w this is the headline as you would click it on their website to get to the story. So on the front page it says this: Observers find massive security problems with Arizona audit. Now if you saw the headline on CNN, "Observers find massive security problems with Arizona audit," what do you expect that the story would include? Massive security problems with the Arizona audit.

Well, here are the details. Once you find them, you have to sort of dig down to get the details. One person had a cell phone inside the audit. It was one of the people in charge. So one person had a cell phone. So that's a major problem I guess. Some people had black and blue pens, which is a problem because then they could fraudulently mark ballots. But it's also all on video, right? Like everything that's happening during the audit is on video. If somebody picked up one of those black or blue pens and started marking ballots, I think it's right there on video.

Then the other major problem was there was one door unattended. One unattended door, okay. And then also some observers or the observers were made to wear pink shirts, which caused them to be teased by other and mocked by other people there. So those were your massive security problems. Those are massive. That's it. Headline does not match the article.

Here's a scary thought. The news is telling us today that people who are on immunosuppressants, which apparently could be 60 million Americans, it doesn't — it makes the vaccination not work. What, 60 million Americans might have a vaccination that didn't work at all? And when I say didn't work, the suspicion is worked zero, as in didn't give you any immunity, as in no immunity could be detected after you got the vaccination.

Now so far it's anecdotal, meaning that there's not a big study proving it. There are some anecdotes. But oh my god, if this is true. Oh my god. And here's my question, which I didn't see in the story. If these immunosuppressants make the vaccine not work, could they make you more susceptible to COVID itself? Or is it just unrelated? Okay, so that's my question of the day. Would the immunosuppressants make an individual more likely to die from COVID? Feels like it would, right? Feels like it would.

So if America had 60 million people on immunosuppressants, how many of them are the ones that died? Because I didn't even hear this being part of a comorbidity unless the reason you have an immunosuppressant is because you have a comorbidity and that was on the list. But I don't think so. I don't remember seeing it in the top five whatever it is that you take these drugs for. So this is potentially a gigantic problem, but I think this is a wait and see. We'll see if it is.

Now I've told you before that our opinions on politics are assigned to us. We think we're making up our own minds, but not even close. You're definitely getting an assigned opinion. And you can see this when there's a question that doesn't have much of a political element to it, but we forced the politics onto it. Now the pandemic did that a lot. Why in the world would there be different opinions on a pandemic that would line up by political party? Does that make any sense? In what world does pandemic science information, correct or incorrect, in what world is that political? Well, in a world in which your opinions are assigned to you, not in a world in which you make up your own mind. But we don't live in that world.

So here's Rasmussen, who did some questions that really point this out. Here one question was, was the January 6 riot at the Capitol the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War? 76 percent of Democrats said yes. 26 of Republicans said yes. Weren't we watching the same news? It's all the same news, right? We watched the same news. Everybody has access to the same information. So why is it 76 of Democrats but only 26 percent of GOP?

And I've told you that you can get a quarter of the people to say any damn thing. So saying that a quarter of the people believe X means no people believe X except people who didn't understand the question or something. So once you get down to 25 percent, that's like zero because they're the ones not paying attention.

This could not be more clear. It could not be more clear that these opinions were assigned. These are assigned opinions. These are not independent opinions.

Here's another one. Were the summer of 2020 disturbances in the U.S. mostly peaceful protests or riots? 69 percent of Republicans say riots. Only 32 percent of Democrats say riots. Are we watching the same news? Why is a riot political? If a store burns down, it burned down. It's not Republican fire or Democrat fire. There should be nothing, there should be absolutely nothing political in these stories. And yet because our opinions are assigned to us, it's hyper-political. Hyper-political.

Now is this convincing to you? Because you're also in the category of somebody who got an assigned opinion. But can you see it? I'm interested because the comments are a little ambiguous right now. Watching your comments, can you see this? Is it obvious to you that humans are not making up their own opinions on stuff like this? I'm just interested if you can see it or it feels like hyperbole to you.

All right, I'm seeing some yeses. So you can see it, but you don't think it happened to you, right? It feels like this is just something happening to Democrats until you realize it's happening to you. You're not really free. You don't get to go to the next level.

Here's how you can be at least a little bit — I wouldn't say confident, but a little bit safer that you have something closer to an independent opinion. And that would be, do you sometimes disagree with your own party on something? Is there any situation where 75 of the people in your political party say one thing and you disagree with them? If there are a few of those examples, you might not be having your opinion assigned to you. You might be actually coming up with your own opinions. I think those people exist, but they're by far rare.

All right, so if you haven't disagreed with your own team, you're probably just having assigned opinions. And there's nothing else to say about it.

So there's a new force of evil in the world. Just about the most evil thing I've seen since the Lincoln Project. It's a new PAC. It's called the Strike Back. It looks like their deal is to make anti-Republican commercials. And they did one that says retweet, retweet if you're sick and tired of the GOP assault on democracy and are ready to fight back. And that's filled with misleading imagery equating the Capitol protests with literal Nazis and Hitler.

But the worst part, the part that just made me fly into a rage, was they take out of context Laura Ingraham — and Graham I never can pronounce your name right. I apologize because I think Laura watches the show sometimes. So I apologize. For some reason there are some kinds of names that no matter how many times I hear them, my brain can't process them. So it has nothing to do with anybody personally. There's just some names I can't handle. I don't know why.

But they showed a picture of her, and I'm not going to do an impression of it, but she was extending an arm and it looked like she was just waving to the crowd on some stage event where she was on stage. And they interspersed her with her extended arm with Nazi imagery. And when you see them trying to make the case very strongly, they were making the case that Republicans are basically just Nazis with no subtlety to it. Republicans are Nazis. That's the whole deal.

And I say to myself, why does Twitter allow that? Because that's the most hate speech you'll ever see. That literally a group of people are Nazis. Now do the social networks have some kind of an exception for Nazi allusions or comparisons? Because it seems to me that anything that was somewhat this bad would be banned in any other context. This would be banned. Why is it okay to call the GOP Nazis but they can't question the legitimacy of an election? They can't talk about other medical hypotheses just because they're unproven. They can't. But you can run this on Twitter comparing people to Nazis who just aren't.

So Richard, who I'll call Dick Scott, has no readability. He