l of your questions.

As written, the current compromise version — this is one Manchin put together — of the bill would establish national rules for running elections. Sounds good. Limit partisanship in the drawing of congressional districts. Looks good. Looks good. And forced the disclosure of many anonymous donors who spend big to influence elections. I like that. Pretty good. Pretty good. Other provisions were aimed at alleviating concerns from local election officials who worried that the original bill would have been too difficult to implement. Okay, so they simplified it. Good. And some new additions were aimed at insulating non-partisan — I don't know what that means — blah blah blah. It also included a number of changes sought by Manchin, blah blah blah, including a provision that would limit but not prohibit state voter ID requirements.

Do you think you know enough about the bill now to have an opinion? No. No, not even close. Basically CNN's just sort of brushing the top of it. They might as well have named the parts of the bill "awesome things that everybody loves." How would you like a bill? We're going to fill it with awesome things that everyone loves. Oh, don't ask the details. No, don't ask about the details. Don't ask how it will be implemented, what the cost of it is, what the side effects will be, and how it will distort anything. Don't ask that. It's just called the awesome bill that everybody loves with things in it that you want. That's all you need to know. Don't give us all these details about what's good or bad about it or all that. It's just the awesome bill that everybody loves, and then Democrats can get everything they want.

So there is a reason that our system is a republic. Do you remember what it was? Anybody? Anybody? Why is our system a republic and not a pure democracy? This, this, this is why. Because the public can't understand this stuff. So if our elected officials go in there, you know, they have a better chance of understanding it. That doesn't work so well either, but yeah, there's a reason we're a republic.

Did you see the video of Jamie Raskin, Democrat, interrogating Republican Matt Gaetz about the January 6th stuff? It's a pretty good clip. So if you get a chance, I think I tweeted it today. So Raskin is really going hard at Matt Gaetz, challenging him to — does he believe that Trump won the election or not? Now to his credit, Matt Gaetz is — I don't know if you know this, but he was a, I think he was like a state champion on his high school debate team. I may have the detail of that wrong, but something like that. Like Matt Gaetz is super good at debating things and holding his own in exactly this kind of situation.

However, I think he blew his chance on this. He did better than most, probably a top five percent answer. Better than most, yeah. And certainly showed that he has the chops to be in that situation. But I feel like — here's how I would have answered it. Okay, so Raskin, I'm going to paraphrase the thing, but essentially Raskin was saying, you know, all these courts rejected the evidence, so how can you say that maybe the election wasn't fair when so many courts rejected all the evidence?

Now what Matt Gaetz tried to do was suggest that courts are not the right tool for evaluating the claims because most of them were rejected on grounds of, you know, whether it was an appropriate — what's the right name? Appropriate — whether the courts were the right vehicle for the complaint. What's the word? Standing. Yes, standing. So the complaints did not meet the legal standard for standing, meaning that it wasn't the right people taking the right to complain to the right court. Is that close enough? It wasn't the right people taking the right kind of complaint to the right court. So we never had a situation where the right people took the right complaint to the right court. Although sometimes I think they did. But in general a lot of things were rejected by standing.

So Matt Gaetz tries to give that answer. How was that answer? True. So Matt Gaetz's answer was accurate and right on point. Also a complete failure persuasion-wise. So being accurate and being right on point and being confident and all the things he did right — because he did a lot right, not even close to being good enough. Here's what good enough would look like. You ready? Put me in Matt Gaetz's chair.

Jamie Raskin says, you know, Scott Adams, that no court — and he lists the number of courts and the number of claims and if they've all been turned down. He said, what do you think about that, Scott? No court. No court. Here's the right answer. I'd like to understand your question better, Mr. Raskin. There seems to be an embedded assumption in your question. I just need a clarification. Can I get a clarif