uld love it to not be true but I have to act like it is true because the government is acting as if it's true as well.

Here's another one. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that our elections were rigged in the sense of vote counting. No evidence at all. However the fact that our elections are not fully auditable and there seems to be no interest by our government to make them fully auditable, my working assumption is that they're rigged or will be. They're either rigged or they will be. Now I don't have evidence of that. It's a working assumption under the context of a press that isn't dependable and a government that is obviously not working on a gigantic problem, completely ignoring it. The working assumption is that the elections are rigged or that they will be soon. Is that fair?

Again let me be as clear as possible. I don't have proof of it. If I said I had any kind of proof or even strong evidence that would be a lie. What I have is a working assumption based on living a life of you know who you trust and who you don't, sorting things into those buckets and saying well that's what it looks like. It's my working assumption.

All right, here's another one. The TikTok ban. So the country wanted to ban TikTok. It appeared that there were some bipartisan support. But instead of a simple bill that bans TikTok we got something called the Restrict Act from Senator Warner, I believe Democrat. But the Restrict Act is not targeted at TikTok. In fact I believe TikTok is not mentioned. Rather it gives broad powers to the government to determine if there is foreign influence in any of our communication, social media structure, and it can go after any of that foreign influence with the powers of the government.

Here's the problem. Why are they doing that? Who asked for that? Do you remember a big American uprising saying give the government more power over all our social media? When did that happen? No, there was a problem with TikTok, a specific TikTok problem. If the government is not working on the problem as clearly defined and instead is looking to increase its powers more generally, what would you assume? What's your working assumption?

My working assumption is it's a corrupt process and it's just a power grab and it's just political and has nothing to do with solving the country's risk. Nothing to do with it. Now is that true? I don't know. I have no idea. But it's my working assumption. It's a reasonable working assumption.

Here's what I say. I say that if you say something's true your enemies can say it's false. So don't do that. Don't say it's true when the other side just says well let's prove it. You can't prove it. Nope. Just say if anybody wants to change my mind it's pretty easy. Do you know how you can change my mind on TikTok? Produce a bill just about TikTok and then if you want you can also have a bill with this other restrict stuff in it and then let Congress vote on them separately. One to ban TikTok, which is what we all want, and one let's talk about it. Maybe they have an argument that I'm not aware of. On the surface it looks like a big mistake, just a power grab that the citizens aren't going to like in the long run. But I'd listen to it. I just don't want it combined with the thing that I want solved, which is TikTok.

See how easy it would be to change my working assumption with that little change? A little change, just a tiny little change. Just make a separate TikTok bill. I would say okay, it looks like the government's trying to protect me and they've got some ideas I didn't think of, so we better talk about those as well.

How could they prove me, how could they change my working assumption about fentanyl and the cartels already owning them? Simple. Just attack the cartels or announce that you're going to or get tough or close the border. Lots of stuff. There's probably five different things they could do to change my working assumption and none of them are hard or none of them are undoable.

All right, you get the idea. It's easy to change my working assumption. Don't claim things are true. Claim that your working assumption based on the facts can be changed. So you could basically put the burden of proof back on your accusers.

Here's the normal way it goes. I believe X is true. Then your Democrat critic usually says you don't have proof of that. There's no court that said that's true. Show me a link. Show me some evidence. Show me some data. There's no evidence. You're just off in Crazy Town.

But instead you say well the situation suggests that this is true. If you'd like to disprove it it's easy to do. I welcome you to disprove it. I'd love to know it's not true. So you want to put the burden of proof on the other side instead of having them put it on you. So stop the certainty and say well this is what it looks like. So that's my working assumption. If they'd like it not to look like that they know how. It's easy to make it look not like that. It's real easy. But they're not doing it. As long as people aren't doing the easy thing to solve the obvious problem you can have a working assumption that they're corrupt. You can. That's completely reasonable.

All right, let's talk about the Nashville shooting that I hate to talk about because it just makes more of them. But I guess this one has some details that made it interesting. As Tucker Carlson and other people have noted, apparently the shooter left a manifesto which one presumes is a complete explanation of motive. That's what a manifesto is, right? Yet it's not been released to the public and the officials who have seen it say they don't know the motive.

What's your working assumption? The working assumption, and this is the way Tucker handled it and I think that was correct, the working assumption has to be that they're hiding it from you for a reason. What would be a good working assumption of why they would hide it from you? Well I'll tell you the most obvious interpretation for which I have no proof. The obvious working assumption is that it was a trans person who was declaring war on possibly Christians.

Now do we have any direct evidence of that? Nope, nope. There's no direct evidence of that. In fact my first interpretation was it was just a school and I think it's very likely that will still be the final interpretation, that it was just a school. It wasn't about religion at all. But at the moment, given the lack of information about the manifesto, I think a good working assumption is that it was about Christianity and the news or the government doesn't want you to know that because it might just make things worse.

Now I'm