Episode 1790 Scott Adams: The News Is Mostly Lies Today. Who Are The Biggest Offenders?

Yeah, it's not giving me an error. Can anybody see me over on YouTube? Do you see me? Bum, bum, bum. Oh, yes. Okay, it looks like we're back online. Well, you can't stop me, can you? Did you see the simultaneous sip? Hope you didn't miss that. All right, we're back up, and we're rocking now. Sound is good. Everything's good. Well, let me give you a Ukraine update. The theme for today will be all your news is fake. It's probably the same theme every day. It's a little more obvious today, though, I guess it's the obviousness. Did I not take the sip? All right, I know my audience. And when you need the sip, you need the sip, the simultaneous sip. It's the dopamine of the day. Go. Luckily, I didn't spill all of it. Well, yes, I've had a challenging technology day today so far. So the news out of Ukraine is, you remember that little Snake Island? There's some fake news. So the Russians were threatening the island that had Ukrainian defenders on it. And the Ukrainian defenders, when told to surrender, they said, f you. And then the fake news was that they were killed by the Russians or something. And the real news was they were captured, I guess, but Ukraine just took back Snake Island. They basically just missile attacked it into oblivion, and the Russians left. Now, the reason the Russians left, according to the Russians, is it was a goodwill gesture. Russia says they abandoned the strategic outpost, and they quote, gesture of goodwill. And the accompanying photo is the little island just completely on fire. Literally, it's a photo of the island completely on fire. It's just like there's nothing there but a burning ember. But Russia left it as a gesture of goodwill as the UN looks to secure shipping corridors amid increasing concerns over global food shortages. Now. So, like I told you, the theme today is not that it's fake news, because that's every day. The theme is that the fake news isn't trying to be real anymore. It's like they're not even trying anymore. The stories are so. Just crazy. Yep. It's a gesture of goodwill. It's not a burning husk of nothing. It's a gesture of goodwill. So here's something that just kind of snuck up on me. You know, one of the things about Twitter is it makes the world really small. Have any of you had an experience of being getting retweeted or responded to by some famous person on Twitter? And you said to yourself, whoa, did that just happen? Like somebody on the other side of the world who's famous, just recognized me and retweeted be. It just makes the world really small, doesn't it? Because even if you haven't been retweeted, there are very big users who are famous for other reasons who do read your comments. They do read your comments. Not all of them, but it happens. You see, Elon Musk often responds to just your everyday Twitter user fairly routinely, although he's disappeared, hasn't he? That's a story in itself. But this morning I'm just tweeting away and responding to people, and I realized that within the span of, like, two minutes on Twitter, I had directly interacted with a member of Congress and a Playboy Playmate. And it was so routine. It was just sort of an ordinary day. It's like, oh, Thomas Massie, Congressman Massie just made a comment. I like to comment on his comment. He commented back and I commented back. And then Jessica Vaughn, Playboy Playmate from, I don't know what year, but she responded to some things I tweeted. And I thought, how weird is it? How weird is that? You can just reach into the world. And some of the most notable people in the world just, just reach back, say, hey, how you doing? It's just the strangest experience. It's hard to integrate it. You can sort of observe it. But even when it happens to me, I've mentioned this before, but it's the weirdest feeling when you are a public figure, you look at yourself like other people do sometimes. Like, not as if it's you. It's like you're watching it, too. It's like, oh, I watched that too. I just got a better seat. It's actually not like looking at yourself. It doesn't internalize for some reason. Snopes, who often is accused of being biased toward the left, now we don't have to wonder anymore if there was any doubt about that. I think Today removed all doubt. And I tweeted this so you can see it for yourself. But. But they were debunking the claim that the Secret Service had, quote, officially debunked Hutchinson's testimony about Trump allegedly trying to grab the steering wheel and strangle the driver of his own car. Again, Again, everything is about, like, Snake island is just like the, the appetizer. Do you. Do you need to do any research to know that Trump didn't try to grab the wheel of a moving car and strangle his driver? He probably didn't. I'm just guessing that that's fake news. And sure enough, it was, you know, Immediately debunked. When Fox News reached out to the people who were involved, as opposed. As opposed to the person who heard about it, they reached out to the people who were directly there. They said nothing like that happened. What? No, nothing like that happened. And Snopes, instead of dealing with the question of whether it happened, which you would think would be the thing that they would do. Right. Snopes is about what's true, what really happened. So instead of asking, instead of debunking the question of whether Trump actually did that, which they could easily debunk by looking at the Fox News reports that say they talked to him and nope, they said it didn't happen. And I think some other news entities by now have talked to those same Secret Service people and all got the same answer. Nope, never happened. Right. But. So the way Synops handles it is to insert the word officially, because then they can say the Secret Service didn't say anything official about this. Now, would you catch that trick if you were a casual consumer of the news, you'd say, ah, these Republicans are saying it's been debunked. But here's Snopes saying that the Secret Service did not. They did not officially debunk it. No, because nobody needed to ask them. You don't need to ask the Secret Service. You can actually talk to the people, the actual agents. Why would you need to talk to the Secret Service when you have direct access and they're willing to testify and they're not holding back anything? You could just go and ask them. So how does Snopes deal with the fact that Fox News and probably others by now have talked directly to the people involved and debunked it? How would you handle that if you're trying to hide that fact? The first thing they said about the news is that NBC tried to talk to the agents and didn't get a response. Seriously? Seriously. That's actually what they did. They actually reported that the person who didn't get a response like that was the lead story. Here's one that didn't get a response. Now, should that be the first thing that they list in terms of the people trying to find out if it's true? That shouldn't be the first thing I would have listed first, the people who got a response. Now, I've never been a professional editor, but I do some writing, and it seems to me that the people who actually had information and responded, those would be, like, right at the top of the things that you would list, not the people who tried and Couldn't get a phone call returned. That was NBC. Now, again, this isn't like other fake news, is it? This is so in your face. It's so shameless. That is closer to gaslighting than fake news, isn't it? Because gaslighting is, is when you're being told something so obviously not true, but you're still being sold it, that you think you must be crazy because you can see it's obviously not true. So if these people you trust are saying it's true, well, maybe you must be crazy. So that's what they're doing to us. They've gone beyond your facts are wrong and they're all the way to your crazy. No, this thing right in front of you, you don't see. Let's talk to the people who don't have the story to fact check it. Seriously, the fact checking organization led off with the people who didn't have facts. And that was, you know, let's talk about the people who didn't get any information. And then they talked about CBS in some related way. The same way. All right, here's a statement that I want to see if you agree with. This is from a Twitter user who calls himself fat, drunk and stupid. I'm not going to fact check that, but there you are. But the comment was one that I was wondering about too. So I didn't, I didn't see every moment of the testimony. I saw the key parts. But fat drunken Supa says the car incident where Trump allegedly grabbed the steering wheel and tried to strangle his own driver, the car incident was the only aspect of her testimony which was even arguably newsworthy and made the front page of every left wing media Source. But within 24 hours, the driver of the car himself confirmed it was a lie. Now, would you agree with that? Would you agree that the only thing that was vaguely newsworthy was a car incident? I think you might be a little biased on this because I think the left would say that's not the only newsworthy thing. We'll talk about one other in a moment. But this gets to the question of how do you thwart laundry list persuasion? And I talk about this a lot, but every time you see an example of it, it's worth seeing how it works or what the exception is. So in this case, you could say that Hutchinson's testimony and really the whole hearings are laundry list persuasion. They're trying to come up with a long list of allegations such that if you were to debunk one, they could say, all right, all Right. So even if that one's wrong, what about all this other stuff? And then you debunk another one and they say, I disagree with you, but it doesn't even matter because look at all this other stuff. And then you just go down the list and you debunk them all. And what happens after you've debunked everything on the list? Always what happens? Does the person say, wow, I didn't realize that every single thing I believed was wrong. But now you're debunking has convinced me. They go back to the start. That's right. They go back to the start the list and act like you didn't already talk about it and debunk it. And you'll have to just do it again. And if you do it again, it doesn't matter. They'll just start yelling at you for being a bad person. You just can't debunk a laundry list because people will devolve into such irrational defenses. So I've argued that what you should do is take the strongest claim, debunk it, and say, well, by your own. By your own description, that was your strongest claim. I've now debunked it, so we're done, and just leave it and walk away because there's nothing else you can do. Now, that's not, like, going to be a clean win, but it's all you can do. It's the best you can do. And I'm going to talk about my own list and do a call back to this in a little bit. So here's one other thing that was on the list. That when Trump said that they should take down the magnometers, whatever they are, the metal detectors, what he said about it was, they're not here to hurt me. And then he followed up. I saw this on a Twitter feed called Haplar. He said, they can march to the Capitol from here, they're not going to hurt me, and they're going to march to the Capitol from here. That was interpreted as Trump means. Like, what Trump is thinking internally is that he wants to let people with weapons into his event so that then those weapons can be available for marching on the Capitol. Now, do the facts support that interpretation? Yes. Yes, they do. Yeah, they do. That's why. That's why people are interpreting it that way, because the facts do support that interpretation. But you know what the problem is? That's not the only interpretation they support. The facts also support completely other interpretations. Here's my interpretations. We know that Trump likes big crowds and we know that was the context. He was saying, my crowd isn't big enough because the metal detectors are slowing down the flow, and it's a bad picture. So this part is not in dispute. We know he was obsessing over crowd size. We know that he's always obsessed over it. And he's not wrong about that. He's not wrong because when he sells his big crowd size, it's part of. What's the term? Like, pure confirmation, Right? It's part of persuasion. It's an important part. It's a very important part. If you think everybody's doing something, then you think, well, maybe I should do it, too. So he's not wrong from a political persuasion perspective. He wants big crowds, and he wants the. He wants the video to show it. Right? The video should accurately show it is what he wants. So we know that. And there's no dispute that he cares a lot about crowd size. In fact, he has been mocked mercilessly for caring about crowd size more than other things. Am I right? He has been mocked mercilessly by the left for caring too much about crowd size. And here he is again, caring so much about crowd size that he was willing to take some physical risk of dying, right? Because he said, they're not here to hurt me. And he was right about that. But still, you would have to admit there's a physical risk to a president if somebody gets in with a weapon, right? Has any president ever said, stop checking for weapons. I'm in public? Has any president ever appeared in public and said, you know, I trust my crowd so much that you don't even have to check them? And here's the weird thing. He was right. He was right. Nobody brandished a gun to try to hurt him, and nobody used a firearm during the, you know, the episode, the riots. So once again, he was right. But I would also say it was risky. You'd agree with that, right? I mean, we didn't know in advance he'd be right. There's no way he could know he was right. But his gut said that he'd rather have the crowd size. That was just a better cost benefit at that moment, because the entire country, in the future of the country was at risk. And so he said, quite reasonably, that he would accept a little extra risk. So in the context in which everybody's criticizing Trump for not being concerned enough about the risk to Pence, the direct evidence is that Trump was literally removing protection from himself because he didn't believe his crowds would hurt him. So how Trump internally Deals with risk is a big unknown. And you can't know it by looking at what happened, because there's always more than one interpretation of what his mental state would have been to have gotten the situation you got. So here's how I take it. He's a guy who believes that Republicans are not dangerous, and if it's all Republicans, which it was, or conservatives anyway, that they don't use firearms for no good reason. And he was totally right. So what we're seeing in these show trials is primarily trying to fool you into thinking we can read his mind. That's primarily what it is, because his state of mind is everything, isn't it? The entire thing is to figure out if we can determine what he was thinking, not what he did, not what he did. Because what he did will support multiple theories of what he was thinking. And only what he is thinking matters. Because if he was thinking, I want to overthrow the country, I know the election was fair, but I'm going to try to make it happen anyway. If he was thinking that, my God, he should be executed, I don't know if that's a law, but. Right. If he was actually thinking, I want to violently overthrow the country and overturn a fair election, well, then I think he should be killed. Am I wrong? Obviously, I don't think he did that. But if that were true. Yeah, yeah, I think he should be tried and executed if guilty. I don't know if there's a law that would execute you for trying to overthrow the government in that fashion, but if there is, he should be executed for it. But the other interpretation is he was Trump being exactly like he's always been, obsessing about crowd size, not being terribly concerned about physical risk, which is entirely consistent, isn't it, that even Trump's rallies, he wasn't super concerned about people getting roughed up. In fact, he played with it, had some fun with it. So very consistently he's been, I will accept a little extra risk. I'll accept a little extra risk. He did it with his own physical risk by saying, forget about the checking for weapons, they're not going to use them. Now, what do you think Trump knew or believed about Pence's actual physical risk during the worst part of it? Because part of the accusation, and it's a bad one, is that he may have been on board with something bad happening to Pence? What do you think he knew internally? Do you think that Trump believed that the Republicans were not dangerous to him, so much so that he didn't even Check him for weapons at a public event, which is outrageous, really, or he didn't want to, but they did anyway. If that was his mindset that this crowd is not so much about violence, they're about, you know, protesting. Do you think that he believed Pence was an actual physical danger? How would you know? You know, we have the benefit of hindsight, right? Do you think that Trump had good information about where Pence was? You know, what the defenses were, what was the nature of the crowd, how many of them were just being hyperbolic? And, you know, it's not unusual in political context for somebody to have a noose. In fact, it's one of the most common political protest things, a noose. Right. It doesn't mean they're really going to hang somebody. It's sort of how protests work. Now, what do you think Trump knew at the most critical moments? Now, remember, remember what we know, we learned after the fact during the fog of war. And don't you think that during January 6th, during the actual hours of the protest, don't you think the fog of war was pretty thick? How do you know what Trump knew or believed during that time? There's no way to know it. Now, if you could create a situation where there's only one interpretation of what he could have been thinking, well, then I might be persuaded by that. I'd say, well, there's just nothing else you could. Could have been thinking in that situation. But we're. No, we're nowhere near that. You know, we, we have completely innocent explanations for everything. And, and every time you compare the innocent explanation to the allegation, one of them sounds way less likely than the other, doesn't it? What is more likely that Trump wanted to, with witnesses, acted as though he was okay with Trump with his own vice president being murdered? So that's one theory. Just think in your mind, what are the odds of that, that Trump was okay with his own vice president being murdered any minute? That's one theory. The other theory is it was a fog of war and he was unaware of the danger. Or, or he was actually completely right that he wasn't in danger. Because, remember, after the fact, we can say with certainty that the defense of Pence was sufficient. Right, Because Pence actually lived and was not directly assaulted. So we can say, as of this moment, if, you know, if anybody had magic abilities, they could have said at the time, yeah, his defense was sufficient. He was fine. What did Trump know? Did Trump trust the Secret Service to protect Pence and therefore believe there was no real Danger. Did he also think the Republicans just talk that way? They talk tough, but they're not violent by nature. And if anybody tried to get violent, here's my belief. Here's my belief. Now, if somebody had a gun and took a shot, all bets are off. But could you imagine, just try to wrap your head around this Republican crowd. You've got some percentage of bad actors then some percentage of people who are just trying to protect the Republic. What would happen if that mixed crowd, the whole bunch of them surrounded Pence and the Secret Service agents, were maybe putting their bodies in front of the crowd and they're starting to lose to the weight of the crowd? What exactly do you think the rest of the Republicans in the crowd would have done? I wasn't there and I don't know, but I'll give you my assumption. If a bad actor had done something that looked like real violence, threatened it, let's say, brought out a gun, let's say somebody brought in a gun, aimed it at Pence in front of a whole room full of Republicans, you tell me what happens in the next 60 seconds. It's a room full of Republicans. Somebody pulls out a gun, they point it at Pence. They wouldn't, they wouldn't just grab the gun away from him, they would kill him. They would kill him. Am I wrong? Now, they might beat him in, you know, beat him into a coma or something. Maybe they wouldn't actually kill him, but I think he'd get torn apart, I think, because what Republican is going to let that happen right in front of him? And that's, I just can't see Republicans let that, letting that happen, no matter how many bad actors are in the group. Now, let's contrast that to the, you know, the, the riots, you know, antifa blm. Yeah, I didn't see a lot of people trying to stop the protesters, but I think in a Republican crowd they would have done it for sure. Just speculation now. Anything I speculate about Trump's mental state is equally non credible. Can we agree? I could speculate on what he was thinking, but I don't know. And that's the point. How could you have a. How could we be going through this process when the only thing that matters is what he was thinking? And there are multiple theories that would support everything he did, and the least likely one is that he was thinking the worst possible thing. That's the least likely explanation of anything we see. All right. Do you think it's fair to compare the BLM riots to the January 6? Is that a fair comparison? I used to think that that was fair. I thought, oh, they have enough in common that I could compare those two. But I've decided to go with the majority on this. You might not like it, but I decided to go to the majority. And what the Democrats taught me is that it's not legitimate to compare the fake news about an insurrection to real news about riots. They're not comparable. So what would be comparable? Like two real things. If you had like a real riot compared to a real insurrection that, you know, maybe, maybe that would be something to compare. But it wouldn't be sensible to compare a real riots with, you know, billions of dollars damage and multiple deaths to a protest that is being called an insurrection, but isn't. So I'm going to go with the majority and say you can't compare those two things, fake news to real news. Remember I told you that we would find out for sure which journalists or platforms were completely non credible because the spin that would come out of this would be just so, so clear that you could tell who to never believe again. And even today, after that, the steering wheel thing got debunked. The LA Times is going with it as a major story. And they said Trump didn't care about weapons at the event. But they leave out the part about why he said that. And to me, the fact that he didn't think Republicans would be dangerous to him tells me his state of mind was not thinking anything would get dangerous. He probably just thought it was a peaceful group. So to me, they've. Essentially that's Trump's defense, that if he wasn't thinking the crowd was violent, aren't we done now? He said they won't be violent to me. But I feel like what he really meant was it's not a violent crap. All right, but there's no way to prove that. That would just be speculation. All right, so the LA Times, it's just jaw dropping that they can carry the story after the people involved have debunked it. But there it is. Apparently AOC said about the Supreme Court decision about abortion, I need to fact check. Did she really say this? She said the right to our bodies does not belong to nine Supreme Court justices. Was that a real quote? If she didn't say is at least a fair characterization of what a lot of Democrats are saying, that women's bodies should not be subject to the decision from, you know, nine. Nine people in a court. And they believe that it should be more of a Democratic decision and not some fascist dictator situation. With a court making the decision about what women do with their bodies. And so here's what I suggest based on this comment. Because rarely, rarely do you see the country come together over such a contentious issue. But here it is. This is one time that the Democrats and the Republicans are completely on the same page. Because the entire point of the Supreme Court ruling was that the nine justices on the Supreme Court should not making a decision about women's bodies. That's what the ruling was. The ruling was exactly agreeing with aoc. The Supreme Court should not be making decisions about what women do with their bodies. So take us out of this. Let the states do it. Because you know what the states do. They've got a democratic process. Exactly what AOC wants. And not only that, but can you do a fact check for me? Is there any state whose state laws oppose their own internal majority? And why isn't that like a headline? Why am I asking that question and it's not already the headline? The headline should be somebody should write the story that says the laws in our state actually don't agree with the majority. Somebody says Michigan and Wisconsin. Did somebody write that story? Or do you just know that from your own research? Isn't that important to you? Because if there's only. Let's say that's true. I don't know if that's true. But let's say there are two states where the majority is clearly out of line with the law. Shouldn't the pro abortion, pro democracy people be just concentrating on those states? Because you know, do you know what Californians reaction was to the Supreme Court decision? Let me give you the reaction of most Californians. It doesn't affect us because it doesn't. The state has its own laws, which I, I haven't checked. But I would be willing to bet that California's, let's say liberal abortion laws are probably what the state wants by majority. Am I wrong? I think California wants abortion and they haven't. So democracy. Right, but it's kind of mind boggling to watch the left stage riots to achieve what they were just given. We just gave you democracy. Go fix it in your state like the system is supposed to work. Take yes for an answer. Take yes for an answer. How about yes, you people decide and not the Supreme Court. But damn it, we don't want the Supreme Court deciding. That's what we just said. That's exactly what we just said. So we're in complete agreement. You nine old people stop. Stop controlling our bodies. That's the opposite. That's the opposite. Again, that would be the opposite of what we just did. The opposite. And watching this happen right in front of you is just insane. Again, going back to my theme, this is. This is beyond fake news. This is a whole other level of not caring. If you notice, I feel like the old fake news, like the Russian collusion thing, I miss that. Because Russia collusion at least had something that looked like fake evidence. You know, the dossier had an old argument, a structure. I mean, you didn't know on day one. It looked ridiculous to me. I mean, I doubted it from day one. Well, you don't know. I mean, I was open to the possibility that if they looked into it, well, we'd be surprised, who knows? I was open to it. So that was the old kind of fake news where you really couldn't tell. You really couldn't tell. But now you can tell. You can tell they're not hiding it anymore. It's like nothing's being hidden. It's like the Russian propaganda. Well, the reason we pulled off a snake island, not because it's nothing but a smoking, barren ember. That's not why. It's because we wanted a gesture of goodwill. That's the way we do it when we're at war. Totally believable. Speaking of news that's totally believable, tragic story of drummer Travis Barker been checked into a hospital for. Now, we've heard the following reason that he's developed. Allegedly, he's developed pancreatitis from a colonoscopy. That's right. So they. They stuck something up his ass and they gave him pancreatitis. That's his statement. Now, in the story I read, they talked to some doctors and say, can you really damage somebody's pancreas by shoving something up their ass? Maybe they take a chemical. Is it the chemical? Is there a tear in the lining? And the doctor said, well, they said, well, not very likely. Let's just say that it's in the risk level of. We don't really think about it when we do this procedure. It's so unlikely that we don't even consider a risk. And in fact, we wouldn't even mention it to somebody as a risk. That's how unlikely it is. However, in unrelated news, 80% of pancreatitis cases are due to gallstones or alcohol abuse. Now, I suppose if there was a gallstone problem, we'd hear about that. They probably would have said, well, he's got a gallstone problem and caused some pancreatitis. So what would be A possible reason that they wouldn't mention. I know I can't think of one. Once again, the fake news is not really trying too hard to not be fake, is it? It's not trying too hard. I saw a tweet today. It's just one sentence and it just made me laugh for 10 minutes. And this is a tweet by Twitter user Alienhotep. And I don't know if you're gonna have the same reaction to it. I'm just gonna read it and then I'm gonna be silent for a moment. And his tweet was believe all women is now having a good year. Oh my goodness. There's a brilliant Tucker video, video package he put together, must have run last night, in which he shows all the cases, many of them I'd never heard of, of Republicans being haunted and arrested, arrested for various bullshit things. And, you know, the police, you know, coming in them at five in the morning and arresting them for basically nothing and taking their phones for basically nothing. And you know, there's always some fig leaf of a reason why they did everything they did, but none of it looks appropriate. It all looks just purely political. And until you see the, the full number of them, you don't see the pattern, but the pattern is really clear that the Republicans are being hunted for their opinions. Now, we'll talk about laundry lists a little bit more in a moment. Now, is it a laundry list to show examples? It would be a laundry list problem if some of the examples were debunkable. So what's the strongest one? And then can you debunk it? So if you can, that would be interesting. I think I saw at least one thing on his list where I said, I think there's a counter narrative to that one. So I have to admit there was at least one thing on the list. I forget which one it was where I said, I don't know, I wouldn't have put that one on the list. But that doesn't mean I'm right. That was just my reaction. So, yeah, Republicans being hunted by the government. I, I saw this. Now that the, apparently the Biden administration is saying outright that if they had to choose between Russia holding the Donbass, which they already have, versus a global recession and famine, they would prefer a global recession and famine. And of course the risk of nuclear war, that they would prefer it. We'll give us a little bit of famine. We're going to take a little bit of recession, a little bit of famine. But the important thing is that Russia doesn't control the Donbass. And the context is that they're actually saying it directly. How's that not the biggest news? So I, I added the, the steering wheel incident that was in the news yesterday about Trump allegedly grabbing the steering wheel of the beast. So I added that as the 11th item on my hoax quiz. Now, some people said, and this is entirely reasonable, they said, scott, you always make fun of laundry list persuasion, but then you created a laundry list of persuasion. So are you not being a little inconsistent here? To which I say I'm not. Because you should use the same debunking method on my list if you can. And the if you can part is the important part. If you can take my laundry list and pick the strongest one on the list and debunk it, you win. So go ahead. Please do. And the problem is you can't, because there's nothing on the list you can debunk. I mean, people will think they did it, I suppose. And, yeah, so if you have a list in which they're all true, especially the strongest one on the list, like the Russia collusion hoax. So the Russia collusion hoax, not the part where Russia tried to interfere, that's the separate. But the collusion part I think we know is fake, and that's the strongest one on the list. So if you were to pick the strongest one on my list, good luck, because it actually went through the, you know, the legal system and the special prosecutor and everything else. So good luck. That's my strongest one. But now that the country has come together on this question of democracy should be making decisions about women's bodies and not nine people on the Supreme Court. Now that we've all come together on this important issue, I think we should celebrate. And I can't think of a better way to celebrate the country coming together than a riot. I think a riot would be the appropriate way to do this. And I would try to combine riots in this case. So I'd want to, I'd want to bring all the BLM people, all the antifa people, but also all the people who are on January 6th, get all the Proud Boys, all the MAGA people, all the militias, get them all in one place, and let's just have a proper riot and celebrate the fact that we all agree that the Supreme Court should not be making fascist, autocratic, dictatorial decisions. It should be made at the States with a democratic process. And now we're there. Boom. The whole country came together. Now, if you didn't think that Trump could bring the country together, well, there's proof that he could do it. We've all agreed that the Supreme Court is not the place for those decisions. And I believe I've delivered once again with the finest livestream possibly ever seen in the history of the United States. Or reality itself, which is changing every moment. I feel like there was something I was going to talk about that I forgot. So I am boring you by looking at my notes while I decide that. Nope, got it all. That's because I'm efficient. The Scott Epps moment. Thank you. I think it has been delightful. You know, delightful is an underused word, and I'm trying to change that. When people ask me how anything was, I often now say it was delightful. Doesn't that make you feel happy when you hear that word? How was your party last night? I gotta say, it was delightful. It sounds better than excellent or awesome, doesn't it? Because those are sort of too generic. Doesn't get to how you feel. All right, well, I love you, too. Bring back Guerrilla tv. Yeah, I don't have that on my list of hoaxes. The one that Trump would keep the TV tuned to. The Guerrilla TV channel. That was funny. Splendid is good, too. How was your event? Splendid. Yeah, that's a good one. Splendid. How stupid do they think we are? I don't want to answer that question. All right. Yeah, I think we've covered it, everybody. Have we covered it? Time to do something else. Go make the world a better place. Yes, it is YouTube. Thanks for sticking with me through the technical difficulties. I think it was worth it. And where is Ray Epsilon?