he's dead. No he's not.

Now here's a thing that I think Trump has figured out which is things are so absurd that mockery is the only right answer. Like defending yourself would be just stupid. You should just mock how insanely stupid it is and how they're playing you for stupid because they're really playing you for stupid. Seriously playing you for stupid.

All right. There's a New York Times Siena poll that I think it was Molly Hemingway or somebody was, I think it was Molly was pointing out that in the past has been a little skewed pro-Biden so you'd expect their poll to show Biden in the best possible light if they were acting the way they've acted before. But instead they're showing Trump would beat Biden 48 to 43 which is a pretty healthy margin because at one point you know I think they had the same poll in prior election 2020 they had Biden up by 14. Now of course the final vote was nothing like that but at the final vote they still had him up by nine. They had him up by nine on Election Day. All right so you know that they're seemingly, we don't know because we can't read minds but seemingly they just seem to be a political poll that is in the bag for Biden but even they have given up. It looks like a 19 point swing since that biggest support they ever showed for Biden. 19 point swing. So how do you explain that he's still there? Yeah isn't it super obvious that he can't win under normal circumstances?

Now here's what's really fun. If it's true as Tucker says that the elections are all fake and they've been maybe fake for a long time and that the CIA or whoever it is can control them any way they want you know in a variety of ways. They can change laws about the mail-in votes. They can get Google to be more biased. There are probably a million ways they can do things and maybe even directly with the vote but we don't have any proof of that. A lot of strong suspicions and an inability to check. By the way if there's ever a question and you're not allowed to check you just assume that the election is rigged.

So my understanding is that there's now still a room full of ballots that some people said were fake that the judge simply just doesn't rule on it to rule whether they can open the door and look at them. Now in my opinion there's no way there's still a bunch of evidence in a room that hasn't been removed. I don't think there's any chance that that room has something in it but the fact that they won't unlock it that's I would consider that proof that the election is rigged. Would you? What do you consider proof? You know you got your scientific proof but that doesn't really apply. You've got your legal courtroom proof but it's not being handled by the court. The courts ignoring it. If the court had ruled and opened that door in Georgia I guess and then we looked you know maybe there's something there maybe there isn't. But then we would say well at least the court is doing its court thing. But if the court refuses to let you look just yeah your working assumption should be oh that's proof. If they won't let you check that's proof. And I think that should be the standard.

So likewise on January 6 the fact there was so much resistance to simply taking a little time to make sure that's not scientific proof it's not legal proof but on a working basis for a citizen trying to understand what's true that's proof. Yeah if your government won't show you something about an election that's proof it was rigged. I think that's a reasonable definition in the realm of elections as to what proof actually means what the word means. Because remember a scientific proof and a legal proof they're not the same. We use the word proof different. A math proof is not the same as a science proof and a legal proof is not the same as a math proof or a science proof. Three different proofs. I believe there is also a political proof. A political proof is we're not going to show you even though it's right here it's right behind this door but we're not going to open it for you and we're not going to give you a reason why we won't show you. That's a political proof. Anybody disagree?

Refusing to show you something that can be shown to you because it's not proprietary that's a proof. So if you say it's been proved and you say this is how I define it whenever there's a lack of transparency from the government. Have I ever said this before? Citizens are innocent until proven guilty. You don't want to change that. But governments are not citizens. They're entities. The entity is always guilty until they prove they're not because all entities will be corrupt if you can't check. Everybody knows that. If there's any entity that you can't check what's going on and there's money involved or power of course they're corrupt. It's only transparency. It's only transparency that protects you. There's nothing else. Not a single other thing but transparency. We don't have it for the election and so it was rigged. You don't have to wonder about it.

That and by the way I believe that that standard of what I'm calling proof you know here I'm defining my own terms I believe it's as rigorous as at least the scientific proof. It's certainly as rigorous as a political proof. I will not go so far as to say it's as rigorous as a math proof right that's hard to beat. But certainly science and the courts are a little bit subjective even if they try not to be. So yeah you can be a little bit subjective and still make it a proof. There's a standard for that.

All right and of course mail-in ballots is pretty much proof of rigging if there's a push for mail-in ballots that doesn't seem to fit the situation like the need for it is not demonstrated. That that's proof of fraud in my opinion.

All right the same poll I think it was that shows Trump winning Hispanics. Well there's a poll in the real world the United States in 2024 that has Trump handily ahead 46 to 40 with Hispanic voters. Now actually yeah with voters it's not even just