ng on the censorship industrial complex. And they just closed down because they had so much heat. But I don't trust it. Do you think that just because this prominent censorship entity got closed down, do you think that they're not going to do any censoring? I assume they just got more clever about it. Don't we assume that outside of X the platforms are all doing the same kind of bad stuff, maybe just more cleverly? So in other words instead of kicking somebody off a platform maybe just nobody sees their posts. I haven't heard as much complaining about it this year, have you? It used to be that it was just so obvious the censorship that it was just continuous complaining because you couldn't miss it. It was everywhere. But I really haven't heard it so far this cycle. Does that suggest that we're actually getting some kind of control over that or we just don't know where it is now?

See what I fear is that it's just a whack-a-mole situation and we whacked this Stanford disinformation research center, I mean collectively we whacked it, but it doesn't mean it didn't just pop up somewhere else under a different name. I assume that's what's happening.

All right the Supreme Court struck down the Trump-era ban on bump stocks. I guess so if it's not a ban you can have them now. That was a weird one because you wouldn't expect anybody Trump-related to want to ban anything gun-related. But if you don't follow gun stuff the so-called bump stocks would turn your gun into a wildly inaccurate instrument. And so the gun people said who the hell would want to use a bump stock if it just makes your gun less accurate? Like the one and only time you'd use it would be that Vegas shooting when you're shooting into a gigantic crowd and accuracy didn't really matter because you weren't aiming at a specific person anyway. But short of that I'm told that if you had a handgun and went into someplace with bad intentions and just carefully shot you would do more damage than a bump stock that's just going to be firing bullets into the ceiling as much as anything else. So I don't think it matters. This bump stock thing is such a small little thing. Makes no difference to anybody I don't think.

All right I continue to ask the question of why voting machines exist if they're not cheaper or more secure or making us feel more credible and they're not faster. Why? There was a gentleman I saw on social media here who asked his local town to explain why they use machines and they said something about them being more efficient or countable or something. Clearly not true. Clearly not true. So why do we have them? Now other people have said that well you know if it produces paper you can always double check because you just look at the paper. But apparently there are cases where it doesn't produce paper and there you know we know this. Puerto Rico had just all kinds of trouble with their voting machines and I guess they didn't produce paper. RFK Jr. is basically saying you can't trust the voting machines unless it creates paper. So he would do legislation that says you can keep your voting machine but it's got to create a piece of paper so we can check to see if it was real. Is that enough? I don't know. I don't know.

But let's check in with the Rasmussen folks who like to keep us updated on various claims of irregularity in voting from 2020. So here's what we believe we know from the Maricopa County, one of the most questioned voting election results in 2020. Here's what we know. There was only one legal type of paper that could be used and there are credible allegations that there were up to 10 different types found. Now do you know why there's only one type of paper that's approved for an election in a given area? Does anybody know why? They say you can only use one piece of paper. My first thought was oh it's because they know that this kind of paper is accepted by the machines. That was my first thought. You want to make sure it can be processed through the machines when they count. You don't want any cheap paper that gets caught in the machines. But it turns out that's not really the reason. That's maybe one of the reasons they make sure that the paper works. But the other reason is to make sure that there's no fraud. Do you know how they can detect the fraud if somebody used the wrong paper? It's a fraud detection. Now for some reason that didn't immediately occur to me. I just assumed it was a functional question and that if they used other paper but the machines accepted it I was thinking well that's not a big problem is it? What's the problem? So they ran into paper. Some people didn't get the memo. They just used whatever paper was available. It worked fine. No problem. But then once you realize that the limitation of the paper is a major way that they prevent fraud and then you see that there were credible reports of 10 different papers used that would pretty much be guaranteed fraud if you could prove this is true. It's hard to imagine it would be anything but exactly what it looks like.

Now is it proven? I don't know because it's hard to believe anything in the election domain because so many things are found not to be true. But that claim still stands meaning that no court has said it's not true. There's no court that said no that didn't happen. So the claim is out there. Whatever status it is, it's out there.

Here's another one. Within Maricopa County there was one legal software version only, one that was legal, but two versions and a compiler were found. The compiler was capable of creating executable files and then deleting them without detection. But there is some evidence that it did so three times during the election. What? Why is your compiler creating and executing files and then deleting them? What would be the legal reason to do that? I don't know. Maybe there is some legal reason. You know anything, nothing would surprise me at this point. But certainly everything about that looks fraudulent. But remember don't get fooled by Kraken. There are tons of times since 2020 that both you and I probably heard a report and you said to yourself oh this time that's a smoking gun. Then maybe it turned out not to be. So you should always keep a real real real open mind about any specific claims. But I take the argument from specific claims to the general. The general is what are the odds that this is the only non-corrupt system in the United States? I'd say zero. Just common sense. And if you say well prove it then I'll say well how about I don't have to prove it? How about I just show you that every single other system can be hacked and has been. And if anything that can be gamed is being gamed everywhere all the time that's the way the world works. So the fact that you didn't catch it probably doesn't mean anything because people presumably would figure out how not to get caught. So I don't have any proof that there's any kind of election irregularity. All I have is the common sense that of course it is. Of course it is. Why would it be true if it doesn't need to be and somebody can benefit from faking it? It seems unlikely that it's a fair system.

You know that President Trump floated the idea of having more tariffs on incoming products from other countries and getting rid of the income tax. And I saw a long post by Balaji Srinivasan in which he's explaining there's actually a historical precedent because apparently before the income tax that was actually a big way that the United States funded itself. And it's actually possible that we could do it. But as Balaji points out it probably would take 10 years of economic pain like we haven't experienced since maybe the Great Depression. So I mean he didn't say the Great Depression part. I just added that myself. It's just i