nswer is no one. No one. That's how you should have known it was a hoax without needing to check that the video was in fact edited. Who would stand in front of the world and say maybe you should drink bleach or inject bleach or inject a household disinfectant into your body? No one. No one. Not Trump, not anybody unless they were quote stupid or mentally ill. Who would say in front of a general that soldiers were suckers and losers? No one. No one would say it. But putting it in the form of a question is the stronger form of persuasion. If you just say no one would say it is not nearly as good as who would say that? I'm just think about it. Just use your common sense. Who would ever say that in public first of all? Who would believe it? Yeah who would believe it but that even if somebody believed it who would say that? The who would say it is the one that unlocks the brain of the brainwashed. Okay you do have a good point there because it's not a statement it's a question and if you can't answer the question you're going to have to figure out why you can't answer it. Who would say that exactly?

Once you see the pattern that three of the biggest hoaxes I would argue the three most powerful hoaxes from Trump were about things that nobody would say. So yes President Trump you are powering up for this debate in a way that is making me very happy. I feel like whoever is advising Trump right now doing a good job. There's something good happening there.

All right here's a little story that is just interesting. Apparently we used to think that old trees couldn't absorb any CO2 so old growth forests weren't going to help too much for fighting climate change. But now there's new information that says that the old forests actually grow new woody biomass and do absorb. So my question is this. When you're putting together those climate models and you get wrong the fact that existing old forests can in fact absorb CO2 how much did that change your model? Did they go and revise