s to be called a racist because to imagine it's anything else is just crazy. I mean you might be a brainwashed, blackmailed racist but still the same effect.

All right. Here's a little Hunter Biden update just for fun. Remember where Hunter was going to have an art gallery but don't worry that he's laundering any money or selling favors because he won't even know who bought the art and there'll be like a wall between the art gallery and any politics? Well none of that was true. The art gallery guy says that Hunter would routinely ask him the names of the buyers and he'd tell them. And that Hunter is the only person who made art who asked for the names of the buyers. The regular artists that this gallery handles sell the artist's work but they don't tell them the name of the buyer because that would be sort of a privacy issue.

Now is there anything to worry about about the buyers? Oh yeah the buyers are exactly who you thought they would be. They are in fact big Democrat donors and people who want Democrat favors and got them. It's exactly what it looked like. And it gets better. The art gallery guy has talked to President Biden not Hunter. President Biden twice. Once in the White House at some event he chatted with the president and once President Biden called the art gallery guy personally to say some congratulations or something that his daughter did. So no Joe Biden did not say to the art gallery guy hey good work helping my son launder money but when the president of the United States calls you at work that has an impact. That has an effect. Yeah so it was exactly what you thought it was. The art gallery was exactly what it looked like.

The only question I have is whether Hunter is actually making the paintings now. I have conflicting evidence of that. One is I've never seen him paint except the one where he was like blowing something through a straw where normally he's snorting it through a straw. And so anybody could blow through a straw so that wasn't really an example of art. I want to see him actually make one of those paintings that are impressive because the artwork is actually very good. I want to see him make one of those. But I have heard through indirect means that he actually does stand in front of an easel and does actually paint. So maybe I'm wrong which would be fun. I would love to know that Hunter Biden was a world class artist. I would love to know that. That would be just fun. I'd be completely supportive of his artistic endeavors although the money laundering is still obviously an issue. But I don't know if he makes these paintings or not. I'm just kind of curious one way or the other.

All right. CBS News says according to our entrance poll most Iowa GOP caucus goers, I love that word you don't see it much you don't get to use that the rest of the year. I'm going to say caucus goer as often as possible today. Hey you caucus goers or you caucus growers. All right but anyway according to CBS News there six in 10 people who were Iowa caucus goers the GOP types, six in 10 said they would vote for Trump even if he's convicted of a crime.

What do the anti-Trump people say when they find out that six out of 10 Republicans will vote for him even if he's convicted of a crime? It's a cult. It's a personality cult. They must not read the news. They don't know the facts, right? Is there any hypothesis that CBS News and the others are leaving out? Could there be any other explanation for why would so many Republicans be willing to ignore an actual felony conviction? I can't think of anything. Can you think of anything?

Oh wait I've got something. I just thought of it and I posted this back to CBS. I said that maybe it's because most Iowa GOP caucus goers know the Democrat-driven lawfare against Trump is bullshit and so they plan to shove that down the throats of the media liars and watch them choke and die on it. That maybe possible? Am I anywhere near the zip code? Am I getting close? Yeah no yes no that's what it is. In case you're confused CBS let me say it again. Maybe like every one of the other Republicans they think the lawfare is bullshit. They think it's media driven and they want to shove it down your throats and watch you choke on it. That's what I want. That's what I want. I want to watch Trump shove it down their throats and watch them choke on it. No real violence you know in case you're confused. No no real violence. Hyperbole. We're talking in the figurative sense. Shove it down their throats. So that's the game I'm in. That's the game I'll be playing. The shove it down their throats game.

Let's see how many ways do you think the pro-Democrat news will find to describe dementia without calling it dementia? Well here's the latest entry from Axios who is as you know not really a legitimate news source more like a Democrat organ at this point. They report in a post lots of high-level Democrats are warning that President Biden and his re-election team are too complacent and unimaginative about the threat of losing to Donald Trump. Huh. They're complacent and they're unimaginative. What would be another word for that? Let's say you're really old. You're the president. You're very very old. Your brain's not working like it used to and indeed you can see little differences and maybe you're not as vigorous and active. You know maybe you're a little more complacent. And what if your brain isn't so good anymore that it could think of new and original ways to do things? What would that be called? All the unimaginative. What kind of a brain would be complacent and unimaginative? Well I can't think of a thing. Dementia.

All right. We've got a new standard for disinformation or we should. The WEF was talking about the big old risk of disinformation and the news is telling us about the risk of disinformation and lots of important people are telling us about the risk of disinformation. I have a standard which I would like to promote. A standard for what is disinformation and what is not. You ready? You're going to like it.

Because if we just say hey I think this is true what does the other side say? No it's not. And then the other side says but this is true and then what does the other side say? No it's not. So that's our current system. How's that working out for everybody? No it's not. It's not working out at all.

So I propose the following standard. Misinformation and disinformation, I'll put them together. The mis/disinformation is defined as any point