Dictating bar bump bump bump bump come from phone. I just saw the weirdest comment I have ever seen in my life, but I'm sure you can stop it. I know you can avail they'll they'll joined us today. If it's your first day, you ve got some surprises. They'll. but to enjoy yourself to the maximum maximum extent, and why would you settle for, alas, really if you could have at all and you can this more you can have it all. You can have the simultaneous up. If you have a copper mugger, my tanker tells us Styler, canteen, jogger flask vessel. What kind any. Following you with ever look what I like coffee and joy,

after the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine her the day. The thing that makes everything better scald the simultaneous up and today were nice to deal deal, if you dont know why people are greeting you, it's because I use your first name in a humorous fashion, sometimes and now join me. Well, let's look at the news. Joe Biden has said that if we, if we don T, be more cautious with the crowd of virus that we could lose too

didn't fifty thousand more people before January? That would be less than a month and he said in public that a quarter of a million people might die from crowed of ours on top of the quarter million or whatever it is now that have already died. Now I would like to take this to a larger point. The larger point is this that I believe Biden will start to look worse every day for a long time, and the reason is because his moving from a campaign scenario in which everything is hypothetical, high, pathetic.

Joe biden- would be great on these topics. Hypothetically he'll make all these changes. That will make you happy. So what are you running for office? You running against hypotheticals, an imaginary scenarios, and you can do great in people's imaginations. You can kill it in imagination and he, then some people say even got the most votes. So what's gonna happen, if we were to came this forward a little bit, what what are the obvious things that will happen just if we just see her wake well number one obvious thing is that he's gonna start to be compared to tromp, because you can avoid it. Every everything is contrast. Right. So the news is really reports of contrast used to be peaceful, but now there's a war. They used to be good weather.

but in others a hurricane so went away. Everything has to be contracted to make sense to you and, of course, bided will be compared to tromp and all of its policies, because one one It's obvious, but let's go down to the list of things you're gonna, compare by didn't to trumped in and see how you think you could predict it's gonna go. Take this first example by didn't miss speaking, I think even spoke, but maybe he thinks is true. The two hundred fifty thousand people die before January was how do the economy economy is a psychology engine. The economy works. Well, if you tell her What is gonna work? Well, the economy is completely destroyed. If you tell people, things are, gonna go bad.

tromp for all of us flaws, which is critics, would be happy to point out understood that the economy was not separate from hell. Here. There are all part of this, this big thing and if you don't take care of all of it, you might lose all of it. Biden is a little more. You know pocket sized. It's like well, there's healthcare and then I'll just deal with this, but I don't have to think about the economy. Cuz! That's a that's a separate question, but it's not if, if Biden scares the pants off you on the virus, even if he's right, but I'm not talking about whether he's right or wrong, but if he scares you what to do to the economy doesn't really help.

does it help at all? If Trump tells you, the economy is great and getting better, even if it wasn't true when he said it was the outcome of that. Well, apparently, he's pretty convincing on the on the questions of the economy and people invest and they buy stock and they spend money. So if you're just taking the the economy, I don't think Biden has even the slightest chance of in the air Looking good compared to drop on the economy now the reason is, he doesn't get the psychology right, but he's

so we're here raising taxes, even if you think taxes should be raised because you want to fight the deficit or because you think it's more fair whatever or you think it will fund valuable programmes for the public. So you might like that idea, but there's no way it's gonna be good for the overall economy right. The economy doesn't like I taxes when, when Biden starts, stop putting back some of those controls in place. Will that be good for the economy? Now if he starts talking about green new deal and any kind of pressure on fracking, is that going to be good for the economy know? So I think I'm the economy Trump Levy, from an advantage. There will only look bigger overtime because a trumpet

out there doing new things to cause the the in the illegitimate press to say bad things about him. You'll start to forget the bad things, in other words, that the most likely outcome of the Trump Administration is that all the bad stuff he did will start to reduce in year your memory, because you won't be reminded of it every day he after he's out of office, but every time we talk about the economy, pundits are going to say something like you now Trump were to play that this way, and that would work And then he, though, I think Trump, what have you done then a little differently? He might have bullied a little more and more. That might work, for example, and also covered looking a couple. More categories have an immigration.

if Joe Biden does anything like opening up any immigration that I don't think he will by the way, I think he's moderate enough that he'll he'll have something you know some controls on immigration, maybe not as much as what it, but how is he gonna? Look if big caravans story heading toward the border? Could we predict that it is very likely the gigantic caravans will head toward the border during a binding presidency almost certainly right, although certainly what will happen if Joe Biden either gets tough with the caravans like tribe or does the opposite? What if he lets him, then as I look basically, I don't think he's. Gonna look good in the long run

only because of the nature of the problem has nothing to do with whether Biden would do a good or bad job. It's just the nature of the problem. Whoever has that job when this problem occurs is gonna. Look now so good is just the problem, though there is no right way to handle it they're just too bad ways. Tantalum about North Korea probably won't get better and people are gonna say why? Wouldn't you go meet a tyrant if it comes down to the risk of war? What Why, wouldn't you go shake hands with a dictator if it reduces your? The arrests and Trop is gonna. Look like a genius, at least in terms that specific question to know that it's a personal relationship that made the

He avoided nuclear war or at least the risk of nuclear war with North Korea with a personal relationship. The very thing that nobody was said do in fact everybody said: don't do it what's Biden Gonna do. Is he gonna keep doing, that is by didn't gonna, meet Kim Jargon and try to keep that going again again, it's to be hard to compete with Trump did a whole bunch of stuff, so he's going to be fighting. That goes the whole way. I'm on trade deals. Do you think Biden's going to do a trade deal, that's less good than what Trump was pushing for well, if he does he's going to look like he failed, because it's going to look like Trump was trying to get this Biden settled for much less, maybe Trump would have had to settle to you. Don't know

but it's gonna look, look like them is a bad negotiator so so see this is just the way things are naturally lining up by them is gonna start with. You know his honeymoon phase, which is now, but the only way this can go is bad for him. I think it has nothing to do with whether he does a good job on it, just ass new who is compared to end the situation. How about I'll give you I'll give him one positive. Ok, try to give a positive a little bit I know you're gonna disagree with this, but just work with me on this. If you wanted to dismantle anti black lives matter and reduce the importance of the squad was Trump the right person to do that now. No trump was exactly the wrong president to get rid of anti fa, because

they picked him as their enemy. He was the wrong person to get rid of black lives matter because they had decided. He was the symbol of what their fighting against and here the squad, of course, just uses Trump as their as their believe. An so tromp would be the worst choice to minimize those three entities, but by didn't isn't bite it might be the best choice to minimize them, because Biden KIT can't do his job unless it consolidates power and he's not gonna wanna be out there with anti via the alarm destroying cities under his watch. Squad is already going after. So it's obvious he's trying to diminish the squad and tried to diminish the whole defend the police thing. So if you wanted less of any of those entities, I think you'll get less of it under by

That would be the one thing. I would say that if you wanted just if that was your only problems in the world, I wish it would take Biden for that every time if it was your only problem, talker was. reporting yesterday in the news reporting that apparently we ve checked existing blood suppliers from late twenty nineteen

And those a whole bunch of kroner virus in there in late, twenty nineteen in the United States, so here's here's the thing to make your head explode. For today, everything you been told about the origin of the corona virus and they might have been a bad, might have been a pang Golan might have been the rule on lab and all that and it might have been. You know certain timeline, pretty much everything you ve been told this false. Now I don't know it's true. I dont know if the war on lab had anything to do with it, this point, but everything you thought about that is false. Think about that is the biggest thing in the world and everything you know about. It was bullshit just bullshit now

For most of us, those we're just facts: we. We did all this stuff is just well that's history. We know that this happened. There was this lab that it was about this timeframe in Bogota. None of it was true Tyre most important thing in the world- and none of it was true thinking That, when you say to yourself is the next story, true think out what, when you say to yourself well story this big with so many people reporting that it is so well under those conditions at such a big story in so many people looking at it, they must have never gotten close to the truth by now nope. We don't live, allow world.

We live in a world where even the biggest story in the world is just fake news, and if that story can be fake news, what else can be fake news, everything everything they can all be factors, and, probably is you know, Leslie the Gale man. Amnesia idea that, if you know about a story, you know it's bullshit, but ones, are you don't have any special expertise? And you say what is probably true news. Always news people say is true, is probably true might be false. Friends, probably true reverse that in the real world. All of the news- although this is probably not to let you you were just gonna- put a bet there. there's a brand new story, does about it. What it is it just a brand new story, it's a big story, isn't lose its day. One and you have one bet.

The bed is: will this story still be true oversight in five years? Or will you know in five years it was never true which one do you vet and I'm not even tell you what the story is about. You don't even have to know the topic, anything could be, domestic could be, international could be about war and death could be about a science could be about economics. It's just a new story and everybody agrees on the narrative. You don't even have a disagreement. The left believes is true. The right believes it's true. It's just a new story I have to put your bet now bet against bet against it every time and you will be right out of seventy percent of the time you knock override every time, but all other stuff, just not true.

General Flynn reach. We did somebody else's tweet, suggesting that the President Trump sure do martial law to force a real vote now see that is having a panic attack because they retire jet. Is suggesting martial law in the United States and what would you you could imagine would lead to a change in expected government if I can say that there were so that's a pretty big deal, but I am not entirely sure that sea in a knows how twitter works, because when you retweet things, does that mean you agree with it? Doesn't it means is important, in my mean, is something you should consider. It might mean somebody's just telling you something's out there as part of this.

That's how I use twitter, I dont retweet things that I just agree with. Do you know you sometimes retweet things that are just a story? You know if. If caravan of ten thousand immigrants crashed through our border. I my retreat that story, but I wouldn't be in favour of it. So that's is how to works, but we could imagine its reasonable to assume that you wouldn't have retweeted it with them at least some empathy for it. That's really! Maybe, as far as you can go, you don't want to go into full mind reading. But here is a question I have for you a question for the lawyers. For some reason I haven't gigantic lawyer.

Following, I don't know if you do that, but they're, probably more than lawyers who followed me than just about anything which makes sense cuz. I talk about persuasion. If you're, if you're an attorney, you probably want to pay attention to anybody who talks about the topic of persuasion. That's your job, but let me ass a lawyer question: can there A limited, martial law doesn't work. That way. Can you say declare martial law, but it's not like some general martial law is just could be this, narrow one topic. martial law about the election and- and martial law will specifically say will were redo it on some time line is not even possible, are not recommending it again. Talking about the news is not endorsing the news. I'm talking about the news broke in somebody. Tell me a lawyer. If you can

and limit limit. This martial law idea to a single talk is that even the thing thing bump bump? Well, you know actually look answer my own question. If you imagine that martial law was a generic order, that just puts the president and firmer control without the beyond the subsidiary governor and processes, I suppose the government, the president, could pick and choose where he enforces it. So the government against AIDS martial law in general, but you can ignore the in general part, the only part I'm going to care about or do anything about it just the election. I guess it can do that right. You doesn't have to use all martial law mechanisms, he can take it

and then just use whatever party wanted. So I don't know em constitutional is or how practical it is. I'm just gonna put it out there as a thing that speed cast, I'm not I'm not endorsing at this point. I don't know if any of you do, but I would not endorse martial law at this point. There might be a place where that is, moreover, something to consider but think where there are so Democrats, keeper trolling me on twitter their dropping into my into my twitter feed in their saying sarcastic things such as o scarred wasn't about two weeks ago. You said, do

Wait two eggs, you're gonna, say some strong evidence for the accusations of election fraud. It's been two weeks Scott. So, whereas all the evidence, Scott, you said it was governed. Where is it Where's all that ever the scum on Command Scott, whereas online evidence, whereas it showed us that they act. That's my does my impression every democratic role and here's my answer to the people who are saying, whereas all that strong evidence you'd say so, I tweeted answer so would be in the record. I said Democratic trolls keep asking me where's, we have evidence of election fraud. I said would be here by now. I had to break it That they will never see it, because Democrats don't get to see real news. This is not enough.

And when I made that prediction I should have modified it by saying what Republicans will because Republicans hear the news on the left and the right. So Republicans will here evidence and have, if you're, watching the. If you watching the live witness testimonies, I don't know if you can need more evidence of that. Now, whether or not those witnesses all collectively have enough of a story to change the, become a vote. I doubt it. I didn't. I didn't see enough happening there. Just their testimonies by itself would change the outcomes, but Can we say there is no strong evidence of fraud? I would say this boy with that. Many with that many witnesses. I think you can say where there is a one hundred percent bounty us.

what of evidence. Some of it won't be true. Some of it will be people who saw things and listened printed it some might be lying, some might be. Who knows this information whatever? But you certainly can't say: there's no evidence and you can say it isn't strong if his eye witnesses with the same stories and hundreds of them. What exactly you can imagine the tv like a murder on fifth avenue. its fifth avenue to complicate things there is a murderer on Fifth avenue. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses, hundreds, hundreds of people and they tell the same story. We saw this guy killed this purse re here. What would democrat?

say about that? Hundreds of eyewitnesses telling the same story of the same event? I believe they would say. Where's, the proof yeah, you got people saying that people can say anything, where's your proof. Well, I'm pretty sure that hundreds of eye witnesses to a murder would be enough to convict you. I mean I think that goes way beyond a reasonable doubt. You're gonna get pretty convicted without many witnesses, so why is it different for the election fraud while the differences that the Democrats a packet ized their crime, so that you can see a lot of it with your own eyes, you can just observant, but you can't know how much there was you

no. You can only know what you're saying you don't know how much other stuff you didn't say. So, that's that's! The catch is that the court's won't reverse and election. Unless you can make a case that the number of votes you can prove or fraudulent would do that, and that would be nearly impossible. Did you see the interviews with the two postal contractors who had pretty specific stories that make it sound as if at least the one of them I was He tells a story where is sounds like he drove a large truck across state barter borders with water, allegedly fake ballots to change the outcome in Pennsylvania drove all the way from New York

then selenium now, and that is, as some kind of a story worry park. The treaty was told the park the truck somewhere different and when he woke up in the morning is truck was gone or something let so. Let me give you my my taken this story. I don't doubt that we live in a world where elections can be stolen by somebody driving gigantic trucks of stolen balance. I don't think that's impossible that that is within the realm of things. That could happen. So these correctly me that the trailer was taken, not not the truck there was pulling it. I guess so. He says the trailer was gone, sets a correction that the trailer was gone, not the trunk and he doesn't know

now. Would you believe that story? You believe us I've got a problem with this story and the problem is what is my problem if you ve been watching me for a while, you know exactly what I'm going to say right. Most of you were saying: they're very credible, but what is my complaint with her story? Let's see if you know, because if you don't know what I'm going to say, I'd be disappointed because you should know by now exactly what I'm going to say. here's the problem a little bit too on the nose right a little bit too clean, yeah I'm a whistle blower and I drove this truck and then it disappeared. The trailer park disappeared. It could be true. I would like us at its under its in the realm of possibility.

Clearly in the realm of possibility. it's a little too clean. If you know what I mean little to clean for my taste,. Now I, like the say back up to something I said from the very beginning of this whole mess. Ninety five percent of the evidence you see won't be true. Ninety five percent. So if somebody presents a new piece of evidence in this context, you don't you haven't even looked at the evidence. Yet what odds do you put on this new piece of evidence? Ninety five percent chance? It's not gonna hold up, but that doesn't mean anything about whether or not the election was stolen. It just means a confirmation by us kicked in as you would if there had been a real theft of the election, that there would be a whole bunch of confirmation bias where people are sure the election was stolen, and so therefore they see it everywhere.

So the way a normal brain works? Is that if you're pretty sure it's true, you're gonna see the proof, even if it's not real. So that's why the ninety five percent, because you can predict digits, easy to predict that ninety five percent of the evidence will be confirmation by us. Always that doesn't mean in any way that the five percent that could be real is tainted by the other. Ninety five percent. You shouldn't be like that different things, one is people having a mental. Basically an illusion, and the other is actual evidence there. Just not the same thing, so one should not pollute the other, but in our minds they do that's the persuasion of it is that every time one of these gets debunked, the Democrats can sail well, there you go, there is another. One c c was just confirmation by.

So I'm still on the side that says it's obvious that the election was stolen and it's obvious without evidence. If you don't see that I haven't been alive for the last several years,. It's obvious without evidence. Now when I say that I dont mean I'm looking at the outcome, I'm not looking it! I'm not looking at Joe Biden, eighty million votes and say well, it's obvious. It is obvious that could have been up. I'm not saying that. I know some of you do say that's obvious, but I'd say it's possible. What could happen is not ours again, it's not outside of the realm of possibly so it's possible. Here's what I mean by its obvious. It was stolen. The motivation was sky high and the opportunity which we know from the witnesses

the witnesses have, at the very least established there were lots of ways to do it. We don't have to wonder anymore. Was it possible? Oh yeah, it was possible, it was more possible, anything you ve ever seen in my life. Now I don't know who is easy, but in terms of practical and possible So you have sky high motivation, you have complete opportunity and you have a big pay off and low odds of being prosecuted, because he's doing a packet? So as long as your role in the alleged scheme was you just do this little part, even if you get caught even if you get caught, is not that big a deal? Does you just a little part?

So I would say, there's a hundred percent chance. There was an attempt to steal it. You can say what the size of a was, but you really have to be an idiot to think it wasn't at least attempted. to steal the election and we have done what do you have to be to think democratic, then at least try now a week ago. I think you could be forgiven a week ago. You didn't really have yet the evidence of the witnesses, telling you how many holes or are in the system, and if you don't like smart demographic trend, that I talk about all the time, his belief And others, smart people who have argued with me recently their beliefs, are that you could know the election was good because number one you don't you don't have a court case. There's proved it was bad and number two. It couldn't be that easy to cheat at

big scale you now you wouldn't get away with it. It's not really something that could be done, but now you know that's not true. At the very least, we have proven that election system is completely vulnerable to all signs of influences. So it's opposite of what you started with, which is probably pretty secure, and now I think we have a better understanding that it's not even close, we're not even the same conversation with security that it is the it's just a swiss cheese. That's all it is so if we didn't get an attempted to steal an election in that context, I don't know anything about the world. I don't know anything didn't try to steal that whether I can ever proven it now. What do you think you're the odds that, after the surgery?

senatorial election, the run off. What do you think you're the odds that the two republican candidates will win and then sometimes late in the night? A truck of misplaced ballots will show up to reverse the outcome. If you had to pull a bet on that, what you're back for the late truck ballots the changes the election. Let me ask you this: if they did that, if this plan changed the presidential election, why wouldn't they do it? What would stop that now? You might be saved yourself. Well We're gonna be watching for that, doesn't matter doesnt matter, there will be looking for exactly that thing. It doesn't because the entire election we had This is the coming, there was, but did any of those

this is stop whatever was happening from happening now. So witnesses don't make any difference. It doesn't matter if you expect it, that's what the witnesses and therefore their expecting some mischief. I guess expecting- is too strong, but why? Wouldn't they. yo. You think yourself, Scott. There would be a little bit too obvious, but They know they can get away with being too obvious You, you would have said maybe a few months ago, you said yourself why you don't want to do a gigantic crime like a gigantic crime, and also be obvious. When you do it, would the windows be the two things you would never do at the same time? Don't do a huge crime and make it obvious, but I think we just watch that happen. I think we're just watching.

Gigantic theft of election? It does feel obvious now that we know that there are so many holes in the system. Of course, of course they tried, so I dont believe there is any disincentive for them not to try again under the assumption that it worked before and they knew it worked before, and so why would they why? Senator Purdue is one of the people in the run off so there story about- is a stock, its actions, I think about all morning. I shouldn't laugh about it, but I will say this is what they're saying about him that he is what is one of the most active stock traders and, of course the the implication is that some of these trades had to do with things that his

many would know about, and therefore was there any kind of insider trader going trading on. Here's is defence Defences that that he uses- that is financial advisors, make every call so he's not he's making not making these trades by his own decisions is financial advisors. They make every call, and that quote, outside independent financial advisors, continue to be the only individuals making transactions all right. So he's basically saying yeah. This isn't me I've delegated management. my portfolio to these independent financial advisers and those independent financial advisers traded in the last six years is he's been office. They made twenty six hundred stock trades.

Now everybody who has a background in investment and sort of understands this field, you're laughing. Aren't you You're laughing right now, because here's the funny thing should we should voters treat Senator Purdue harshly because of the suspicion that some of his transactions had some insider element to them. While we don't have proven that there is no proof, and nor have I seen anything that look me directly like you would be proof. But what do you think about the fact that a sitting senator we delegate his portfolio that somebody who would make what is six hundred trades in six years, but let me give you some advice: if your financial advisers. Our handle your portfolio and they there may

on your behalf or or they even recommend. Twenty six hundred stock trains in six years need to fire those advisers like a really really quick, because It would be evidence of a crime if your financial advisers make twenty six hundred stock trades on your behalf, and you didn't approves them all like you, weren't really involved. They just happened. This is evidence of a gigantic financial fraud, be perpetrated stay sitting, Senator who, if he believes that twenty six hundred transactions somehow is good for him, as opposed to. Obviously the financial advisors are getting some some benefit from the work they're doing doing. This is evidence of a major crime against the set

because let me tell you how many stock trades there should have been in six years. I'll just give you arrange. Maybe in six years, was a spree big portfolio- maybe thirty, thirty. So the right number. If they had been doing real work and there were legitimate financial advisers- and I really had. The customers best interests in mind the right number of trades and six years. Maybe thirty could have been zero Do you know how many stock trades I've made in six years? Cuz I have my portfolio is probably you know, at least in terms of this conversation comprable to the senators

stock trades. If I made a work off a memory, but ten, maybe ten and six years, because investing is buying and holding that's one of the best thing is: do you know? Do you know what it is? If two thousand six hundred trades are made in your name, cheers not investing. I dont know you'd call that you could colors speculation. You could call a gambling, but it's not even close to investing. So the fact- he thinks he she has. Financial advisers were investing for him. He doesn't have that. He here somebody who is them off and I dont know if he knows it, so that's a strange, story of the morning, don't ever let anybody trade twenty six hundred times under your name german influence or came

where to Duncan me today. So the course of the rest of the world is watching our election situation and this german woman who add some standing in Germany are now she's. So my famous over there said that and basically tilting at windmills and yet in this hopeless attempt to suggest that there is a way for our trump to remain in office and yet because it's basically impossible at this point is our point and I had to point out that that is the most loser philosophy. I've ever heard in my life, I so you're, somebody in Germany who is observing me talking about the president, and specifically, I was talking about the fact that the voting machines do have an audit ability, and I've said that if your vote

is with machines that can't be audited. You have to throw out the vote to me that there is no room for compromise there. If you tell me yeah, we don't know if the voting machines worked or didn't, but let's keep the vote or matches crazy. That's crazy! You would never do that No, no reasonable person would do that. You'd have to know you could ordered them to, even though, if you had about so that was my point strong point. and she said that I was fighting in something impossible, but here's the irony how this woman in Germany? No, I exist now she referred to be as the We're guy, but how does she know? I exist.

The reason she knows I exist is that I have a track record of doing things that are really really unlikely becoming a cartoonist famous cartoons is very, very unlikely and then pivoting to what I'm doing now, to the point where somebody injure It is talking about my political opinions that was very unlikely so and then talking about Trump and what is trumps history. His is history is doing the impossible getting elected in the first place. Project warp speed looked impossible by the way. That's another thing that is gonna make biting. Look like an idiot. Do you believe that a President Biden would have made warp speed happen, or would he have. The experts who said it can take for years and then Joe Biden, who really really listen to the experts, would have said.

Well, I'm not going to overrule. You can hear the experts. Are you just every one of you, a hundred percent? If you just said you can't get this done and less than four years. So I guess we wait for years. Imagine that what did president drug do expert said? Ask and take four years. These said, give it to me in the six months and the experts said can't can't be done. I'll. Tell you one thing: there is no way to do that and then the president said some version of assuming do it anyway. You will do it find away. Do you need a few billion dollars? Here's the Czech! Are you losers? You tell me you can't save the country. Could you not going to work hard enough? You're, not clever enough, make it fucking huh?

and I think that's what trumpeted. I think Trump just said you. Experts are foolish, it make it happen and then they did. Can you can you even imagine in your wildest imagination, the Biden could have gotten that done. No, and I think that's going to be increasingly obvious as time goes by, you can look at the Middle EAST and you can say Joe Biden have gotten the Middle EAST. Where sat now now there is an even the slightest chance. Because he would have been prowler ran, none of it would work so Both drop and I have a long history of doing things that other people thought were not possible and this german influence. Her is mocking me for doing things that look hard to do, such as changing the result of the election. Now I'm not going to predict,

Then it will change, but I will tell you that if your mocking either me or Trump for imagining that we can be involved in something that other people think is hard to do, and, unlike play or impossible well you're, not really paying attention cuz. We both done that enough that you should give us a benefit of a doubt. Let me put it this way. This will sound like I'm, comparing myself to him, so I'm not comparing myself to the next person Just using it as an example, if Elon Musk starts a company tomorrow, a new company that everybody else said will never work where you going to bet on it, get better deal on musk doing yet again, something that everybody said it wouldn't wouldn't work or you go, the experts, if you're smart, your bet on Elon Musk, doing what everybody said can't be done because he's gotta help me.

I started using the word Bali to refer to our new system. We used to have a republic, but that's been replaced with what I call a bully accuracy, meaning that the vote was largely controlled by people who use physical intimidation and bullying, physical intimidation and bullying. I consider violence because, even if you don't see a physical mark on the body, a person who is experiences, physical intimidation and bullying, even if its psychological is damaged its, permanent damage and ginger. Scarcely I guess it's it's a mental disorder damage. So the first thing I would say is that we did not have if, if Biden you continues on, becomes present

we will not have had a non violent transition, we will have experienced a violent transition, which is the only reason the transition happened. If you took the violence of the process, the violence being the bullying at the vote, counting stations, you're, probably wouldn't get the same result not enough. That would change the election entirely by the vote it be different in, and I would say that we have actually lost the republic already and some Somebody in Ireland, tweeted Albion, said that their. Watching the United States, because, if democracy is lost in the United States, Europe is toast, so that's what he thought now there there's something to be said for that view, but here's the thing he was acting as if we might lose democracy in this country he's nuts.

Point democracies gone, we are living in a bully accuracy. The result of the election wasn't based on democracy. It wasn't based on the republic, it wasn't based on the constitution. so the the guy was worried that we will lose democracy in the United States need to catch up with the news we lost democracy or the republic we're trying to get it back. I do think we can. I do think we can get it back. So it's not like the end of the world, but we don't have it now. It's lost we're trying to get it back. I think we will Do you want to live in the system? Here's my here's, my weapons grade, persuasion and someone who is a good

So after a train persuaded pointed out that I guess I use the word bully once and it kind of stood out as more more punchy than other than other words. Somebody used again, and So I asked this question, but we do want to live in a system in which bullies literally physical bullies decide who will be present. You are living in that system right now, according to hundreds of witnesses. Now, if the hundreds of witnesses. Who alleged there was this physical intimidation, if they're all wrong, then maybe we still live in a democracy, but I don't think through our on, even if some of them are So we're living in a bully autocracy, which is quite a rank.

so we now sounds like the representative from Alabama Digital Oh Brooks, as it says, he's going to challenge the vote in the house, but only if there's a senator the joins with him. Now I can think of two senators who might want to join in with more brooks to challenge the the outcome of the election and those two would be the Georgia Republican Senators, Loffler and Purdue, because you sort of expect that they would like to make their election about Trump gives. You gonna get a bigger turn out, so in effect they could make the Georgia election a presidential

actually serve either Leffler or Purdue were to say yeah. You know, I think, will join in on this and throw the outcome of the election into doubt, which could end up with President Trump back in office if it turns into turmoil of turmoil in the house and so Mo Brooks just needs one senator.

to say yes, just one: how close are we to trumpet been in office for a second term? If you only need one Republican, senator to say yeah I'll, join you more Brooks just one, and then it becomes a house kerfuffle now. This is the part. I heard two different stories about this, but my understanding is my understanding is that if it comes to a vote in the house that they just get one vote per state, which would mean that Republicans wind is ever more republican states? So correct me if I'm wrong, I think I must be. I must be wrong because I don't see this in the news, but are we really just one senator a Republican away from say yes and that would put on back in office? Are we actually that close.

To that outcome. That literally senator crews would just have to do this just raised his hand and Trump would be in office for a second term, because I feel like I'm, not understanding something here, because if that were true, will that be the only thing in the news. Would there be any headlines on anything else why? Why is this. Sort of getting the year that the soft treatment, I think I'm a misunderstanding. It right am, I misunderstanding that Mo Brooks plus one senator could cause enough of a problem with the election result. They would go to the house and then it would be one vote per state. I think that's the part I might be getting wrong. Can somebody confirm that to me cuz? It can't be that we can't be that close to a president run for

term without there being the only headline. So I would thank the out the obvious ones: senators of somebody's Nancy S would be TED Crews, TED Cruiser D, the obvious one you you would be the most. I think the one with the most wait. If you really want to make that happen, but the Georgia senators they ve got it she'll here's my bottom line on what people are thinking about this election I can totally understand if there are Democrats who feel that the election was now stolen. That wouldn't be crazy. I feel it would be uninformed button is not correct there. There also Democrats who think well. We will never know how much fraud there was wasn't

We also see evidence that is so much a rule change the election, so let's just sort of get over it in and move on life. That's gotta reasonable. I didn't you wouldn't agree with it, but this reasonable here is not here's. What's not reasonable. If you don't think that, if you don't think it was possible that the election was stolen,. And you don't think that the motivation to do that thing that was very possible, was sky high here a fuckin idiot you're so dumb. Now that doesn't mean it happened, but if you think it's not possible and you think the motivation wasn't there and people willing to do it, you're really dumb a meteor seriously them you like you're, like a rock dumb. You like not even here

that's so dumb, that's dung beyond any level of dumbness you could ever have, but again it doesn't mean that they're wrong. If they think that the election you actually went to buy them, they could be right. The CDC director said the it looks like the data says that opening schools of your careful can still make sense, and is that not trump of being right again so, what's by didn't get to do when the CDC and the experts all say, you know, Tromp was really right about this. Opening up schools deserving Biden. Look good again, maybe if you says unless these the experts in all works out Blake Masters, who

the best name of any human being in your kid. I guess the last name is automatic, but imagine naming your kid Blake Masters. Is that kid not automatically going to have a pretty good life? I feel like if somebody came in for a job interview, and I saw their name on the on the resume Lake Map- A bit like, ok, I think we're done here I can. I like I am your name is just so powerful is just as perfect name Blake Masters You said the Arizona isn't Philly, but I guess he lives errand. He says, but we do use dominion. Voting machines

the Secretary of state. Has the Beale M Hashtag inner Bio and she calls trump supporters? Neo Nazis seems bad. So how much do you trust your election when they have dominion voting machines? The secretary of state is a black lives matter supporter and calls the other side NEO Nazis. I would say that that does open up the possibility of a little fraud possibility. Does it mean to happen Possibility I hears my last topic: there's a cool thing happening in crime, fighting right now worthy of note that its ban. Sort of what would you call privatized because it turns out that there are some new technologies that would solve a bunch of crimes.

but you know the local police, forces, etc. Sort are slow to adopt new things and if there's a budget implication than they could be really slow right. So there are now crime fighting technologies which, if we could afford them- and we are the police departments incorporated them- there was some. a whole bunch of new crimes, and they would just immediately solve all kinds of stuff if they could afford it. So this, the interim solution, is that this company author, on which I have talked about

guest on here, so they can look at the dna from crimes in and they can find a family connection, which is the new part of the text and technology. So these days there's enough dna. You know in the world in databases that they can find a family member, and if you find the family member, you can pretty much always find the person after that so authorise would simply need the police departments to say here some money to fund your project.

to do your little work there, and so they started to do a crowd funding. So the right now are thrown will work with the local law enforcement and the two of them all agree to start a little go funding. I think its co funding and if you funded author and we'll go solve the crime, did you see that coming they did? Any of you predict that we would have a go fund need to solve crimes, and then it would work here. Here's here's the kicker. How often will it work? Well, with the off the author Exempt, it's close to one hundred percent. So if you give money to one of these crime solving things, it will actually solve the crime, and the other is an active when how I tweeted about you can see it in my twitter feed from yesterday,

so I would think that if they go fuck me concept proves that the technology solves crime. It would be only a matter of time before the local law enforcement would find a budget for it and included. Who, who controls the DNA machines, the DNA machines. I dont think their dna machines. I did I listen to the Trump speech yesterday. I did not. I did not listen to it. I understand there were many accusations which his critics say have been debunked, which is what I would have expected so dense, didn't feel a need to listen lobby defend myself on one thing today, so

they witnessed S. My yesterday included the blonde woman than I was complementing yesterday. Now somebody who's and anti jumper tweeted a little clip of her talking in which we don't know the truth. So I'll talk about the perception, so only talking about the perception that perception is she looked inebriated when she was. She was talking public about why she witnessed in terms of fraud at the election vote counting sites. Now I feel that that was worth retweeting, not because I want her to have less credibility. I don't, and I dont think that if she had a drink, it

and I don't know if that's true it could be just a normal personality. Is so people were suggesting? But the point is to the untrained eyes, somebody who doesn't know our personally. She looked and every at it and that's part of the story. So, if you're trying to judge how people received her or whether there, whether she was being judged as credible, unfortunately, that's part of the story I dont want that to be true, and I dont want anything bad to happen or any reputational problem to happen to this woman, who I consider a patriot, and I also don't care she had a couple of drinks- lunch

Cause she's got a really stressful, thinks she's doing she's, probably getting death threats and everything else. So if she needed a couple of drinks for lunch to finish your story, I don't have any probable that, but it is part of the story. The part of the story is that cheese. He left an impression which is part of the credit, only conversation. So I apologise if anybody things I was dumping honour, I have complete respect, for her. As a patriot, as somebody who's taking, you she's painting a target on her own back to do what she's doing so she sacrificing for the country for the country. There is nothing in it for her is all downside fur. In fact you could. This be a better example of the tall downside, her it's all downside, her pure patriot sake.

Preparation for the country. I love that woman. I love that woman, so she's my hero, worship, I've had a drink at lunch is just part of the story. There's no reason to ignore it and, as I was telling people who were criticising me for retweeting, that I'm not CNN Cnn, my ignore an uncomfortable, a part of the story, but I don't need to do that. I can tell you the whole story. I dont need to keep news away from you to protect you and the number of people who say that that's a misinterpretation, and that was just a personality, could be. I dont rule out the fact that she was just being her death

This will cut her break line. Somebody says: well, I don't know about that enough for now periscopes gone you ve got me for you. Ve got my full attention for a moment here. Somebody says I didn't love her hair Angelus, as I like to do. I like, like your hair, that's weird:

the same, but I was having the same the same impression. She was a very likeable character. Wouldn't you say, like you, you she's she sort of a lively interest in person. I am always amuse when random racists come into the common thing to say, is insanely raises stuff and act like a neck, like maybe other people in Gaza, yeah.

She doesn't seem credible to be somebody says you know what I'm gonna say it again, but I don't think you should take any individual story as as the credible one. I think you have to look at a measure as a group were you invite where you surprised the Democrats didn't get better persuasion advice. I was a little bit. It did seem to me that the Democrats did not have a professional persuade her working for their team, the less they didn't new as good a jobless time, but it didn't look like they had the same kind of talented Hilary at persuasion, mice.

Centre as of now- and I will talk to you tomorrow,.