about that.

All right. Biden has a little trap that he set for himself, which is he's branded himself the pro-science president. So if he does anything that's not pro-science he's got a little extra explaining to do. Ah, good coffee. And so every time there's any inconsistency either in logic or math or science it's going to be fun to criticize.

And by the way, everybody who told me, Scott, why are you so sad that Trump lost? And I would look at them and say, well I preferred that he win but do I look sad? Because I don't feel sad. I feel as though criticizing Biden will just be like this wonderful, like a wonderful delicious meal that I can have every day. Now the country is in bad shape, you know, maybe we'll see. But you know we'll give them a chance but it doesn't look good so far. I mean Biden has the worst first weeks or first start of any president I've ever seen. But I could be biased. Let's give him a chance. We'll see.

But here's my question. The Democrats have taken the following view which I would argue is maybe not scientifically valid, which is that the absence of proof of election fraud is proof of absence of fraud. Now you know that's not logical, right? Just because you did not prove something happened is not proof it didn't happen because there are lots of things you can't prove happened that did in fact happen.

So the Democrats have sold this to the public through their clowns in the media that that actually makes sense. Because they're not saying, hey we don't know if there's fraud but you haven't proved it, which actually would be a fair thing to say. The fair thing to say, it would be fair to say you have not proven it to enough people's satisfaction. That's fair. But can you logically go to therefore it's proven it doesn't exist? No you can't. That is a famous illogical thing which the public has accepted.

The public has accepted a logical fallacy, one of the most famous