ng would be, it's going to sound conspiracy theorist-like to the people he's trying to persuade. So that's no good. Rather I would rather see him mock the January 6th thing the way we do, which is just ask this question: do you really believe the Republicans staged an insurrection and didn't take their weapons? Does anybody believe you can conquer a country by occupying a room? I mean just, he should just make it sound stupid because it is. It was just a show trial.

Now the things he says are stuff like show trial, it's political, but you're so used to hearing those types of things they don't really register. I'd rather say something that you don't hear, which is do Republicans try to overthrow a country without weapons? In what reality do you think that really happened? You know, we'll acknowledge that there were bad people there and they should be, you know, the law needs to take care of that. But really, really, you really believe the Republicans didn't bring guns to a coup? I think he should mock it away. He should mock it away. You should not even go for the too factual. Don't retry the public hearings. Just mock it away. It's like come on, who believes that really? And I think that makes the president.

All right. Here's my updated Ukraine prediction. The winter is going to be really good for Ukraine. Here's why. Number one, the Ukrainians will be wintering in their own country, meaning that I would imagine there would be plenty of locals who would keep the military warm and would be happy to do it, right? So there's always going to be an indoor place for the Ukrainian military. The Russians still, probably, confined to indoor places but you know it's a little harder. And if they clump up too much the Ukrainians will send the HIMARS in and take them all out. So it's a little bit, I think the Russians are going to have a little harder time over the winter.

But apparently, and I was anticipating this, if you give the Ukrainians extra time what happens? They get extra weapons, right? So Ukrainians have a good winter because there won't be much fighting so they won't be doing much losing. But apparently they just, they're going to take possession of like 50 Bradleys, which is a whole new level of effectiveness. If you've got 50 Bradleys, you know these fighting vehicles, and you send all 50 of them into a Russian-held territory, you get the territory back. Now I know I'm no military expert but that's just what the people who know what they're talking about say. If you send, you know, you create a force with 50 Bradleys against the Russian forces, they would recapture that territory. So now the Ukrainians are moving from defensive to offensive forces and they've got a few months to get all the stuff in place.

Now Russia also has the full winter to resupply. But where is Russia getting their resupply from? Mostly from Russia. So I've got a feeling that the Russians don't have as much to resupply like they would have already been using everything they had because they were not doing so well. So it seems to me that the advantage is going to wildly turn toward Ukraine as soon as the snow starts melting. Does anybody have a different prediction? Because I think, let me say it simpler: every day Ukraine gets stronger and every day Russia gets weaker because of sanctions and running out of stuff. So I believe that the winter is only good for the one who benefits from extra time. So it should be Ukraine.

Yeah, I don't think anybody thought that HIMARS were all that was needed. Admit that you are very unbalanced on Ukraine. Here's a perfect example. If I were on Twitter right now and just made that prediction, you would say to yourself but Scott you were so unbalanced. You just always say good things about Ukraine. Because that's all we've seen on Twitter. But on livestream somebody says but you're so unbalanced about Ukraine. I've also been right about everything except the invasion, which I was as wrong as you could be. Now the reason I was wrong about the invasion is that it looked obvious to me that it wouldn't work and I thought it would be obvious to Putin. Now apparently I was right about the part it not working. The best prediction on the Ukraine war after the worst one. So I had the worst prediction that they wouldn't go in, but it was based on the best prediction that if they went in they'd get their ass kicked, which is what happened.

So if you'd like more balance, allow me to have it. Here's some balance. Can we trust any of the information coming from Ukraine or Russia that would suggest who's winning? No, right? Does that sound balanced? That all of the information is non-credible. That helps, right? Because if you're saying why are you latching on to this information and acting like it's true, that's not happening. No, I'm presenting what's in the news and I'm doing what if it's true and if it's true this might happen. But the prediction about the winter is a straight observation that one group has unlimited sources, Ukraine. The other group has probably more limited sources. So the one with unlimited sources should do better if you have more time. Now that's pretty straightforward.

Now does that mean that Russia will be destroyed? No. Russia still has nuclear weapons. Russia has weapons they haven't used. Russia could decide that they're willing to take massive losses instead of what losses they've already taken that are big. So yes. And in war this is one of those things I always imagine I don't need to say but on livestream I'll say it and on Twitter I wouldn't. Because if you are characters, would you agree that nobody can predict war? Agree. So if I tell you wow it looks like Ukraine is going to win, that's in the context of nobody can predict the war. But we still predict. The reason I predict is that I predict everything I can so you can see if my predictions were at least reasonable even if they don't work. Because my pred