ou seem so confused by the hoaxes. I'm sorry Fortune did that to you.

All right, let's talk about all the news. Apparently President Biden visited Ukraine. Obviously the reason he visited Ukraine, I don't have to fill in the blanks, do I? It's safer than being in Ohio. I think the Secret Service said, look, you can either go to Ohio or you can go to the middle of a war zone. Which do you choose? Oh, that war zone's looking good.

So it seems like he's going to the safest place on Earth, Kiev.

I would like to agree with one of my critics, if I might: Jimmy Dore, who I have disagreed with in the past. I think he was one of the people who got fooled by the forged handshake hoax about me, but that's a different issue. Lately he's been, well not lately but he's getting more press lately, about talking out about the Ukraine-Russia conflict. And his take is that the entire war is just a United States money grab, that the military industrial complex wants a continuous war so they just have one whenever they need some extra money. And on top of that, it's always about, it's always a case of, we always seem to attack places that have an energy conflict with us. Just a coincidence. We always seem to be going after the places that have some big energy-related business. Just a big old coincidence, isn't it?

Now you can certainly make the argument that there's some big geopolitical reason for everything we're doing, but why does it always correspond with "follow the money"? Why does "follow the money" perfectly predict everything? Well, there are all these other reasons we're doing it, huh?

So I'm going to be a hundred percent on the Jimmy Dore side on this. And I also believe it could be negotiated. What do you think? Do you think we're at a point where we could negotiate the end of the war? We could, but it would require making Ukraine unhappy. So I don't know if we have the ability to do that. But yeah, it's completely negotiable.

Here's a sign of the times I would like to note today. Actually yesterday, yeah yesterday is the day that this happened. So remember this day. Yesterday was the day I tweeted a video of Antony Blinken and asked people if they could tell if it was a deepfake or real. And the answers were about 50-50.

It was real, as far as I know. As far as I know, I took it from the news, so it was just a news report, right? I just took my camera up to the TV because while I was watching it I said to myself, the stiffness with which he's talking makes him indistinguishable from a deepfake. And so people were analyzing the video and saying, oh yeah it's definitely a deepfake, and they would give their reasons. For example, there was this weird thing where his shirt seemed to be tucking under his coat while he talked. That didn't look like it was real. And yeah, there were plenty of tells that it was fake. But it wasn't, as far as I know.

So yesterday was the day that the actual public couldn't tell the difference between a real person and a fake in the real world. Every other test, as far as I know, has been just a random thing: can you tell, blah blah. So you could always tell what was fake just by the context. But as soon as I took away the context, you couldn't tell. Not you specifically, but about half of the people just couldn't tell. Just remember that that happened yesterday. That changes everything. That's the last time you can believe a video. The last time you can believe a video. Although I would argue that the news has been distorting videos by editing them selectively forever, so maybe it's not that different after all.

Mexico's president is trying to nationalize Mexico's lithium mining business. What do you think of that? And why? Mexico's president is trying to nationalize their lithium business. Doesn't that mean giving it to the cartels? I mean, I hate to be cynical, but isn't the government of Mexico basically working for the cartels as far as we know? I mean, our current understanding of Mexico is that the cartels just took over a vital mineral that the United States needs for its economic survival. A little bit of hyperbole there, I know. The argument for going in militarily just keeps improving. Just keeps improving. So we got that going on.

And here's something else. I believe that Trump could negotiate with the cartels. He's the only person in the world who could do it. He could actually ask for a meeting with the heads of the cartels. Trump could do that. And then he could say, here's the deal: I'm going to kill all of you unless you want to figure some way to work your way into the productive part of the economy. Because remember, the United States had its own robber barons in our early days, right? You know, the people who built the railroads and stuff. They were basically just flat-out criminals. But once they get rich enough, sort of like the mafia in Las Vegas, you know the mafia settled Las Vegas but then they made a ton of money. It's kind of easier just to be a legitimate business after that. It's just easier. You don't have to hide anything.

So it seems to me that Trump is the only person in the world, if he were president and if he wanted to, he could actually call the heads of the cartel into a meeting. I mean it might have to be on Zoom, but he could actually have a meeting and he could say, here's the deal. You've got two choices. You work with us to turn your massive operation into something that's a legal business, or we kill all of you and it's going to happen by the end of the year.

Now I don't know that that would make any difference, but I know everything else we're doing is not working. I feel like they might take the offer because even if individuals are brave, all their family would be killed. Now the other way you could play it is this: here are the, I don't know, three biggest cartels, whatever is the number. If you don't agree to all simultaneously step down, I'm gonna arm one of you against the others and I'm going to make sure there's only one cartel in a year because I'll make sure that we help one of the cartels take over the others. And then I'll negotiate with the one that's left.

So that's your other path. I'll make sure there's only one left and then I'll just negotiate with that one. Or you could agree now. But there's only going to be one left and then we'll negotiate again. If I can't get a deal with one left, then it's going to go to zero. But those are your only options, right? You're either going to disappear or you get a deal.

I don't know if you imagine I'm thinking that it's likely to work. That would be incorrect. Everything's a long shot. But he's the only one who could try that shot, right? It's the one thing we haven't tried. There's only one person who could try it. So we'll see. I would be just as happy as if they were all killed. Happier, actually.

So Trump is provoking again. He truth a statement. I'll just paraphrase it. Basically Trump was complaining when some third-rate reporter, as he says, asked him a question about trusting Putin. And he had said in public that he trusted him. Now you shouldn't believe that. That's just what you say when Putin's standing next to you and you're trying to get a deal. That's just why you say it in public. Anybody who is dumb enough to think that Trump actually trusted Putin, that would be a pretty bad interpretation. He said it in public, but why would that be the one thing you believe? And of all the things he says that are clearly hyperbole or bending the truth, why would that be the one you believed?

But anyway, he pointed out that our own U.S. intelligence service, and he named James Clapper and Brennan and McCabe and his girlfriend Lisa, as Trump likes to say. And so Trump actually said that our own intel organizations are less trustworthy than Putin. Do you think that caused anybody to be triggered into TDS?

Now he's been sort of laying low relative to his usual for a few years. Have we already forgotten how he talks? Did we forget how he talks? All the time he's just driving a tremendous amount of energy to himself where people argue whether he genuinely means that we should trust our own intel organizations less than Putin. By the way, I would trust them less than Putin. I can say that because the ones he named are absolutely criminal. Well, not criminal. They did things which I wish were illegal enough for them to go to jail, but probably not. Probably not. I wish it were illegal. I guess it isn't.

But here's my take. Putin might lie 90% of the time. That still makes him competitive with our own intelligence agencies. If Putin lied 90% of the time I'd say, oh that looks about the same, similar. You know, maybe it's 80 versus 90. I don't know. I can't slice it that finely. But absolutely our own intelligence agencies are traitors and should be criminals, but probably are not. And that's just Trump being Trump.

And then a lot of people were like, oh false equivalency and all that. Like that's exactly what he wants you to do. He wants you to get all excited about how wrong it is and it's so wrong that you would say that. And then he draws all the energy to himself and gets all this free press. And then people start going, well yeah, you got a little bit of a point there.

Would you like to hear about me losing a debate on Twitter like a dog? I already teased the people on Locals that I would do this because I know you like it when I just get my ass kicked. All right, so here's me getting my ass kicked on Twitter.

So Twitter user Jeff, whose Twitter account is, damn it I wrote it down here somewhere. You don't want to give him credit. I wonder if my note-taking is terrible. All right, what the hell is wrong with me? I'm sure I wrote that down. All right, well Jeff, I'll give you credit later but I can't find your Twitter account. So Jeff, I think he's a DeSantis supporter. I'm not sure of his full background.

So Jeff tweeted the Trump injecting disinfectant slash bleach hoax, which apparently he believed was true. And so I spent a little time debunking the hoax. Now so far I'm doing well, right? Because if you've seen me debunk the drinking bleach hoax, you know that the debunk is 100% clean. It's a really good debunk. It was a real technology that was being tested. The quote from Trump was edited. If you see the full thing, he's talking about light. Light was really being tested inside the body, injected inside into the trachea. And so it's easy to debunk it.

So then I thought, well winner. I have debunked the heck out of that. So I was feeling good about myself. Then I noticed Jeff had a Spaces. He was doing a Spaces thing for Trump supporters to come in and try to make their case. And I turned it on just because I thought it might get mentioned because I just got done debating them online. And I hear Jeff say that if you have to explain what your leader said, do I have to finish? If you have to explain what your leader said, not just once, this isn't the one time. I just got done doing it a second time. I literally just got done doing it.

Now I get that the media distorts him, but why doesn't DeSantis have that problem? Why not? It's obviously Trump, right? He speaks in a way that is provocative. And I'm not sure he needs to at the moment. It definitely helped him in the first election. At the moment I'm not sure it's helping him.

And so Jeff, I accept my defeat. You're right. If I have to spend more of my time explaining what Trump said four years ago, that's on him. That's on Trump. Trump could have easily explained the injecting bleach thing by saying, oh is it real technology? If you look at the full quote I was talking about light. How easy would that have been? Pretty easy. Instead he tried to make it sound like he was doing sarcasm at the time, which was ridiculous. Nobody believed that. And so this is a complete shoot-yourself-in-the-foot kind of thing.

And so Jeff, you win. If I have to keep explaining what Trump meant, that's the, you win. There's nothing I can say to that. You win. That by the way was a sincere, sincere loss of a debate. Although I was right on the bleach stuff.

How many of you believe it's impossible that Biden could have gotten, what was it, 80 million or 81 million votes? How many of you believe that's a good skeptical thing to say? There's no way he could have gotten way more votes than Obama. Do you think that's a good point? Yeah, that's not really a good point.

See, if you count just the population increase in the country, everybody gets more votes. It's four years later. The country actually is a bigger country in four years. Secondly, it was the whole ballot voting at home thing. The voting at home thing could explain all of it. Now there's a secondary question of whether that was done legally and copacetically. That's a good separate question. But there's no conflict with the fact that he got that many votes. I'm not saying the election was clean or not clean. I'm not even talking about that. I'm just saying that if that's your reason for thinking it was rigged, I don't think that holds up. I just don't think that holds up.

I do think, and I'll think this to my death, that you can't tell if an election is rigged because we don't have a way to audit all of it. It's not all transparent, so you can't tell. Do you remember early in the questioning of the 2020 election, do you remember what I cautioned? I cautioned you that whether or not anything is ever discovered about the election being not right, I told you that no matter what you find out, 95% of all the election rigging claims will be BS. Do you remember that? I said even if they find 5% that's true, and even if that 5% actually changed the election, that 95% of everything you hear would just be BS.

How was that prediction? That was a pretty good prediction, wasn't it? Because we're sitting here in 2023. As far as I know, nothing conclusive has been found for voter fraud. Am I right? Now I would argue that it's unprovable, but it's also been not proven that there's fraud of any substance. Yeah, you could argue that nobody looked in the right places, etc. But everywhere they did look, and they looked at a lot of places, everywhere they did look they didn't find anything. Doesn't mean there's nothing there. That was just my prediction. Pretty close. But I wouldn't repeat the 80 million thing. I don't think that holds up. That doesn't seem like a strong point.

President's Day poll. Rasmussen did a poll to find out who was the best and worst presidents of the last five presidents. And you would not be surprised that Trump wins for best president and worst president. So we're just talking about Bill Clinton, Biden, Trump, George Bush, and Obama. So the last five. Of those, Trump is the most. He got the most votes, 3