ar all the smoke we found is nothing but boy there's a lot of smoke.

Am I selling my point? I don't know that this is what's going on but it looks like they sold the opposite of what they were selling right? At least at least you have to throw my hypothesis into the mix. At the very least it's a high possibility that this worked just the way it should have worked if you had asked me what would be the likely outcome of this and somehow you could describe it to me before it happened I would have said whoa I don't know if you want to spend so much time talking about the thing you said didn't happen, right?

Why does Russia collusion persist? Russia collusion persists in the minds of Democrats not because they followed the case and found that it wasn't true. They still believe it because they heard it so many times. That's it. If you say Russia collusion enough times it doesn't matter if the outcome was there was none. It matters that you heard it a lot. So why would that be any different? The Democrats are basically a herding machine. You say the same thing over and over again and they just hear it, right? So the problem with the allegations of the election rigging are that the people making the allegations were the Republicans. If the situation was that the allegations were being made by the Democrats then giving attention to the allegations even if they're false is a good play because you're just giving attention to the thing you want to give attention to. They made a big mistake by giving attention to a Republican claim. So you can't talk about it being false without talking about it. They claim the election is rigged. They claim the election is rigged. They claim the election is rigged. I think they convinced their own base that the election was rigged. Yeah it's directly from my book right? I mean what I'm saying now is from my book on the same topic. It's not like I made it up now to fit the facts to it or something. I've been saying this for a long time. It's a well-known concept, right? Nothing new here.

All right I love CNN's the way they gaslight with words. So they've been saying that Republicans claim 2020 was rigged and then they used this phrase "despite the lack of evidence." Do you think that's a true statement that their claim is the election that people are saying the election in 2020 was rigged quote "despite the lack of evidence"? Well it turns out that the word evidence can be used in two ways. I had to check just to be sure. One way is that evidence is used sort of interchangeably with proof. That's one definition. And in that case the evidence is not really evidence like it's not actual evidence unless it actually supports the truth. So by that definition it wouldn't be evidence if it was just misleading. So misleading evidence wouldn't be evidence. It would just be something misleading by that definition. So they can use evidence and proof sort of interchangeably and the English language allows them to do that.

Do you know what else the English language allows you to do? It allows you to treat the word evidence as not being proof. So the word could go either way. Evidence can mean proof or lack of proof when they say no evidence or it could mean the opposite. And since the public can't tell the difference they can get away with that. But they've stretched that somewhere. They've stretched it to "despite the lack of evidence." So that part they get away with because of the gray area of the word evidence. But then they go all the way to this: despite that Trump continues to push the quote "falsehood" that the election was stolen. He's pushing the falsehood. Falsehood. How do you know something's false? Because you proved it. That's not a thing. All you know is you don't have proof that it's true. There's no proof. It's not a falsehood. So when CNN labels this a falsehood that's just a lie. It's just a lie. It's a lie that could be true because nobody knows because we don't have an auditable fully auditable system. But yeah it's like they do these little word tricks just to move you from a gray area word "evidence" that could be taken either way all the way to "falsehood" that can't be taken either way. So you see the verbal trickery where they can get you from a maybe word to a definite word and make you not notice the difference. It's very clever.

All right here's a question that also might get to why the Democrats are maybe having little differences of agreement about January 6. And let me put this out there. Democrats don't like Republicans. Are you with me so far? Generally speaking Democrats are not lovers of Republicans in sort of a general way. Lots of exceptions. And wouldn't you say that Democrats are always looking for the worst spin to put on whatever Republicans are doing and vice versa. Republicans are looking at the worst spin to put the Democrats in. That's our general situation, right?

But let me ask you this. Do you think there are any Democrats who are under the impression that any Republicans are not patriots? You think even if their Democrats don't like Republicans do you think that they believe that they're not patriots? I don't think so. I think that they think that Republicans are dumb. They think Republicans are anti-science. They think Republicans are immoral for various reasons whatever. That's all true. But do you think that anybody like even one, even one, do you think there's even one Democrat anywhere who believes that Republicans are not patriots meaning that they're country first? I don't think so, right? I think they now you see rhetoric that says that they don't but I think that's just Twitter rhetoric, right? That's just trolls. The average Democrat does believe that the average Republican cares about the constitution even more than self sometimes.

So how does the average Democrat explain all of these patriots marching on January 6? It's a little hard to explain to yourself isn't it? Because no matter what they think about these people you have to go pretty far into crazy land to imagine that they're not patriots at least in terms of their internal thinking. They could be wrong. They could be patriots with bad information. They could be patriots within the group. Some of them criminal. That's all possible. But I don't think there's any Democrat who really believes like in a private moment, do you think there's any Democrat like a serious person not a troll but a serious person who thinks that the Republicans are not patriots at the base? Yeah somebody said Bill Maher believes that. I don't know. You think he does? I don't know what he said but I'll bet if you talk to him privately you say all right Bill do you seriously think that Republicans in general are not really patriot oriented like protect the constitution? I don't think they think that.

So I think there's something that's bugging Democrats that's unspoken and I think that something is they know they're being gaslit but they don't know exactly what's going on. I feel like Democrats have to have some suspicion that the most basic thing about Republicans that they're patriots first seems to be opposite of what the January 6 hearings are trying to present. And I don't know how they can't notice that. You could notice a lot of things but you couldn't notice that.

Now I didn't ask my quote Democrat friend who I often mention. I did not ask him that question because it didn't occur to me until recently because I you know one of the things I wanted to do was make a list of things you would have to believe in order to agree with your own team and it could work for both Democrats and Republicans. So one of the things you would have to believe to believe the January 6 situation is you would have to believe that our elections are both transparent, fully auditable, and that we can do it somewhat instantly. Am I right? You would have to believe that. Otherwise asking for more information about the audit would make perfect sense. It wouldn't look like any kind of a crime unless you thought it had already been done or could easily be done and or you know that sort of thing.

But here's another thing. In order for you to believe the January 6 narrative as a Democrat you would have to believe that Republicans are only fake patriots. That they're only pretending to be patriots but what they really want is their dictator in power. That you'd have to believe that in order to believe any of the narrative. Because what I believe is that there's not a Republican alive who would have let Trump stay in office if he had lost. That's what I believe. Now that's an exaggeration. There would always be some lawyer or something who says yeah stay there. There would always be somebody. But let me back that up to less of an absolute because it just makes people crazy when I talk in absolutes and probably should. I try to avoid it. Yeah I just think Democrats probably are noticing that there's something fishy about the January 6 thing probably.

All right so unless something changes your future looks like this. Trump wins the election and the Democrats throw away everything they believed or they say they believe right now and they say these elections we'd better fix these because they don't look reliable now. Now of course what they're going to say is that the vote was suppressed and I'm sure that'll be the thing. They're finally waking up maybe a little bit.

All right am I wrong that all the news looks good? So the stock market was up yesterday. I think the futures were down so it's probably down today. So mark it down. Let's take a look. The market is yeah it's almost flat. Some up some down kind of flat.

Something happened with Tesla. Cartoonist says Biden getting COVID is good news. That's more like a nothing news. Scott are you buying crypto? No no no I'm not a crypto investor. I'm a crypto diversifier. Slight difference, right? You could argue that's not different but I would never invest in a crypto. I would only hold some of the big ones just in case you know a little bit in your portfolio just in case you never know in case civilization falls apart you just gotta have a Bitcoin for something.

Your dad grew up with Biden and never heard of the oil on the windshield. Biden's hair sniffing finally caught up with him. He got COVID. He caught COVID from a little girl's hair. Tesla valuation way off the mark. I don't know what that means. If you have to look at your stock every day then you shouldn't have it. That's a good rule. My rule is I look at my stocks every day the market is up and every day the market is down I don't look at them because looking at it is only made to make you feel good or bad. It doesn't have an investment purpose, right? That which be this is the point. The point is you should buy them and hold them. So when I look at them it's just purely for psychological gain. So when they're up I look at them. When they're down I don't look at them. That's my advice. Yeah look at it from the entertainment value. Exactly that's perfectly good.

Oh Bill Gates shorting Tesla. So Bill Gates shorted Tesla. What? So what? I don't know. Does that tell me anything? Aren't there a lot of people shorting Tesla? I think that's not like an obscure position.

They have some. The US Open confirms Novak can't play