lose the next election? Of course they will. Do you think they'll believe it? Yes, yes I do. I do think they'll believe it. That's how it works.

So now am I wrong? Am I wrong that everything follows from that assumption? Am I missing anything? The entire understanding of that day has everything to do with what Trump secretly actually believed about the election. Because if he believed that it was rigged and he didn't do a thing about it, I wouldn't vote for him. Would you? I mean I don't vote anyway, but seriously, if he believed it had been rigged and he did nothing, didn't complain about it, just sort of slunk off to his retirement, he wouldn't be the person you thought you voted for the first time. And I'm not sure you'd want any president to be like that. I mean I want my president to say what he believes and to act on it.

And the Saturday defense, it wouldn't be an insanity defense because most Republicans believe there was some problem with the election. Now just to be clear so I don't get banned, I'm not aware of any proof of election irregularity at scale. I'm not aware of any. But would I be? I'm not sure I would be. Yeah, he told them to go down and peacefully protest. Now he did of course want Pence to delay things, and there are smart people who say that wasn't legal and you can't do that. And I guess that's the bipartisan bill that even Schumer is willing to say something about the electoral votes. You don't want to play with them after the election, and that's probably — I haven't looked at it but probably a good idea. I mean if it's bipartisan, probably a good idea.

All right. It was the most perfect election of all time. Well I've said many times that it's a miracle that all 50 of our election systems work perfectly, we are told, and yet every other organization and system that we know about is completely corrupt, which we know for sure. You don't have to wonder. We know that now. Is the FBI corrupt? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know that. There's no longer any question.

Have I complained too many times about how my critics like to come into my tweets and compare me to Garfield and other comics? And it's usually it looks like this: oh, the Garfield guy again, or here comes the Beetle Bailey guy to say something. And it took me a while to figure out that these were compliments. Their attempts at insults. But you know, do you see what they get wrong? It took me a while to notice. Why is it that it's an insult to call me Garfield? What makes that an insult? It makes it an insult because the person saying it believes that everybody who sees that understands that Garfield is a lesser good comic than Dilbert. Am I wrong? The reason they would call me these other cartoons, the whole point of it is they believe the other cartoons are of lesser quality. You know what? They don't call me Peanuts. They don't call me Calvin and Hobbes, although I have seen that but that's rare. Do you know why? Because my critics believe that those two comics are unambiguously better than Dilbert. So do I. Most people would agree with that. So they call me the lesser comics because the whole point of it is that they're not as good as my comic. And every time it happens now I'm thinking I feel like you just complimented me because this wouldn't even make sense. The entire point of the insult is that that other comic is a lower quality than mine. Yeah, Cathy, etc.

Now I'm not saying that they're lower quality. I'm saying that that's the whole point of people saying it, is that they believe they're lower quality. So thank you for the compliments. I appreciate it. Keep them coming.

Here are some things that I read about myself in the past week. So if you wonder, Scott, do you ever get much trouble online? Do you ever get bothered by things that people say to you online? Well, not that much. But here's some things I got called this week: a Holocaust denier. And it is alleged that I believe that rape is okay because it's natural. That's actually a widespread opinion about me on the internet, is a widespread opinion that I believe that rape's fine, it's just natural. Somebody actually thinks that was my opinion or is my opinion. Okay, fine.

And people also believe that I'm an anti-mask crusader who is secretly trying to get you to all wear masks. So at the same time that I'm one of the most notable critics of masks, spend a lot of time notably talking about not wearing masks and required masking places, trying to mobilize people to get rid of their masks, and so that makes me pro-mask. If they read my mind they can see that on the inside, even though on the outside I'm totally anti-mask. But on the inside they can see that because of the things I tweet. They can tell that even though I don't wear a mask because I'm so afraid that I'm really pro-mask.

There are books coming out, more books about Trump of course. And they're running out of insults. Every book that comes out about Trump, they've got to have a new thing, but they're running out of the good ones. So here's some new books, and it doesn't matter who wrote them, right? It doesn't matter at this point. It wouldn't matter if it's Maggie Haberman or somebody else, but these are somebody else. But they're in the news today. So one of the things is that Trump was way more serious about buying Greenland than you knew. He was actually really serious about buying Greenland, and he made an argument that it's sort of close to our domain and would be valuable to us and Denmark wasn't using it for much anyway. But apparently he actually negotiated with Denmark to some degree. He was actually trying to get it.

Now is that a criticism? Is it a criticism that Trump literally tried to buy Greenland? That feels like the opposite of a criticism. Don't they have valuable minerals? Isn't it geopolitically, geostrategically important? I mean that should have been framed as a compliment. Now the fact that it didn't happen, is that an insult or is that a criticism? No, it was a long shot. It was a long shot that cost him nothing except embarrassment, and he was willing to take the embarrassment for the potential of maybe having an upside that would be amazing. I mean again it looks like a criticism. That's more of a compliment. I want the president who does that.

All right, here's another one. Here's another criticism. They have to say — I don't know, is that really a criticism? One of the books claims that Trump was way more serious than you thought about withdrawing from NATO. Is that a criticism? What would be happening in Ukraine right now? Well I don't know, but it wouldn't be costing us money. I don't know, maybe Ukraine would have just rolled over and Putin would own Ukraine and we wouldn't have known the difference and we'd be getting our Ukrainian wheat and Europe would be getting their stuff and Ukraine's corrupt government would be put out of business and they would go back to sort of how things used to be where Russia dominated that country. Now that would be bad for the Ukrainians, I mean I guess they would say that. I don't know. But can we say that Trump was wrong about withdrawing from NATO based on what we know today? It's actually not obvious, is it? Y