nes that people have always had? They want their side to win. They want good jobs and power. And it's all obvious. So when you're looking at the blob or the Deep State and you've got a conspiracy theory about hey I think the intel people are working with the media and the media might be working with the Democrats, that's all observable. It's not only directly observable, proven in documents and leaks and whistleblowers and everything. So you've got tons of direct evidence. But it also completely fits the greed and selfishness model that explains all human activity forever.

But if you tell me there's somebody sitting in a room who wants you to eat bugs and drink soy milk unless they're making money from bugs and soy milk, no, that's not happening. Anyway that's my opinion. But I do think climate is a scam.

All right. Gavin Newsom and DeSantis had a debate. Hannity was the moderator. I tried to watch it. Let me tell you when I bailed out. DeSantis says hey can you explain why everybody keeps moving out of California and moving to my state in Florida? So therefore I'm the winner because the people are voting with their feet. The people in your state, they're all, it's the most U-Hauls they've ever used. They're all coming to Florida. And what does Newsom say to that? Newsom says no they're not. They're moving from Florida to California. That's when I turned it off because I realized that it was the format. This problem, how many times have I told you it? If somebody can win a debate by saying something absolutely ridiculous because half of the public doesn't have access to the news, they only have access to propaganda, DeSantis could lie all day long and Republicans would think what they thought of him all along. It wouldn't change. And Democrats would say hey that was pretty brave. He went into the lion's den and roughed up DeSantis. Good job. Newsom totally won. Newsom totally won. Did he say anything that was true? Probably not. Did DeSantis do a better job of making arguments based on facts? Probably did. That help him? No, didn't make any difference.

Read the reviews. It's like it's the exact thing you'd expect, right? Democrats they knew someone. Republicans maybe they like DeSantis more. But now as long as Newsom can just deny reality and nobody knows the difference on his team, he wins. He wins. So Newsom won hands down simply by showing up and smiling and lying and doing his thing.

But what else do we learn about this? DeSantis says that Gavin Newsom's own father-in-law fled from California to live in Florida. Now that's kind of a funny gotcha but it doesn't win you any debates because as a human being you listen to that story and you say to yourself okay there could be a lot of reasons for that. It's not exactly a kill shot. It's fun. You might remember it but it's not really a kill shot.

And then I guess Newsom said his lockdowns were great and he saved lives. And the trouble with that, and of course nobody on the right believes that. They think it's the opposite. Everything he did killed people and ruined children and all that. But debates are worthless. This could not have been more worthless because you never get to fact check anything. I've said it a million times. Somebody's going to create a debate show in which the fact checkers are part of the debate and each team has their own and the host has their own. So that if a fact comes up instead of this where you can just claim it's true and run out the clock, you stop. You say all right there's a fact check and then they both show their sources and then maybe the moderator says all right I'm going to rule that neither of them are reliable or it's a jump ball so make your own decision at home. Or one of these is just wrong. Now one of them just lied. Now that's a debate I'd watch all day long even if it took longer because you could do it live when it's a little slow because it slows down with the false claims. But then when you edit it together you just fast forward with the fact checking to get to the end of it and that would be great. Imagine a fast forward through all the fact checking but they always have to stop when there's a fact check. That would be a debate. That'd be fun.

All right. We have here Jason. Various comments from the chat. Jason fell for the 4chan hoax that reversed all of my opinions on the pandemic. Jason you should be very embarrassed about falling for that.

All right. So here's some. Then the so-called poop map of San Francisco. So it's a map where there was an app where you could report if there was human feces on the sidewalk somewhere so people could stay away. But what happened was the entire map turned brown because there were so many reports of feces on sidewalks that you couldn't even use it. It was just brown. Now remember I said that persuasion is visual. So DeSantis holds up the map so you can see this big pile of it and he holds it up next to his face. And that was his persuasion. I know what he was going for. Now what he was aiming for was a good visual persuasion, a moment that people would remember that would really brand Newsom as a bad governor. What it made instead was an association of Ron DeSantis and a giant pile of poop.

The visual persuasion doesn't live completely on its own, right? You can't make the other mistakes. You don't want to associate yourself with something that's disgusting. So what I'll remember about that is Ron DeSantis's big old head here and a big old pile of poop right next to it. That's what I remember. I already knew that San Francisco had some problems so I learned nothing new from that. So nothing changed because I know that San Francisco has problems. But now in my head I've got a pile of poop in DeSantis's head and I can't unsee it. Yeah, that's visual persuasion done as wrong as you could do it.

But I asked myself and you should ask yourself, if Trump had done this would I feel differently? Yes. You know why? Because for Trump it would be on brand. It would be on brand. But Trump doesn't like to do gross stuff, right? Trump has like he's not even a big fan of shaking hands. So I don't think he would hold up a big pile of human feces and say hey remember me, remember this pile of feces. That would be opposite of Trump's personality. I can't imagine him doing it. But if he did, because it's Trump, it would seem funnier. The problem is that DeSantis, if he does something that's out of brand—because that was a little bit out of brand—DeSantis is just the accountant who's not going to make a mistake. He's going to tell you what he's going to do and then he's going to do it and you'll be pretty happy about it. Like he's an operator and good, probably one of the best governors of all time. But if you're a showman and people say okay what is the guy who's bringing the show going to show me, well you might look at it differently. But it would still be a mistake.

All right. You know all those January 6 depositions that the committee, the Congressional committee got, and now the Republicans would like to get a copy of all the ones that we didn't see because there were a lot of depositions that were not public. And wouldn't you like to know whatever the committee knew? Yeah. They're all missing. Every one of them. Every one of the deposition videos. Not some of them. Not some of them. Every one of them is gone. What should you assume about that? Well if this were a case about an individual American citizen I'd say well that person is innocent until proven guilty. That's our standard. We should not change that. But what happens when it's a government and the government does something that every single person who sees it says well that's a little sketchy and corrupt looking? What should you assume? You should assume guilt. Doesn't mean it's not a mistake. Could be a mistake. But you should assume guilt because that's the better system.

So I'm going to assume that the January 6 c