Episode 1965 Scott Adams: Today Is All Fake News About The Fake News. And That Means Good Sipping

The highlight of civilization. And if you'd like to take this experience up to stratospheric levels or even words that you can pronounce or I can. All you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens. Now go. All right. How many of you are enjoying the excellent economics of absolutely free cryotherapy? Yes. How many of you can get free cryotherapy just walking outdoors right now? Just open the door, stand on your front step, little bit of free cryotherapy. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I just saw a comment from Erica, the Excellent. There's no way I'm going to read it. Sorry, Erica. That one will not be shared. I've got an image in my head now that will never go away. Thanks for that. Thanks for that. Okay. Had something to do with somebody she knows who took an ice bath, and when he was done, his nipples were six inches long. Now, I. I can't. I cannot confirm or deny that that's true. I can only tell you it was a comment I just read. That's all I know. That's all I know. All right. So yesterday I decided to move my live stream off of YouTube and onto Rumble, because if you're following my saga, we know now that Twitter had a big influence by the government, the FBI, and we know that they were doing some kind of throttling. That's confirmed. And you know that YouTube's, let's say, its relationship with some creators left many questions. So I think it was yesterday or the day before I got demonetized without any explanation. Now my feed gets demonetized ordinarily, so it's almost always demonetized. But then we ask for a human review, and the human almost always reverses it, but you've already lost most of your income or a big chunk. I don't know if it's most. But it doesn't demonetize when people are most interested. It doesn't monetize when people are most interested in watching it, when it's brand new. Like, it takes a while for them to monetize it after the big traffic is gone. Now, for a long time, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and maybe I still do, which is they. They have an advertising model, YouTube, does and that they once explained to me personally. So I got, you know, YouTube's personal official explanation of what was happening to my account, which is that the advertisers don't like to advertise on some kinds of content. Makes sense. And so they're really, they're really just doing what they think the advertisers want them to do because the advertisers are their, you know, their base. So if you just take, take the point of view that all they're doing is managing their advertising stream of income, then what they do to me makes sense. You might disagree with it, but it's within the realm of ordinary business practice. However, in the context of what we've learned about Twitter and the FBI's acknowledgement that they work with other entities and also the connection between the FBI and the Democratic Party, I can't really treat YouTube's treatment of me as just ad related, would you agree? I don't know what's behind it. I mean, I don't know the actual truth, but within the context of what we know, literally this month, like new information about the government's interaction with social media, I have to assume that whatever YouTube does to me influenced by the government, Would you agree? Doesn't mean it's true. I have no smoking gun, no direct evidence, no whistleblower. But the pattern recognition is now so thick, would you agree? Just based on pattern recognition. There's just so much pattern here that how could you ignore it at this point? So no information? No, no, no confirming information. But what are you going to do? Yeah, you have to make your decision based on your best guess. Right. Because we don't have perfect information. So I may not be able to get up and running on rumble like in 24 hours because it takes. There's a little bit of setup involved. But my long term plan will be to migrate as much of my traffic as possible off of YouTube for the benefit of just making sure the system is. Let me put it this way. Sometimes I feel like I'm acting as an individual. Sometimes I feel like I'm acting on behalf of followers or supporters would like me to do this or that. And sometimes I act as a pure citizen. And when I'm acting as a pure citizen, I'm acting as part of the free market to do you know, what free people in a free market do? Because I think that's good in the long run. And what I think is good for the system right now is that people like me leave YouTube unless we can get more visibility All I'm asking is a little more visibility on the situation. But I don't think they can. I don't think it's in their interest to give it to me. And I don't think it's going to happen. So I'm just going to exercise my free market citizen responsibility to go where I know this won't be a problem. So at Rumble, I won't have any of this. I'll bet. I'll bet there will be zero demonetization. Demonetization on Rumble. Would you agree? I'll bet zero times I'll be demonetized. And you know what's interesting about that? Rumble also uses ads to make money. So if Rumble decides that they don't need to demonetize me and they can still sell ads, well, then you might have a little question about why YouTube thinks the opposite. Now, it could be that YouTube is right, that they make more money by being better to their advertisers. And maybe. But maybe the people who advertise on Rumble know exactly what they're getting and might even get a better deal. Maybe it's more. They might get more attention per dollar on Rumble, so they know exactly what they're getting. So I'm gonna let the free market work this out, because as an individual, I can't figure out what's going on with YouTube. And I don't think there are any buttons for me to push to get my answers right. So unless elon Musk buys YouTube, which is not gonna happen, how would I ever know? So I just have to do what the free market tells me to do. So that's what's behind it. Right? This is not some big. I'm not going on a hunger strike. I'm just doing the normal thing a citizen would do in a realm of uncertainty. I just let the free market work it out. If YouTube wants to lose people like me on an ongoing basis, maybe it makes no difference to them, and then everybody's happy. But if it does make a difference to them, then the system is working. It's doing what? Doing what it's supposed to do. All right, Elon Musk tweeted about this omnibus bill. You know, what the government does, how they launder their vote. So if you don't know exactly what this big omnibus stuff is about, here's the quick explanation. If Congress said, hey, here's a very specific spending bill, what do you think everybody? Some people will be for it, some would be against it. And then their voters would say, wait a minute. Even though I liked you as my representative. I wish you hadn't voted the way you did on that one thing. So now this. Now this politician loses some people because of that vote, but probably didn't gain anybody. Right. It's just all downside. So every time a politician votes on a specific bill that everybody knows what that is. Oh, I know exactly what that bill is all about. That's bad for the politician. Is that the worst situation you've ever seen? Like, actually voting in a clear way for a very specific thing, no matter what it is, is bad for the politician, because people aren't going to like them better, but they're going to have a reason to dislike them. Right? So the way that Congress solves this is that they all collude. And that's what it is. They collude against the citizens. And the way they do it is they agree to throw all of their crap that they don't want to be responsible for into one gigantic Frankenstein bill that if you pile up the pages, it's literally, I don't know, 2ft tall or something. It's like a big pile. So this is what this does. It guarantees that nobody in Congress can read it. It's too big. It guarantees that no citizen can read it. It guarantees that no reporter can read it. So it removes all information about the connection between the politicians and what they support. And they do that so that you can't have a reason to be mad at them. And the downside is that we are an unmanaged country. Let me be as clear about this as possible. I'm not saying that Congress is making bad decisions. Do you understand the difference? I'm not saying that Congress is making good decisions, and I'm not saying they're making bad decisions. What I'm saying is they've abandoned their jobs. They just abandoned their jobs. They were hired to make decisions, and they found a way to not do it. They found a way just to throw everything in the same bag and hide who's responsible. So the most basic function of government is to make decisions on your behalf. And then we the people get to see what they did, and then we get to say, okay, I'd like a little more of that politician, or I'd like a little less of them. The politicians have found a way to remove public scrutiny from their jobs. That's not doing a good job or a bad job. Do you get that? You cannot say that Congress is doing a bad job because they're not doing the job. That's not the job. Who Exactly. Hired them to do that. Who hired them to hide their vote behind an omnibus. Exactly zero people. They're not working for their state. They're not. They're not working for their constituents. They're not even working for their lobbyists. I mean, think about it. It's not even for the lobbyists. It's not for anybody. It's literally just to hide their responsibility. Who else could do that? Imagine a private business where the employees never had to be responsible to the boss because they could just hide their bad behavior in something complicated. Do you know what that's called most big businesses? Because in most cases, the CEO doesn't know what's going on. Look at Russia. Do you think Russia got in any trouble because Putin did not have visibility about the actual quality of his own military? Do you think that caused any problems for Russia? Yeah, it destroyed their whole fucking country. Their whole country is going down the shitter because they had no visibility. The boss, Putin, had no visibility of his most important asset, his military. No visibility. That's what your Congress did to you. Same thing. So the thing that's crushing Russia is that the boss couldn't tell what was going on. Would you agree that was the problem? The boss didn't know what was going on. FTX says that too, but I don't think that's true in that case. All right, so I think the news and the pundits are getting this whole Congress omnibus thing completely wrong because they're treating it like they're doing a bad job. That's the wrong story. Congress decided not to do any job. They're not doing a bad job. They're not doing any job, nobody's job. If they're not deciding what to spend money on and what not to, that's not anything. Am I right? Am I off base here? This is not a case of good or bad. They're simply not doing it. And they found a way to make it look like, oh, we did something while obviously not doing anything. Because you're saying yes to everything that anybody asks for is the opposite of managing. And how often have I said that which is not measured is not managed? Have I said that too many times already? That which is not measured is not managed by definition because management means, I'll make some changes and I'm measuring how things used to be, and then I'll see if my change I can measure to show that it's made things best, better or worse. That's managing. If you're not measuring, you're not managing. So we Have a government we hired to manage, who tells us directly. Oh, instead of doing what you hired me to do, managing things and then see how they went, I'm going to hide all the information from you, my bosses, the public, and then I'll just take a holiday and not have to do my work. Why do we pay them? Why do we pay them? Here's what I suggest. I think the citizens should push for whatever it takes, constitutional amendment or whatever, to require that anytime that Congress passes an omnibus bill that we don't pay them, we still maybe we have to run the country so they got to pay, but we just don't pay them because that would be a confession that they can't do their job. And I don't know why you'd pay somebody who confesses they're not going to do their job. It'd be one thing if you weren't sure they were doing their job, but if they tell you directly we're going to use an omnibus instead of work, why would you pay them? So, I mean, even though I assume there's no way to succeed, don't you think the government or that the citizens need to push back in a specific way? In a specific way would be, let's tie your performance to your actions, and we should not tie their pay to whether we like what they do or not. That's different. I'm not saying that you give them a cut in pay if they pass the law. You don't like nothing like that. That's just what voting is for, right? Vote them in, vote them out. So that's how you rate them on their individual decisions. But I'm saying that we should not pay anybody who says to you directly, thanks for hiring me. I'm not going to do the thing you hired me for. I'm just going to throw it in an omnibus and go on vacation, go home and see the kids. Seriously, why are we paying them? And this is a question I think should be asked. I saw somebody ask Chuck Schumer, why do you think this is good to do it this way, when nobody has time to read the bill and it's obviously full of pork and stuff. And as Schumer says, oh, you know, the people who put it together know what's in it. So it's not. It's not important that the people who vote for it know what's in it. The people who put it together worked very hard and very long. And so the committee that put it all together knows exactly what's in there. So don't worry. Here's the question that should have been asked. Why should we pay you? Chuck Schumer, like, actually, that question. The public hired you to do a job. I think you would agree that the omnibus allows you to avoid doing the job of deciding what to fund and whatnot. So, honest question. Why should the public pay you now? I also wonder, could a president do an executive order to withhold their pay until they do their job? Legally, I'm sure no. Right. Legally, now. But is there any way that they could game the system by having control over who cuts the checks? Does the. Let me ask this. Does who. Who controls the actual check, the issuing of the digital or physical check to Congress. Who controls that? Congress themselves. The gsa, somebody says. And the GSA would be controlled by the omb, which would be controlled by. I thought that was executive branch. All right, well, look into it. But my guess is that the executive branch has something to do with payroll. Am I wrong about that? That would be the obvious way to do it. I wouldn't put Congress in charge of the payrolls. Would you? That doesn't make sense. You're saying the House is in charge of payroll? I mean, it could be. I don't know. I feel like the executive branch has at least some part of government they could lean on to stop checks from being issued just to really, just to raise it as an issue. Now, I think Congress probably needs to get paid. Right. But I feel as to raise the issue. It would be useful, but I don't think any Republican wants to do it either for the same reason. All right. What do you think of Elon Musk weighing in on this with. He ran a Twitter poll and what percentage of people. It's very unscientific. Of course. You all know a Twitter poll is not scientific. But what percentage of the people thought the omnibus was maybe a good deal? Well, very good guess. Yeah. Roughly a quarter. Roughly a quarter. 28%, but right around a quarter. And do you think that it was appropriate for Musk to run a Twitter poll, which you know is unscientific, and then use it to, you know, promote his opinions about government stuff? Yeah. The reason that I think it's appropriate, number one, he owns Twitter, so using his own asset, of course. And number two, everybody understands a Twitter poll is not a real poll. Right. We all know that. Right. Is there anybody who would be confused by that? I suppose, maybe. Yeah. I don't mind as long as, to me, that looks fully transparent. He's telling you his opinion. He's showing you the poll, the poll is not scientific. But don't you think any scientific poll would have the same result? Let me ask you, if Rasmussen or Gallup or somebody else did the same poll, do you think we would find out? Oh, people love an omnibus bill. So this very special case, the fact that the Twitter poll is unscientific doesn't really change anything. It's a very special case because nobody believes that any other poll would give them a different result. Am I right? Does anybody think a different poll done more scientifically or scientifically at all? Does anybody believe it would have been a different outcome? We all know it would have been the same, right? Roughly 75% would say an omnibus bill is a bad idea for the public. All right. Can we talk about excess deaths after the pandemic? Would you agree that this is not about the pandemic, but it's about how to, how to look at data? So the thing that I like to do more than anything with my live stream is talk about how we consumers of news, consumers can do a better job of understanding the news and what's true and what's not. So the context that I'm going to give you next is always about how to understand the news. If it sounds like I'm pro or anti, some pandemic thing, that's not the topic today. And I've got a few new things to throw into this that you haven't heard before. Surprisingly so. I think everybody agrees that there are excess deaths. Can you give me a fact check? Everybody agrees there are excess deaths since the summer of 2021, about the same time that vaccinations were rolled out, so called vaccinations. And does everybody agree that the data seems to show that around the time of the vaccinations the excess deaths started to skyrocket? Everybody? I think that's true right now. Have the number of cancers deaths, deaths by cancer, have they increased because the pandemic caused people to delay treatment? Yes or no? The surprising answer is it made no difference. Now, according to some government officials I saw today or government numbers, there was definitely an increase in heart attacks. So heart related problems. So heart related problems definitely went up and the beginning was definitely about the time of the, the shots coming through. Not because of, not because of necessarily that's what we're going to talk about, but about the same time. Now did you know that, did your news source tell you that the government's official numbers do confirm their excess deaths, but they're not in the cancer category. The cancer Deaths are right on baseline. So it turns out that whole narrative about delaying cancer treatment was almost not almost, was certainly true for individuals. Meaning that definitely there are anecdotes of people who delayed treatment and probably made a difference, but overall it's about the same now. So that would indicate that whatever's happening was more heart related. And I know some of you gonna have to check that fact. So go check that fact and see if the cancer deaths do look kind of flat. If that's true, then that can at least help our mystery. Right. So now our mystery could be more focused on heart related things, which definitely went up, definitely will not. And I believe the country is now largely agreed that young people were worse off, young males were worse off with a shot. Is that now believed by everybody? As far as I know, every, every. All data shows the same thing. Right. I need a fact check on that. I think that's a yes. So there's still a lot of mystery. Right. So here's what I'm going to toss into the mystery. Here are other reasons that death rate by heart attack would spike at the same time as the vaccinations were rolled out. Reason number one, the people who make the vaccinations admitted, because we know this is always true, there should be side effects from vaccinations. Would everybody agree that even the people who made the vaccination said, yes, there is some amount of adverse effects. So some portion of the uptick you could say for sure was related to adverse effects. So far, everybody on the same page, some percentage, everybody would agree, including the people who made them, that there'd be some extra negative effects. We don't know yet whether the benefits outweigh the opposite. But you should see some more heart attacks. That would be the normal thing you should expect to see. But we don't know how much. There's still a how much question. All right, here's some other things you would expect. Do you think that the pandemic lowered people's oxytocin? So oxytocin is the beneficial health related, what do you call it, hormone that you get or chemical release that you get when you're having a social interaction that's a positive one. So I think you would agree that our oxytocin levels went down during social distancing. Would you all agree that your normal oxytocin level should go way down? Okay, now I googled oxytocin and heart disease. What do you think? I found exactly what you think. Right. Without knowing, I thought, you know, I'LL bet you if I Google oxytocin and heart disease. If you don't have enough oxytocin, I'll bet you get heart disease. Guess what? You get heart disease if you don't have enough oxytocin. So there's a direct, very well understood correlation. Put people in isolation, oxytocin goes down, heart disease goes up. Any, any argument with that? Would anybody argue with that direct line of influence? Anybody? No, of course not. So that's definitely part of it. Don't know if it's a small part or a big part. Now, how about cortisol? Cortisol is your stress chemistry. If you have more cortisol, is that going to be good or bad for your cardio situation? Bad. Bad. Right. Do you think people had more oxytocin because they had to stay home, locked in a place and couldn't have, you know, normal recreation? Of course. Of course. So we have, we have. And those are not the only chemicals, right, that keep you healthy there. There is a range of chemicals from oxytocin to cortisol, etc. That are very directly changed by changing our living situation and locking us down. All of those things should have reduced, should have resulted collectively in a massive amount of extra deaths that would be unrelated directly to the vaccination but very related to the bad decision to lock down the way we did. That would be a direct connection between the management of our government and the outcomes, the number of heart attacks. It was pretty direct. Now you say I'm guessing, but I'm not guessing about the connection. It's a well established connection. You do this to people, their chemistry changes this way, change that chemistry that way they have more heart attacks. It's very direct. Now how about this? Do you think there were more suicides when social distancing was lifted or when it was in place? What would you expect, just commonsensically, would there be more suicides when you're in a house full of people? Or more suicides when you can get some privacy? See, I just, I just change your, change your answer. By the way, I asked it, didn't I? No. There's no way you're going to kill yourself in a house full of people. Let me reverse that. Of course some people will. That would be the rarest kind of suicide. The rarest suicide is that there's somebody that wants to save you, literally on the other side of the door. Right. You wouldn't do it then. Especially if you were concerned about who finds you. It's my common Sense opinion based on no data. There's no data. But it's my common sense opinion that nobody kills themselves in a crowded house. When I say nobody, I mean mostly. Mostly. Would you agree, does that make sense that if you were of that frame of mind, you would go somewhere where you could be alone? And that was much harder during the pandemic. And also, I think that some people, even if they hated being around people, at least they weren't lonely. Like, there must have been a lot of lonely people who were forced to be with other people for the first time, maybe. So that kind of disruption you could imagine would create a little spurt at the end. What about the people dying of just regular Covid? Did you know that more people died of COVID this year than. I think more died in this year than last year. Did you know that in the United States, more people died of COVID this year than last year, you know, after massive vaccinations? Give me a fact check. But I think that's true. Right. More people died this year than last year of COVID When I say of COVID Let's not get into the conversation. We know there's a question about how they're, you know, how that data is collected. But those are the official data. Now, why would COVID deaths go up at the same time as vaccinations are being rolled out? Well, it could be. Some people say, well, obviously that's telling us the vaccinations are killing people. Could be. That's entirely possible. I'm not ruling that out at all. Here's the other reason. Because at the same time, they ruled out the vaccinations, they lifted the restrictions, and everybody went out and acted safe. But it turns out they were not safe because the vaccination did not make them safe. So they got Covid and died. So it turns out that lifting the mandates has a very predictable impact. We know more people are gonna die, and we still wanna do it. Cause, you know, freedom. Right? So you should have seen a massive increase in COVID deaths at the same time as the vaccination. Under all circumstances, you would have seen the massive increase if the vaccination was killing people. And I don't see that evidence in terms of killing more people than Covid. And you would see it if it was just Covid. So under all scenarios, there would be a spike with or without the vaccinations. Does that make sense? Logically, as soon as we lifted the restrictions, there would be more deaths, no matter what. No matter what. But at least you could choose. That was what they offered us. It wasn't true, but the government would say, well, you could choose to be safe by getting vaccinated. You can argue that. So then it became more of a personal choice. So even the government was allowing that. They would allow more people to die, but everybody who died would at least have a choice of getting the vaccination and changing their odds. According to the government. According to the government. What else? Are there any other possible reasons? Number one, did you know that fentanyl was replacing heroin at exactly the same time? How many of you knew that the mix of fentanyl to heroin changed radically at about the same time that the vaccinations came out? Did you know that it's right about the same time and that should have created a massive spike in overdose deaths? Did we see a massive spike in overdose deaths that started about the same time as the vaccinations? Did that happen, do you know? Did we see a massive spike in overdoses because of fentanyl at the same time? At exactly the same time as the vaccinations were being rolled out? Yes, yes, it was exactly the same time. I say exactly, but you know what I mean. It was that period. So again, the direct increase in deaths at exactly the time as the vaccination wouldn't be completely explained by fentanyl. Would you agree? Fentanyl is clearly not the whole explanation here. But remember, we've now got like five or six very clear things that would have happened at the same time. Probably five or six. The vaccination is one, and I do not rule out at all that it could have caused all of the excess deaths. Maybe, maybe because I don't have data one way or the other. But would you agree that all of the other things I'm mentioning happened about the same time and logically should have caused the increase of deaths that we see? Exactly the way we see them. And let's see what else. Here's another one. Let's see if anybody thought of this one. You know that traffic accidents were up, right? I'll do the fact check on that too. But at one point I heard that after the lockdown traffic accidents went up. Do you know why? Obviously. Obviously why? There's an obvious reason because people drove less. For two years I had trouble driving in traffic after the lockdowns were over. Did you? Did anybody have trouble driving in heavy traffic? It was hard, wasn't it? Yeah, I was actually out of practice and it was a little nervous making at first. Took me a while to work my way back into being what I considered a good enough driver, because I drove plenty during the lockdown. I did a lot of driving, but it was all on empty streets, you know, like easy driving. All right, so now, since we also know that overdose deaths were up, whether it's fentanyl or anything else, overdose deaths were way up. What will that do to driving accidents? Yeah, it's probably related to how much. How much drugs people had. And there was probably a rebound effect where people have been locked down for two years, and the people who were locked down for two years didn't know how to handle partying anymore. Like they forgot how to get a designated driver. And I say that literally, like you could actually get out of the habit of knowing how to protect yourself. That's the thing. Because everything's habit based, right? Even knowing how to keep yourself alive, the most basics of life are habit based. And people got out of the habit of staying alive knowing that. I better leave my keys with my friend. So some of that. Now, how much of that was causing excess deaths? Maybe none. Maybe none. But if you ignore it, I think you're ignoring a big potential variable. How about obesity? How about obesity? Obesity was at its highest about the same time as the vaccinations. Why was obesity at its highest at the same time as the vaccinations? Because that was the same moment we opened up the gyms. Right. At the same time the vaccinations were coming out. That's why they opened the gym, because it seemed safer. So you should have seen all these fat people go out and try to exercise for the first time in two years and have heart attacks and fall over because they didn't know that they couldn't do what they used to do. Now, again, it's probably not a gigantic number of people, but look at all the things that collectively should have killed more people. Lindsay says, let me take care of this stupid cunt first. And by the way, that's probably what gets me demonetized. Lindsey Jackson, you stupid cunt. In all capitals. Scott, why did you support lockdowns? Never fucking happened. Not once, not indirectly, not directly, not once, you fucking asshole. When you come over here and you stop rumors like that, you decrease the effectiveness of what I'm doing by lowering my credibility. You are a fucking traitorous cunt. Because what I do is specifically designed to help people live better. You are detracting from that. Check yourself. Unless you're a fucking Russian troll, in which case, good job. If you're a real person, you are a fucking piece of shit. Lindsay Jackson. I doubt that's a real person, but you are a real piece of shit. Just check what you're doing right now. Creating rumors that decrease the effectiveness of something that's only positive. Only positive. To understand how better to understand our news, right? Am I hurting you? Am I fucking hurting you in some way? Lindsay? Fucking cunt. Get the fuck out of here. I don't think she's real, by the way. I think that's just trolls. But I want to make that very clear. Now, does anybody know why I go off so hard? How many of you know why I do that? Because I don't think it's obvious to a lot of people. Because I'm an energy monster. I just took her negative energy and I used it to clarify a rumor that a lot of people have, because there are other people who have that point of view. So by going off on that stupid cunt in a way that you can't possibly ignore, I mean, if a public figure calls a specific individual a stupid, ignorant, useless cunt, you can't look away, right? Do you think anybody turned off this feed while I was going off on her? Of course not. You got to see how that ends, right? So what I do is I take her negative energy, I package it, I use it to make a case that's good for me and also good for you, because you would like to know what's true and what's not true. And then I use that energy for my purposes, and then we move on. So that's what you're seeing. In case you're wondering what's behind it. I'm like, am I. Am I losing control? How many think I lost control? Does anybody think that? Do you think that was an example of me getting angry and losing control? No, it wasn't. I don't know if I've ever lost control, like, in my life. I'm not sure I've ever been so angry that I lost control. I don't know that's ever happened. If it ever happens, you're really going to know it. You won't be confused. If I ever lose control because I'm angry, you're going to know it. If you're wondering if I lost control, then I didn't. If there's any doubt about it definitely didn't happen. You won't have any doubt if it happens. All right, so obesity. We also didn't talk about long Covid. Now I don't even know if long Covid is real. Right. Thank you. Gina, I don't know if Long Covid is real, but if it is, don't you think it would kill some people who were maybe marginal to begin with? It might be real. I don't know. So throw that in the mix, too. All right? And then do you think people would do more or less drugs and drinking after social distancing is lifted? Generally speaking, do you think that when people are alone, they do the same amount of drugs as when they're with people who are doing drugs? Also, I feel like people would do more drugs with people. Does anybody disagree? Everybody's different, right? So it could go either way, but on average. All right, so here's how I think people die. If you got some drugs from a friend, you might ask some questions about, you know, the providence of them. Providence where they came from. And so you might do a little bit of a good job protecting your. Your risks or your life. So you might ask some good questions if you're alone and you're just going to take that drug and send your room. Now, let's say you go to a party. You're really buzzed at the party, somebody hands you a beer. Well, you didn't want to mix, but that does look delicious. And you're thirsty, so you take the beer. Now you're a little bit drunk, maybe have a second one. A little bit drunk. And somebody says, hey, how about this pill? It's a Xanax. I promise you it's a Xanax. And now you're totally drunk and you're not making good decisions. And you say, all right, if Bob says it's good, I'll take it. And it's fentanyl. And you die because you already had too much of other stuff in you. So there's a pure effect when you're with people to take a little extra or a little different. Like, well, you're already buzzed from this. But would it kill you? Would it kill you to take this, too? See, my drug taking experience tells me this. If you're doing drugs by yourself at home, during social distancing, it could be pretty bad. And you might even creep up how much you're doing because maybe you get used to it, right? So you can see people doing way too much drugs at home alone. But when you add other people, those other people add not just drugs, but a diversity of drugs. It's the diversity of what your friends have in their pockets that will kill you. It's not you deciding how much you're going to make all by yourself. It's Your friend saying, you know, it wouldn't kill you to take one more of these except that it actually kills you. So that's, that's just a, a whole bunch of assumptions. So at the same time the vaccinations were rolled out, you should see more ODs. You should be see more drug related deaths of every kind from crime to accidents to traffic accidents. You should see more drugs when people are social distancing. You should see more heart disease because of the social distancing. That should have had a cumulative effect. You should see more obesity related dying, more suicide related dying. People aren't practiced to driving. We don't know if long Covid is killing anybody or not. And then of course there's more people getting out, so they got more infected, etc. So given all of that, I'll give you the final Twitter poll where I asked, do you believe based on your news sources that more people died from COVID 19 or the COVID shots? Speaking in more recent times, did more people die from COVID or the COVID shots, at least from the time that the COVID shots were widely available, or is there no way to know? Here were the results. The people who said that more people died from COVID than from the shots. About one quarter. About one quarter. Thank you, I appreciate that, William. Now how many people said that the shots themselves killed more people than the COVID did? About one quarter, actually. 25%. Exactly 25%. And how many said there's no way to know? 49%. Now you remember my 25% rule? Of course you do. That 25% will get every question wrong. But this one's weird, isn't it? Because there are two 25s and they're opposites. They can't both be true, right? It can't be true that more people died of vaccinations than Covid, while also true that more people died of COVID than vaccinations. So they can't both be true. So would this be an exception to my rock solid rule that 25% of the public gets everything wrong? It's not because Both of the 25% are wrong. They're both wrong. What's true is you don't know the 50% or the half of the people who said there's no way to know that was unambiguously the right answer. Unambiguously. This is one of those few where you don't have to wonder about the right answer no matter what you think is happening. It's unambiguously True that you can't know for sure. Unambiguously, you could be really, really like 90%, 95% sure that the vaccinations are worse than the COVID or vice versa. And both types of people exist. But if you're sure about it, that you're probably not as good at analyzing as the people who are not sure about it. Now, some of the not sures are just uninformed. So they're telling you they're uninformed, which is fair. Do two wrongs make a right? I don't think that's what's happening. You think someone knows? I don't think so. I don't think there's anybody who knows. Now let me ask you this. How many extra heart attacks do you think, like sudden deaths from heart related things? How much extra do you think the official numbers say is happening? Because it's very noticeable. Like the baseline is definitely more than the baseline. But how much more do you think? How much more like top of your head, how many more heart attacks are doctors seeing? What do you think do you think is 50% more? 50%, 10%? So I don't know the answer to that because I saw a graph. The graph was visual. I didn't see the base numbers. But the official number that I saw this morning is that absolutely heart attacks are up. We can all agree on that. I believe even the official numbers say heart attacks are up or heart related. Cardiac stuff. Everybody's on the same page. Significant increase in heart attacks. But how significant? 5%, 25%. Visually it looked like about 5%, maybe 10. Let me ask you this. Have you not seen reports from doctors saying, my God, there are so many more heart attacks. There's definitely a problem. You've all seen those, right? Individual numbers of them, doctors, various medical people saying, oh my God, it's so different. Like you can't miss it, right? We've all seen it. We know those exist. Now let me ask you this, Is there a discrepancy here? Do you think that all those professionals would have noticed a 10% change in anything? In anything? Would they have noticed a 10% change from the baseline? No, no. It, it, it can't be true that those are credible people telling you that, that they have noticed personally way too many heart attack related deaths? It can't be. Because if it's like 5 or 10% difference, nobody would notice that. And if they did notice it, they would tell you it's 5 or 10% different. They wouldn't be screaming, my God, do You know that people are falling on the sidewalks and everybody can see it because the official numbers don't have anything like that. It's very clear something's happening. No doubt about it. Well, I suppose I could doubt all data. I do that sometimes. But it does seem that all of the data is in the same direction. Something's killing people extra. But it doesn't look like the medical professionals are matching the official government data, which could be that the medical professionals are right and the data is wrong. Won't rule that out. 10% is definitely actionable, but would not match the hysterical. It's obvious there's more of it. Those just don't match. But, yes, 10% would be a big deal, and you have to worry about that. All right. Speaking of bullshit, Sean Hannity guessed that to testify in this Dominion lawsuit against Fox News. And Sean Hannity said about Trump's claims of election fraud, quote, I did not believe it for one second. Now, you might say to yourself, well, what was I watching for the last. If you watched the Hannity show, you're probably saying, what was I watching for the last two years? Or whatever since the election, one year. Didn't it seem like he was questioning the election? Did it seem like it to you? So the news is mocking Hannity for saying that he acted like he believed the claims, but now when he's in, you know, under oath, he says he doesn't. Did you notice anything missing in the stories? Because there were a bunch of reports on that. Was anything missing, Anything missing in the story? Yeah, like the evidence that the story is true. Now, it might be true, but would you expect that that kind of story would be accompanied by an actual quote by Hannity where Hannity was saying, I believe what the President saying. And then you could say, oh, shoot, he said the opposite in court. Where's that? Where's the obvious clip that, of course they're digging around all of his enemies and they would produce it that says directly the opposite of what he claimed under oath. Huh? Haven't seen it, have you? You haven't fucking seen it. Now, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there's been enough time, right? That shit takes one hour before somebody's, you know, created a compilation clip of all the reasons you're lying. If he's lying, if he said it under court, the opposite of what he said on tv. Show it to me. Show it to me. Why haven't I seen it? Now, I think what people are doing is they're conflating that he gave air, he gave oxygen to the complaints. But having somebody on who's a real person, who's in a real position of authority, or even a pundit who's a well established person, having them say what they believe is true is not exactly Hannity's fault, is it? His show is having people on with opinions and telling you their opinion. There are obviously some of them are wrong because it's opinions. Obviously some of the opinion people are wrong. Is Hannity responsible for the opinions of everybody has in the show, like in a general way, maybe. But if he didn't say directly I believe these machines were rigged, then all he did was tell the truth twice. That's all I see. I see him telling the truth twice. Once when he didn't, you know, take on the unsupported claim and once when he said, I never took on that unsupported claim. Now, here's another thing that's getting conflated. The Fox lawsuit is specifically about the voting machines, right? You know that, right? It's not about all their claims. It's about just the voting machines. I think it's very possible that Hannity has never himself said the voting machines are rigged. He may have said, there's lots of sketchy things here. He may have said, we don't know. He may have said, we're going to talk to somebody who says they are. He may have said, he may have said a lot of things. But if he never said those things are rigged, he is in the clear. Because what does he tell you on the regular I'm an opinion show? If you tell people you're an opinion show, you don't offer them fake claims, you're in the clear. I don't know. I don't see anything there. So we'll see what happens. All right. Here's the FBI's response to all the Twitter files. And they're really totally gaslighting me. When I read the FBI's response, it's very disorienting because I tend to be swimming in the claims. So when you see the claims, they're so different than what the FBI says is the reality. It's very disorienting. And what the FBI says is it's just normal business to tell, to tell companies there might be somebody violating their terms of service. We never ask them to do anything. We just give them information and they act according to their terms of service. Now, is that what you saw? Did the Twitter files suggest that it was a very ordinary routine contact, that the payment for it is also routine. That's routine because they're causing a burden on the company. So apparently there's some legislation that allows the company to get reimbursed. And so the FBI routinely reimburses, because that's the law. The law says they can reimburse under those situations. They like following the law, so they do. So that's the FBI's version, is this is all normal. We do it with other platforms. We reimburse because we put a burden on them. We don't force them to do anything. We just call out things that violated terms of service. Why is that their job? Why is it the FBI's job to monitor Twitter's terms of service? Like, how does that even make sense? But when they say it in sort of an ordinary way, your brain just goes, oh, it's just ordinary business. And it's very persuasive until you think about it. It's like, but why? Well, why would that be ordinary business? And then you have the laptop situation, which was a special case within the larger association the FBI had with Twitter. In that special case, the FBI was allegedly warning them that there might be some what they said was fake information from the Russians. And were they obviously priming Twitter to not believe the laptop story? Well, it's not directly in evidence, but it wouldn't be right because the FBI wouldn't say it directly. So does it look for all the world like that's exactly what they were doing? Yes, but here's the interesting part. Did the FBI agents who were directly working with Twitter, did they know what the truth was? And if they did, how would they know? Like, how would those specific FBI agents know that some people in the FBI who knew the truth were lying to everybody? Because it's not like the FBI was telling its own people, hey, everybody, we're going to lie about this. The people in the FBI would have believed the same lie. If there was a lie from the FBI management that the rest of us would have believed. Why would the rank and file not believe their own management? If their own management says, there's nothing to see here, the FBI is going to say, well, I trust them. I know these guys. They looked in. There's nothing to say. So there's no direct evidence that the FBI agents who are directly dealing with Twitter were even aware that they were doing anything wrong. They may have been completely unaware of it. Now, that still doesn't make it good or right. The whole thing is too dirty to allow to go on. But the other thing we learned is that they do it at other platforms. Don't you think those other platforms have some explaining to do? And then I'm going to. Here's a real question I asked this morning on Twitter. So if this is normal business, then the FBI has also contacted Truth Social and is working on a regular basis with Truth Social to let Truth Social know, and this is very handy for Truth Social if anything on their platform has violated the Truth Social terms of service. So that's happened, right? Wouldn't you like to know? Wouldn't you like to know? Yeah. Does, Does Getter, Does Rumble is FBI inserted with all the, let's say more free speech platforms? You would say maybe right leaning, but free speech as well. Do you think the FBI has just as much or they're trying to. Have they been rebuffed? Did they try it with Rumble? And Rumble said no, get out of here. Why don't we know that? Just think about the fact of how obvious that question was. Are they doing it with truth? Are they doing it with Rumble? The most obvious question in the world. Who asked, besides me, who in the media asked that question? It gets better. Yeah. Are they doing it for TikTok? Now for TikTok, we assume that they're not because it's a Chinese owned company. That's a good enough reason to say TikTok would be different. But do you know what we found out about Twitter recently as well? We found out that our intelligence people were, with the understanding and agreement of Twitter, were running fake accounts on Twitter to influence foreign countries. So Twitter and the FBI were working together fully knowing what each was doing to build fake accounts on Twitter that would look real and would influence people in the Middle east in particular. Now how many of you think that that should not happen? Do you think that our intelligence agents should work with our OR platforms to influence other countries? Yes or no? Yeah, I think you could argue either way on this one. So. So now this is confirmed, is my understanding. This is a confirmed. Nobody's questioning the facts of this, that our intelligence did run ops on Twitter to persuade and the persuasion would be illegitimate because it's not real people to illegitimately persuade other countries and other publics in those countries. So we know that's happened. So if the United States, with all of our awesomeness and I think you'd agree with that, our government is way more ethical and nice than the Chinese government. I mean, our government, they're straight shooters, right? So if they're using the platform in their country to influence other countries, makes you wonder why Nobody in China thought of that. Huh? Isn't that weird? It was so obvious to our intelligence people that influencing a social media platform was how you influence other countries. It was so obvious to us, and yet those dumb old Chinese like a billion Chinese, and nobody thought of it. Nobody thought of it. Are you fucking kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Of course they thought of it. Of course China's doing the same thing on TikTok. Of fucking course. You think we're the only ones who thought of it? The fact that we are definitely doing it to China using Twitter. In other words, we're influencing in a way that's good for the United States and maybe not so good for China. You think they didn't think of it? Like, are we so stupid that we're supposed to sit here and go, oh, well, yeah, of course our intelligence people thought of it because the most influential thing in the world is our social media. And we thought of it, but. But there's a billion people in China who are all so fucking dumb that they never thought of it. And so, citizens of the United States, you should be perfectly happy having TikTok in your country, because there's the logical explanation. I tell you again, there is literally nobody in the United States government on the side of keeping TikTok available in the United States. None. There's not one. And we know that social media is used by the country that owns it to influence other countries legitimately, because we do it. Of course we do it. Is there anybody here who thought we didn't do it? Nobody. But why do we act like maybe it's not happening on TikTok? Oh, maybe it's not happening there, but everybody's doing it everywhere else. But not TikTok. Do we even have a government? So we have a government that completely abandoned its job on the omnibus bill. We all agree with that. The omnibus is how they abandoned doing their job because they didn't have to make any decisions. We look at the border and what are they doing on the border? They're trying to pretend nothing's happening. Literally, they're not doing it well. They're not doing it poorly. They're actually not doing it. What are they doing on banning TikTok? Well, there's no debate because there doesn't need to be one, because everybody's on the same side. What do you say about a government where everybody has the same opinion and yet they don't act on such an important thing? That would be not doing your job poorly. That would not be doing your job well, that would be not doing your job. Am I right? This is different from not doing your job. Well, we're not talking about that. That's no job done at all. Fentanyl, we know where it comes from, we know how many people it's killing, we know where, I'm sure we know where the fentanyl is being produced. And yet the people who are producing the fentanyl sit there undisturbed. Do you don't think we could solve that problem or at least put a dent in it? But we're not doing it poorly and we're not doing it well. We're not doing it. We're not trying. I don't see. All I see is that the people who already existed, the border patrol people being overwhelmed, that doesn't look like trying. Right? So, yeah. So have you ever seen a situation quite like this where Congress actually just stopped doing the job of Congress? They just stopped. And if you don't pay attention to each of these individual issues and you don't realize that they stopped making decisions, they just stopped. Did you hear Tucker the other day on his show? He said unambiguously, and I believe he would know this, right? So he didn't give his sources or name any details, but this would be one thing that you would know that a Tucker Carlson would know for sure. Members of Congress are being blackmailed. And he laughed and said, I'm not guessing, I know that for sure. Do you think he knows that for sure? I do, I do. And I'll bet that anybody in his position knows it for sure. They may not say it, but I'll bet they all know it for sure. They might even know the specific examples, probably. They probably know specific examples. Think about that. So something needs to happen and I don't know how it can because usually we use the government to fix the government and it looks like the government just stopped trying. Normally in that situation you expect the public to rise up and maybe demand something. Except the media keeps the public from rising because it just keeps us divided and fighting about bullshit. We're fighting about wokeness and pronouns and shit. So we don't have any mechanism for making Congress work. There's no mechanism for that. Here's how you could break, break it. I'll say this. Until somebody does it, you need a credible, well run debate show where the public can learn what's true via the debate without having to depend on the fake news or bullshit on social media or the government, which are three entities we know will lie to us. Now a Debate will also be maybe two liars. But if you do it right, you'll very quickly find out what's true and what's not. Because the ideal debate format would be a strong host who will interrupt. You need an interrupting host because otherwise somebody will just keep going on and they're not addressing the fact. You need an interrupting host, you need unlimited time so people aren't running out the clock. Unlimited time. And you need the people who are debating to have sitting right next to them with a laptop open a fact checker. And here's how it goes. The one, one debater will say, and everybody knows X is true. And then I as the host will go, oh, hold on, I don't believe it's true that everybody would agree with that fact. Fact checkers give us a source. Then the fact checkers go ba ba ba ba ba ba. And maybe you edited it so that the time, you know, you don't have to wait for the fact checkers. So if you're watching it, you're watching a recorded version so quickly they check and the fact checkers say, oh, here's a source that says it's true, Here's a source that says it's not. Then the debaters have to debate about whether the quality of those sources is good. Much better than anything we're seeing now. Now they might get hung up on like one little part of the debate and just go way down that well because they can't even decide on that one thing. Fine, have two debates. So maybe that day is only about that one fact. But you need to have an open ended as long as it takes model. You need an interrupting host to interrupt a lot. Oh, hold on. Does that make sense to you? Would you agree with that fact before he goes on with this point? If you don't have an interrupting host, you just let people talk for two minutes each or whatever, that's for a different purpose. That'd be like a good college debate or something. But you know, because you're trying to make it fair. But if you're actually trying to find out what's true versus what's not true, you need an interrupting aggressive host to cut them off the moment they've departed the point which they all try to do. I see no way of educating the public so that the public could fix their government. Because the government won't fix it. They'll themselves fake news won't tell you what's true. It'll just keep us divided and social media just makes everything worse. Would you agree there's no obvious system in place that would move the needle in any way. But it could be. It would have to be also provocative because nobody would watch the debate show if it were boring. But if you had the right host, like me, for example, it would be interesting no matter what. Like, even if you hated me, you'd still watch just to be mad at me. All right, Lee Fang, latest to write about the Twitter files. He's the one who said that U.S. central Command was using Twitter to influence other countries. Sure enough, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Tweeted this about Tucker's claim that the CIA was involved with the Kennedy assassination. So this, remember, this is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. And he says the most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA's murder of my uncle was a successful coup d' etat from which our democracy has never recovered. So Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Is completely accepting the CIA involvement in his uncle's death. That's pretty gussy. Yeah, is what you're saying. I'll say I've not always agreed with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. But I'm no longer doubting his braveness. I guess that question's been settled. But here's what Tucker did say, and I'm going to question your interpretation of it. He said that he talked to a source that he doesn't tell us. So he has an unnamed source. How reliable is an unnamed source? Close to zero. Right? Close to zero. But in this one case, we're not relying entirely on the source, are we? Because we're also relying on Tucker to have vetted the source for us, which is a big. That's a big trust. Right? Because Tucker is the one who's telling us. So if he's not good at vetting a source, well, you're in trouble if you believe him. If he's good at vetting a source, then he's adding some credibility. Like it might be somebody he knows personally, has known for a long time, might be somebody he knows, is a straight shooter. So you have to put your credibility on Tucker, which is one level, like, extended from the source. So you're already in a little sketchy territory. Right. But let's say that you believe Tucker would not lie about a thing like that. And I think that's true. There's nothing about Tucker that would suggest he would tell you some kind of direct lie or even if it was a sketchy claim, that he would, like, spin it so it sounded more believable than it was. He doesn't really give off that vibe. But what was the exact thing that he quoted his source as saying, let me read it to you. Quote, yes, comma, I believe the CIA was involved in the killing of Kennedy. Do you see any flags in that statement? I'll read it again. Really pay attention to the exact wording. Yes, I believe the CIA was involved in the killing of Kennedy. I believe and involved. Those two words tell you that this person does not have direct information. It's a belief. It's just a belief. And when he says the CIO is involved, that could mean absolutely anything. Involved could mean anything. So it sounds like a source who was telling the truth. They were telling the truth. The source personally believed. And it's probably also true. Probably also true that in some way the CIA has some involvement. Which doesn't mean they knew it was going to happen. Doesn't mean they caused it. I mean, it might have been some tangential involvement. Yeah. And maybe the shooter was a CIA agent at one point or an asset, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's why the assassination took place. So involved is doing a lot of lifting here. Right. So does Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Know more than Trump? More than Tucker knows. Does he have his own information? He probably does. Right. Don't you think that the Kennedy family knows a little bit more than you do about the whole thing? Probably so. I don't know what to think about that. I don't discount the CIA involvement. I will just say that that's not in evidence. It's not in evidence. So Tucker saying that somebody won't tell you about. Believe something was involved in something has the evidential value of zero. Zero. I know. I hate that. I hate that. I would love for this to be credible and 60 years ago. Right, Right. How old is the guy who has knowledge of it? 60 years ago. And then Tucker made the claim that I think is accurate, that all of the heads of the CIA must know the truth. And he said that would include Mike Pompeo, who he says, you know, Tucker says he has a, like a friendly, good feeling about. But that. That would implicate Pompeo as one of the people who's hiding from you the truth. Now, here's what I think. Would Pompeo not tell you the truth? Do you think Pompeo would know that the CIA was directly behind the assassination? Do you think he would know that from having been there and then decided not to tell you? Possible. It's possible. Totally possible. Because what it might do is throw the CIA into such disarray that you couldn't possibly lead it if the first thing you did was tear it apart that way. So it could be people making just practical, real world decisions that, damn it, they'd love you to know. But it would be so destructive to the CIA that for the good of the country, you don't want to destroy the CIA. You can imagine ahead of a CIA having a complicated opinion about this. Yeah, and there might be a sources and methods issue too. Right. All right. There is nothing funnier than Trump's tax returns being available. And here's what we found. You know the ridiculous claim that Trump was making that he was waiting for the audit and the audit was taking forever. Like he didn't want to release his tax returns until they've been audited. And what did you say to yourself? Well, that's an obvious lie. Nothing takes that long. So here's what we found out. Apparently the auditors had one guy assigned to it. They'd been working on it since 2015. They've been working on his tax returns since 2015. And here's the funny part, they're not even close. They're nowhere near being close to have examined them. Because here's the funniest part. The people who prepare the taxes are high end accountants. The people who audit them are low end functionaries. They don't even understand them. The auditors were so under trained that they asked Trump's tax preparers if they did it right. And the tax preparers said some version of oh, yeah, we did this. So right. You know, I'm glad you asked. We totally nailed it. That was the audit. The audit was one untrained guy asking Trump's accountants if they did it right. And them saying, yeah, we totally did this right. And then the remaining stuff is a whole bunch of things for which they have questions about, but they've had questions about forever. They don't seem to have any answers that would be illegal. Like nothing. There's absolutely nothing in his tax returns. So far, nothing. I love this. I fucking love that. There's nothing in there. Now, I'm not saying that they won't find anything. A big, complicated billionaire tax thing. You'd have to assume that the accountants took some, you know, obvious deductions, but if they're good accountants, they also took some gray areas. Do you know why a good accountant would take a deduction in a gray area? Because that's what a good accountant does. If there's an argument to be made, you don't go to jail. By the way, did you know that if you have high paid accountants and they say to you, you know, I could see that an audit would kick this up, but we have an argument for doing it. You do not go to jail for that. There only has to be an argument from a qualified person. And then the IRS says, well, we don't allow it, so there's going to be a penalty because we didn't allow it. But if you have the right accountants, they take those deductions because it's always better to take your odd, take your chances. And if you have to pay back a 10% penalty for a few years, it's probably still a better bet than not taking it all. Because we can see in this specific case that the auditors, they don't even penetrate entire topics within it because they're too complicated. So there'd be, like, specific deductions, like hundreds of millions of dollars that change everything. And the auditors are like, I don't even know how to evaluate that, because you would need a specialty for each of these pockets. And the auditors are not specialists, and they didn't have any help. So it was actually true that it was taking years to get audited, and it was all because the IRS didn't have the capability. That is hilarious. And literally, not one confirmed illegal thing in all of that, from 2015 to now. Haven't found a single thing. That's sort of an obvious problem. The only things they found are gray areas. And, yes, those accountants should have taken every one of the gray areas, everyone. So all they found so far is, he has good accountants. That's it. Bottom line, summary. Oh, turns out Trump hires really good accountants. That's literally the whole story. That's the summary. That's the only thing they know. Everything else is, you know, if we looked into this area, maybe we'd find something wrong with it. That's it. Maybe there'd be something wrong if we looked into it and if we understood it, but we don't. That's it. So I don't know. I love this part of the story. Let's talk about Arizona and Maricopa and Carrie Lake's situation there. I have a conspiracy theory I'd like to put into the mix. Now, I don't have direct evidence that this is true. What I have is a pattern, and the pattern is this. Do you remember when Sidney Powell was making her ridiculous claims about the voting machines? Now, just for historical context, I did believe that she would have a Kraken. In other words, I did believe that when she. When she stood in front of the public and Said, oh, I have the goods. I believe she was credible, and she would not have made that claim unless she had the goods. She did not. So I was 100% wrong about that. Don't you love it when I tell you I'm 100% wrong? Totally wrong. But don't conflate that. Don't conflate that with a related claim that the voting machines themselves were rigged. When. When I heard that claim, if you recall, I said on moment one, there's no Venezuelan general. This story is so obviously false. Right. Confirm that. When she came up with the Venezuelan general story, I said, no, no, no, no. Like, from the first moment, I said, that's not true, and it was not true. Where do you think that rumor came from? Where do you think the rumor that the voting machines and there was a Venezuelan general came from? Is that the sort of thing that, let's say you'd hear from who? Yeah, it might be exactly what you thought of. Now, why would. Why would somebody start a rumor that the election was rigged when those very people would want you to believe the opposite? Why would they start an election that was rigged when they totally don't want you to think that? Because if they can draw all your attention to the thing that is obviously bullshit, that's all you'll remember. And every time that another claim is made, they'll say, is it a Kraken? Is it a Kraken? How about that last Kraken? Pretty credible, huh? Sure. You're full of Kraken, Scott. Oh, yeah. Kari Lake has a good claim this time. You sure? So did Sydney Powell. So did the Kraken. Where's the Kraken? Where's the Kraken, Scott? To me, it looks like an awp. So that's what I'm going to add to the conspiracy theories. To me, it looks like an obvious op. Because if they knew they had been caught red handed, this would be speculation. Right? If the Democrats knew they had been caught red handed, how would they handle it? They're totally going to get caught rigging an election. Hypothetically, they would create a false flag that would draw all your attention to a ridiculous claim of election fraud that could be easily disproven, would discredit Fox News totally, which is what's happening right now. And they would never have to answer for it because it would take all the energy to the thing. That was bullshit. Now, who even has information about a Venezuelan general? Huh? Who in the government would have information about a Venezuelan general? There's only one fucking place that could have come from. There's only one place that came from, directly or indirectly, that's somebody who deals with other countries on behalf of the United States. I mean, I'm speculating, right? I'm just speculating. Don't have direct evidence, but it sure looks like an op. It sure looks like it. So that brings us back to Carrie Lake and her claims, among others, are that from witnesses, that a lot of the ballots were printed at the wrong size. So I guess the paper was the right size. But you can print on the paper a ballot that's know, skinnier or fatter. And if you, if you tell your machine to print the wrong kind, they won't be counted through the machines and it blows up the system, which is what happened. Now why do you think, or what, what do you think was the cause of all those misprinted ballots? Well, the people who run the elections say, oops, we made a mistake. And so far that is not disproved. The mistake hypothesis is not disproved. It's just hard to believe. It's like really hard to believe because apparently only an administrator makes a change. And all the machines had been tested the day before. Well, what did they test on the machines? Did they test real ballots? Maybe they had like test ballots and they ran them through the machine, but the test ballots did not match the actual ballots. How about whoever printed the ballots? Was there anybody double checking to see that the ballots had been printed and that those ballots could go through a machine? Well, here's where it gets a little sketchy. Doesn't feels like it's the sort of thing that should have been checked. Your common sense says they would have checked the printing, they would have checked the machines, and then they would have checked the printing with the machines. And all of that would have been done the days before the election. And then once those things are checked, then nobody can touch the machine again. Right. Very basic common sense, obvious process. So do you think elections match your common sense, obvious process? Well, let me give you a little more information of something that happened in Maricopa. Now this is based on witness testimony that when the individual precincts gather up all the ballots and they send them to the central place, they don't count how many they have before they send them. Just think about that. They don't count how many they have before they send them. Now if I had asked you, hey, it's up to you to develop a system, would you have ever imagined that could be true? Because I've thought about it in the past I thought, I wonder, I wonder if they just compare the local totals to the total totals to make sure they got all the ballots. And then you know what I said to myself? I said, I'm not going to raise that in front of the public. Do you know why? Why would I not ask that question in front of you? Because it would look. Make me look like a fucking idiot. Of course they do that. Of course, the most obvious basic maintenance of security and an election would be you count them at every step that anything can be counted. Not just that step, but every transfer from the physical ballots to the machines, from the pile that's counted to another source, from that source to the storeroom. Every time you move them, you move them with account. Everybody knows that every one of you would have done it that way. But experts actually testified that it was their process to not do the one thing you would need as a citizen to trust your election. It's the one thing you need done. Like all the other stuff is important too. But knowing that you sent all the ballots to be counted, that's as basic as you can get. You can't get more basic than that. Now tell me a second reason why they wouldn't do it. One reason would be it gives them an opportunity for fraud. That'd be one obvious reason. What would be another reason? Too lazy? I don't think laziness is a factor because when they hire people, they tell them what to do and they do all the other stuff. Being a poll worker is like a lot of work. They're the opposite of lazy, aren't they? I mean, the poll workers look like they're really in there for the right reasons. They're putting in the hours. I don't think they're lazy. You don't think that if the rule came down, these must be counted before you send them? You don't think they would do that. Now, it might be hard, but if you don't do that, you really didn't have an election you could trust. So let me say this as clearly as possible. If that's true, that they're not counted at the precinct level before they go to a central counting place, then there was no election. You can't even say there was an election. The only thing you could say for sure is that there were a bunch of ballots that got counted at the end point. If that's all you know, and there's no chain of custody, there was no election. See, in the same way that I say you can't judge Congress for doing a bad Job. They're not doing any job. Not doing any job. Likewise, you cannot say the election was rigged or not rigged. There wasn't an election. I'm going to say that directly. If you didn't control the chain of custody, and it wasn't a mistake, it was the process. The actual process was don't control the number of votes, what would you call an election where the process says don't count the votes at important stages of the votes. It's not an election. What would that be? An installation. Right. So I think that people who are election deniers should be denying that an election happened. They shouldn't be denying the outcome. So I would say if you deny the outcome, you're in sketchy territory. If you say, well, it's not really an election if you're not counting the votes before you send them to the central place, then you say, all right, well, once again, we had a government that chose not to have an election. Now, I always accept the elections because you need to move on. So I accept it. And I did accept it on day one and continue to accept it. But there was no election. There was no election. If that fact is true, there was no election. True or false, I see nobody disagreeing with me. Right? 100% agreement, because this is not politics. If you said to a Democrat, you put a Democrat in the room, say, all right, here's the process. Get all these ballots and then we send them to a central place, but we don't count them before we send them, do you think there's a Democrat, even one, who would say, okay, that sounds like a valid election. Anybody. This has nothing to do with politics. It wouldn't matter who won, who didn't win. Not counting the ballots at that important stage of the process is no election at all. None at all. The legislator makes the rules, so they need to plug the holes. Probably. But just because the states can run the elections any way they want, so that would make it legal, that doesn't mean that they chose to do it. So in other words, the fact that the state has a right to run an election according to their own laws, that doesn't mean they did. Means they did something. But I wouldn't call it an election. I would not call that an election. It was something else, but I wouldn't call it fraud. See, here's where you go wrong. If you call it fraud, then you're accepting there was something like an election that happened. I don't see it. You can't have a fraud of an election that didn't happen. You can just have something that didn't happen. So I think we keep getting fooled into thinking that our government is doing a good or bad job, and then we argue it. Oh, I think it was good. I think it was bad. Nothing like that happening. There's actually just no governing happening. So the only complaint you should have is that no governing is happening. Such wise double talk, Scott, so you can avoid being a Joe Blow. So I could. Oh, somebody's asking if I'm a denier. Yes. Yes. As of yesterday. So as before yesterday, I was not an election denier because I didn't have evidence that seemed credible. But now we have a court testimony from somebody who was in the right place that the way the process worked was not close enough to being an election. So I can say now I can say based on that, based on that, no election happened. So, yeah, I would be an election denier, but not. Not the standard kind. I'm not denying just the outcome. I'm denying the election itself. That the election itself was just smoke and mirrors. And no, no actual election happened. Nothing like that happened. Yeah. So let's see if I get demonetized. Because I'm saying it as directly as you could, based on yesterday's court evidence. Court evidence. It looks like no election happened by my definition of what would be the minimum requirement to say an election happened. We didn't hit the minimum. So will I be gone tomorrow, do you think? There's somebody at YouTube right now who's having a real tough time with me? Or they will when the human reviews us. Because this will be demonetized in half a second. That's why I'm going to rumble. But I'm saying as directly. As directly as you could say, no election happened. I deny the election. But I do accept the outcome. I do accept the outcome. Because you have to have some stability. You have to move forward now. We need to fix this so it doesn't happen again. You got to do that. But I can deny the election now with no. No qualms. Yes, Joe Blow. I am a denier. That is correct as of today. But. But I'll defend myself from holding off till now because this is the first highly credible information I've seen that tells me it wasn't a real election. Somebody says you can't accept the results. Well, that. That makes the word accept do too much work. I can decide to move on so that the country doesn't come to a screeching halt, which is different from accepting the results. You can accept the system without accepting the results. Legislation is fine. It was not followed. Somebody says, that seems more likely, but I don't know that that's proven. Does anybody know if Maricopa was legally required to count them before they sent them to the central site? Do we have a fact check on that? I see some yeses, but are you using common sense or did you see it factually? Common sense says, of course they were required, but I don't know if it's factually true. Has it been demonstrated? It was stated in the trial. Somebody says, okay, all right, good. Now, what would you do if you're the court. This is a real good question. Suppose the court accepts the testimony as true. Is it a jury trial or a judge trial? It's a judge trial, Right? It's a judge trial. So suppose the judge accepts that it was legislatively required that they count them at the precinct level, but they didn't do it at this late stage of the game, even if all the facts are accepted, could that judge reverse anything? Or is it not that late? Could he order a redo? I think they can order a redo. But you think it would happen at this late date? Katie Hobbs has not sworn in yet. Is that true? Could call a runoff. Interesting. Okay, well, and is the judge. Do we know which way the judge leans Republican or Democrat? Is a judge a leaner or. We don't know anything about the judge. Judge is Republican. Are you sure Cernovich says a redo? Judges are impartial. Courts have ordered new elections before. But if they ordered it in a Senate election or a governor election, has it been ordered at the highest level? I feel like that's something that happens to a state representative or something. Yes, in Arizona. Okay. All right. So it is possible. So one possibility is that there could be a redo because the evidence is sort of leaning in that direction. Oh, long hair. Oh, interesting. It was a super. Super. Scott. What? There is precedent at the governor's level. Somebody says, all right, well, I would accept that. I'll accept that. If. If the. But, but let me ask you this. Is there precedent only when fraud was proven, or is there precedent when you don't know if fraud happened, but it might have. That is different. Because if the judge says, well, there definitely was an opening for fraud because of the way you handled it, but you can't prove it? If he can't prove it, I'll bet he can't order a redo. Do you think he could? Do you think a judge could order a redo? Absent Crime. And if it's only procedure, could he. Maybe not. He would say no intent. If there's no intention and no proof of a crime, he'd probably just say, let it go and fix it next time, wouldn't he? I feel like that's what I would do if I were a judge. Like, even if I were sure that this is sketchy as hell, but it's not proven, it's just sketchy as hell. I'd say, all right, you're gonna have to live with it. Better fix it next time. That's what I would do, which I hate. Like, I hate that that's how I would decide, but that's what I do, because I think the judges try to take a larger view of social disruption. And I don't think I would. Probably wouldn't disrupt the system for this. It's an edge case. I mean, you could certainly make an argument for it, certainly. But I think a judge is going to go the other way. What do the real smart lawyers say? That's a good question. Why does defense keep asking witnesses if they have evidence of intent? Because intent matters. Right. Barnes was laughing it up. So what would you assume about Trump's claims of the election being rigged if you found out that this election. We don't know if it's rigged, but the votes weren't counted at the precinct level and it got overturned because of that? I have a feeling that Kerry Lake is going to prove Trump right without proving he's right. In other words, your brain. If Carrie Lake prevails and let's say she actually goes all the way and becomes governor, totally possible. If she prevails, what are you going to think about Trump's claims of election fraud? You're going to totally believe them. Because it would be hard to believe that Maricopa only acted in this election and only against Kerry Lake. It'd be hard to believe that Cernovich says it's different. The Trump situation versus the Lake. Yes. So I'm agreeing that these are different situations. So her proving her case does not prove Trump's. What I'm saying is in your brain. It will. In your brain. It will totally prove it. It will in mine. Right. If Kerry Lake prevails, even though it's different evidence, a different case from Trump, that would be enough for me to say, oh, Trump's probably right. Probably right. I would. I would just go completely to that side. If Carrie Lake wins, if she doesn't win and doesn't prove any. Any impropriety, then I'm going to say, well, Trump's had a long time to make his case and he hasn't done it. But if she wins, even though it's all different from Trump, I agree with that. My brain won't let me release on that. My brain will say, all right, if every time somebody says I suspect something and you look into it and you find it, I'm just going to look at that pattern and say, well, I doubt that's a coincidence, that every time there's a complaint, you find the actual crime there. Mass mail in leads to custody issues, which leads to fraud in both cases is the case. I see what you're saying there. Yeah. The chain of custody stuff has been proven as a problem but ignored. Yeah, I think that's what's going to happen again. All right, this is a long live stream and I don't even know if it's a good one because I'm talking about some topics you've heard about too many times. So YouTube, I'm going to say goodbye. I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately and thanks for joining.