said Trump did not mock a crippled man. Well Dick, let me tell you, Dick, you've never seen the compilation videos that show that Trump uses that same mocking impression for lots of different people. Were you aware of that, Dick? Dick, did you know that almost everybody who's watching this except you for some reason, Dick, you're the only person who hasn't seen the compilation video where he commonly uses that gesture? You're the only one.

And the problem is that I have a readability problem. That's why you concluded because of your ignorance, because your opinion was assigned to you by and you just adopted it. Oh, I think that's true. Some told me that's true. I guess it's true. So Dick, I would ban you but it's too much work to go find your comment. So but thank you for the entertainment, Dick.

Is it just a coincidence that all the people who are my trolls named Richard? That's weird.

There's a story about Jake Tapper of CNN. He says he won't book anyone on his show who has pushed the quote big lie about election fraud. To which many people asked, including me, is that a standard you're willing to use on everything? Because shouldn't you then ban people who told other big lies? Is there only one big lie that matters? There were no other big lies?

Can you think of anything, anything in the last several years that CNN has said that's not true? Well they did say that the president called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people over and over again. And we know that didn't happen. It was a Rupar video that made it look like it did. We know that CNN has said that the president suggested drinking bleach and we know that didn't happen because again that was a Rupar video, not a real one. They took out the context.

What about the koi fish hoax? What about the Russia collusion hoax? Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? How could you have the standard that liars can't be on the show if you have the standard that liars can't be on the show? It's just an empty set. There's nothing but liars on TV. I mean there's just nothing but liars. So it's a weird standing standard. And it takes a lot of guts. I mean you have to have guts to say that out loud or you have to think it's true, which would be something else. No thanks.

Okay, my devices just talk to me sometimes.

How about this? Apparently in London — this is one of the best ideas. You want to hear a good idea and one that could change the world? Have you ever worried about fake news? Of course you have. And what it's doing to us. It turns out that there's a solution to fake news potentially. I don't want to get ahead of myself but there might be a solution and it's not fact-checking. And I'll tell you this story and then we'll tie it into the fake news.

A London-based people's tribunal. So in other words there's no government involvement. This is just people who organized and they're organizing a public trial or a tribunal I guess called the Uyghur Tribunal. There's no state backing and any judgment they make would not be binding on anybody. But they'll basically have a public trial on whether China is committing genocide with the Uyghurs.

You see where I'm going with this? The only way I can imagine we will ever get past fake news is to have public trials for facts. Have a public trial on anything that's in the news that's accused of being a hoax. Let's have a trial. Let's have both sides show their case. We're putting on trial this fact. And now individuals can organize and they could turn it into entertainment. Would you watch a YouTube channel in which you saw major questions put on trial and they made it nice and tight and entertaining so it doesn't drag on for days and years like a real trial but it's just tight and it gives both sides and there's some back and forth and there's some kind of a judge, let's say a moderator judge who is more of a Judge Judy like a badass. I just said no that's not true or nope, if you don't have a link or a source for that it's not admitted. Just somebody really staying on top of the people.

Because right now the model is a TV host lets two people who disagree talk and make lies until time runs out. Right? Good. How good is that? They can talk until time runs out and you don't know who is right. Nobody checks their sources. Nothing. That's our current model.

It seems to me the only way around the stranglehold that the fake news organizations have is for the people to self-organize and self-organize around topics. So for example if somebody wanted to do the topic of is Israel an apartheid state or just defending themselves and just organize it, put it out there, make it content. I'd buy it. Keep it tight. Maybe you want to keep it 45 minutes, no longer, because that's all it would take. But well somebody said I should do it but I'm thinking now it should be organized by topic rather than a person organizing a bunch of them because I don't know that anybody cares enough to organize a bunch of stuff. But you might find somebody who cares enough to organize about a topic like the Uyghurs.

So I'm going to be watching this Uyghur tribunal to see if this is maybe a model to beat the fake news.

Do you remember, speaking of experts, here's an expert opinion I haven't heard criticized yet. Do you remember early on in the pandemic when Trump said we're going to work on a vaccination? What did all the smart people say? Didn't all the smart people say first of all it would take too long but there's another thing the smart people said and they all said it. And I have to admit I was fooled by it. So I'm going to admit I was wrong about this. Those of you who say Scott you never admit when you're wrong, well here's one, okay? So add this to your list of something I'm telling you I got wrong. So the next time you come and say give that back, so you never say you're wrong. The list is growing because everybody gets stuff wrong, right? Like I would never claim I don't get things wrong. I get plenty of stuff wrong. I'm just trying to get more right than wrong. That's the best you can do.

But here's the thing. In the beginning the e