they've decided on the political census from the president. a lot of liberals will be very upset if they keep deference on

and donald trump becomes president and the people of the heritage foundation wants to staff all these agencies with will do industrial policy, covering things lining abortion pills from a cultural right wing position. at least congress, you can vote out people who make these laws if they're made by congress. if they're made by bureaucrats who every four years can change on a dime, you don't get certainty and you get the politicalization. >> if that jonah is right, and if in effect it is going, the agencies have control, and then you get a conservative, let's say you get trump in. there would be trump unbound, you could see a lot of these regulations change. >> you can see a lot of them change. >> would that back fire on liberals? >> of course it would back fire. the underpinning of all there is the idea that you have these unelected bureaucrats. i.e., people with expertise who are supposed to implement these

things because they understand it and they're nonpartisan. of course, if you have a trump come in and weaponize things, he will undermine many things about the way things have worked in this country. >> some would say when biden comes in, he puts his people in and they weaponize it. anyway, a really fascinating subject. i'm not sure that i agree with you that the chevron deference will be entirely eliminated. i think it might be modified. now to an issue every parent worries about. whether their kids are safe in school. following this week's report on the uvalde school shooting, we're looking for possible solutions including arming teachers. is that the way to go? we'll ask the group. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. it's hard enough waking up every day and continuing to walk

out on these streets and see a cop that you know was standing there and watched as our babies were bleeding out. >> that's the searing reality of the families for those killed in the shooting in uvalde, texas. an open wound that got even more raw this week after the justice department released a report finding cascading failures at how police responded to the massacre. the report concluded, some of the 21 who were killed. 9 children and two teachers -- 19 children and two teachers would have survived if police confronted the shooter immediately. we want to focus on the bigger issue. how to keep our kids safe in school. and take a look at this. since 2018, there have been 185 school shootings resulting in injuries or death. so big picture, can we keep our kids safe in school? >> not in this america, unfortunately. and i think uvalde shows that. it is a devastating, devastating

day when the report came out and you just see the families in absolute agony. and i think when you have a country that is awash in guns, it doesn't matter how hard we make the schools. it doesn't matter if we give our kids clear backpacks and put metal detectors and have school resource officers and on and on and on, and arm our teachers. the fact is no, we can't, in this america right now. >> jonah, i've got grandchildren who are less than 10. and they go through active shooter drills the way we used to as kids go through fire drills. do you agree with lu lu that there are no effective solutions? >> i cringe at using the phrase silver bullet, but there's, there's no one thing we can do to fix this problem. we have 50 million kids in k-12 in america. statistically, most kids on any given day are safe.

that doesn't matter. this thing shocks our conscience so many and it should. i don't like nikki haley's haley's answer where she said we need to make our schools like airports. that would grind the country to a last. no one leaves an airport saying that was great. at the same time, there's some low-hanging fruit about fixing procedures, as the report makes very clear. the police had an operational plan as if the kid was being held hostage and not being murdered. >> but the shooter was already in there. >> i agree. but they should have gone in. i agree with you entirely. there are things you can do to minimize the problem and some of them don't have to do with schools. it is the way we cover these kinds of stories that create copy cats. >> come on! the reason is there are too many guns. >> that's not a solvable problem right now. >> no but there's only one reason there are school absolutings all the time.

we've become very numb to it. and there are too many guns. >> i don't think that's everything. >> there are other democracy that's have guns. there is a copycat element to it. i think one really big thing we need to do is effectively prosecute gun crimes. it is legitimate to say if you're not storing firearms in your home, there should be consequences for parents. red flag laws. identifying people with mental illness. >> should teachers, in at least 30 states around the country, at least some teachers in those states are allowed to bear arms? is that an answer? >> i think it is entirely reasonable for teachers to raise their hand and volunteer for training and how to use firearms

responsibly and effectively. this is a big diverse country. >> the answer to guns is more guns with teachers, and you don't know who they're going to shoot -- >> i think it is a complicated issue. >> it is reasonable for citizens to raise their hands and say i'm going to undertake the kind of training to be someone who is a responsible person -- >> why do you think -- >> we're not in a movie here. we're not in some western. there are kids in the way. if there's one mistake and a teacher shoots a kid? it's just uncomprehensible. >> i agree with you that it shouldn't be a 47free for all. >> i've interviewed teachers who have trained in utah to carry guns. and, after uvalde. what i'll say is it is a complicated issue. there is some nuance here which is this. teachers do not feel safe in this country. they are afraid. they look at uvalde and say who will come for us? who will protect us? we're there with a potentially

disturbed child who might have a gun. and what are we going to do to protect ourselves? the other side of this is that, of course, they also know that putting a gun inside of a classroom might mean that they harm the wrong child. and having a teacher point a weapon at a student, what message does that send to the other students? it's a very complicated issue. >> i want the bring up one other issue. that is, parents. in michigan, james and jennifer crumbly are the first parents charged in a mass school shooting after buying their son the gun he used to kill four students and injure seven others. let me ask you. should parents be held responsible in these cases? >> i think these cases is too blanket. there has to be a threshhold about this kind of thing. but those parents should be held responsible, right? >> where would you draw the line as to where parent responsibility is? >> the facts.

in case were, they had, they bought the gun for the kid. they had warnings about all his behavioral problems. they laughed them off. they were utterly negligent. i'm not saying they should be charged with first-degree murder. they should have some legal culpability for their grotesque view. >> do you have a problem with that? >> not in that case. in most parents, no. i think most parents are not responsible. >> i agree with that. >> in this case, that was the astonishing thing. >> many gun owners are not responsible. there has been an slat blockage of responsible gun ownership. having things in a gun safe. we have the technology to have a gun only shoot for someone who has a particular thumb print or finger print. there is all this technology will that could help this. and yet there is no am tight specifically on the right to have anything meaningful happen here. >> i would say there's a lot of

am tight on the right. gun deaths are a huge issue, particularly where i live. it would have effects for the school shooting problem. we'll talk about a different safety issue now. one that is a lot lighter, although the feds aren't laughing about some funny highway signs. also, madonna fans expressed themselves by taking her to court for a bad habit. our gang gives its yay or nay. .

time to get our group's yea or nay.

putting the stop on dad's jokes. around thanksgiving you may have seen this. you are not a turkey. don't drive basted. or getting right to the point, buckle up. windshields hurt. now the federal highway administration is getting the last laugh, telling states to slow down on funny signs because they distract drivers, giving them two years to clean up their act. jonah, are you a yea or nay on dad joke highway signs? >> i'm a yea. i think the mere fact of changing the message a little bit, it helps keep people from tuning them out which they do if they see them every time. >> the countered argument to that, this is what the federal highway administration, one of those federal agencies is saying, it's distracting. >> yeah. i think it is distracting. and i think there is many studies to support that. and i think, you know, america has a terrible problem with deaths on the road. and if these messages aren't

doing what they're meant to do, to save lives, if they're actually distrakt drivers and causing accidents, then i'm a nay. very, very firm. >> okay. let's huddle up for this next one. california lawmakers proposing a ban on youth tackle football. they say it puts kids at greater risk of brain injury, while the other side argues, it should be up to parents, not the state to decide, if their kids can play. governor gavin newsom said he would veto a ban and side with parents. who should make the call on kids under 12 playing tackle football? >> only gavin newsom. i complete with him completely. i didn't let my kids play tackle football. they played touch football. i paid attention to the statistics. i think they should have the statistic out there for parents to understand which i think the football industry doesn't like you to see. i think parents should decide this. and that's why i decided against it.

>> and your kids abided by what up? >> yes, they did. they're nice boys. >> i had a son who played tackle football. i told him not to. i begged him. in any case, he broke his arm five times and he says to me now, how dare you let me play? >> my boys pay attention to their mama. >> my son did not pay attention to list dad. >> i'm also a yea on this one. another angle. that governor newsom seems to be trying to carve out a different political identity for himself. someone who is not just the usual censorious progressive but someone trying to mix it up and introduce a libertarian streak. i don't buy it. >> i have five kids. >> finally, this is no cause for a celebration. madonna fans are irate over the material girl showing up more than two hours late to a series of concerts in brooklyn. so they're now suing the pop

icon claiming the delay caused them significant inconvenience when her shows didn't end until 1:00 in the morning. we all know how you feel about taylor swift. but how would you feel about a madonna concert that was supposed to start at 8:30, didn't start until 10:30. >> i'm going monday and i'm showing up at 10:00. >> what if she starts on time. >> come on. it's madonna. >> one, have you ever been to a madonna concert? >> no. and i would be inclined to sue if she showed up. >> what would you do if you did somehow get dragged to it, and you're there at 8:30. she's apparently notorious for this. it went on two hours. >> i would leave forthwith. look. let the market decide. if you have a reputation for constantly being late and not showing up for two hours, it's not like that's a secret. let the fans price that into whether or not they want to go.

>> also recognizing that your fan base has aged. >> i will not allow to you say that. up next, a growing crisis in america that is making for some strange political bedfellows which have gone under the radar.

this election is a choice between results or just rhetoric. californians deserve a senator who is going to deliver for them every day and not just talk a good game.

adam schiff. he held a dangerous president accountable. he also helped lower drug costs, bring good jobs back home, and build affordable housing. now he's running for the senate. our economy, our democracy, our planet. this is why we fight. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. under the radar. the homeless crisis in america and some strange political alliances. in major cities across the

country, homeless camps like this have become part of the land scape in parks and playgrounds and along city streets. and clearing them out, a growing frustration for government officials. >> i think we can all agree that we need to do more to clean up encampments in the state of california. >> and he's not alone. in fact, he is supporting another liberal state, oregon, in its appeal to the conservative-leaning supreme court asking the justice to give cities the power to clear homeless camps on government property. the courts will hear those arguments in april. so should cities be able to clear out homeless camps on public property? >> >> listen, no one likes to have homeless camps. homelessness is a growing problem in this country. it is horrific in some of the camps. that said, the problem that i have with this is it's not actually tackling the root

causes of homelessness. what they're saying is let's move these homeless people somewhere else and have them be somebody else's problem. they're not actually looking at, for example, creating more housing or, you know, more affordable housing or trying to place them in place that's are more beneficial. and, so, you know, i think that -- >> that's note true. they have. san francisco spent $750 million on this thing and tried all different things. the thing that worked to begin with is clear the streets and make them livable so people can have lives there. i have to say, it changes the tenor of a city if you have homeless camps everywhere. i've interviewed lots and lots of people trying to fix. this everyone says they get sued in their ability to do anything by groups. >> the issue that the supreme court is going to hear is that the liberal ninth circuit court out west ruled that if you clear out a homeless camp and there

aren't places for the homeless to go, enough shelter beds, that it is, quote, cruel and unusual punishment. what do you think the supreme court should do here? >> look, i mean the question is not -- the question is not whether or not these camps should be cleared out. the question is whether or not local supauthorities have the authority to clear out place that's they think should be cleared out. there is a real tradeoff. >> what's the answer to that? >> i think they should be able to. obviously, they should be able to. that doesn't mean you shouldn't provide other services or figure out stuff. but you look at portland, oregon. the tax bases of these places are decimated because they can't even get homeless people out of playgrounds, out of downtown business districts. you can't have a functioning city if you have no ability to deal with the problems at all. so, this is not necessarily to say it should be cleared out everywhere. the local authorities should have the ability to do what is

best for their companies. >> can you write to him with all of your comments. the panel is back with the hot takes and preductiictions of wh will be in the news. that's next.

#. welcome back. time for our special takes on what's happening or predictions of what we should be looking out for. hit me with your best shot. >> we just had the world economic forum's big global gathering of corporate people in

davos. one really striking takeaway is that corporate america is getting less woke. you had major statements from the ceo of palanti rechlt and the ceo of j.p. morgan chase, jamie dimon saying, wait a second. let's slow it down. there are conservative consumers we have to respect. a lot of people think that companies appeal to younger customers, progressive employees. we need to move left, left, left. now there is a pronounced reaction. >> lou >> lulu, the world economic forum, which i've never been to before, what a sensible place to have it, is on your mind too. >> it is on my mind. funny you mention that. i actually was reading a different set of reports from davos. i find it always fascinating because the sort of masters of the universe, they get there. they're supposed to talk to each other to decide what is going to happen in the world. and all the reporting that i saw said that everyone feels very, very sure that no one knows what the hell is going on.

anl these people that we're entrusting our economic fortunes to are very, very confused about what's happening. en that mand -- and that made m laugh. even though we've never been to davos. we're just like the people there, we really don't know what is happening in the world. >> i know you've been to davos, my friend. >> you're looking overseas, but not at davos. >> yes, the international edition of best shot. this week, presidents of the eu and belgium, basically he said that europe needs to make peace with the fact that if the possibility that the trum get elected means that europe is going to be alone militarily. they can't count on trump to honor nato commitments. there's a real movement afoot in europe for the first time in a while of a unified independent military strategy for europe. >> separate from nato? >> separate from nato. >> take us home. >> as i head, i've been to

davos. rich people looking people up and down. that is my entire review of davos. >> so glad we didn't miss that. >> speaking of rich people looking people up and down, what is happening in new hampshire? dean phillips is running against biden. he is up in new hampshire. he is backed by very wealthy people including big ackman and elon musk and sam alt mman. he got a lot of money from bill altman. i'm not sure what he is doing up there. i'm not sure why a congressman when there are so many amazing possible can candidates in the democratic party doing this is only for recognition and pal around with his rich friends. >> supposedly, he is also saying, you know, there ought to be a choice. >> that is true. his ice cream is excellent. >> you know, i learn so much from you. thank you all for being here. thank you for spending part of your day with us. and we'll see you right back here next week