confirmed, but the science very strongly seems to suggest multiple studies show the same thing—that women's preferences for a mate, what could be more important than that? Your preferences for a mate, the most important lifetime decision, is completely reversed by hormonal birth control. And then we observe that these single women, the people most likely to be on hormonal birth control, have an almost, in my opinion, a mental illness that seems to be based on their dislike of Trump and their weird like of the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz campaign.

Now what about older Republican women? If you're over 45 and you're Republican, what do you think of Donald Trump? Well, you're probably not on hormonal birth control, and you probably like him. Now are we going to keep treating that like it's a coincidence that the people who are almost certainly likely to be on hormonal birth control—and we know that hormonal birth control completely changes your preferences for a mate—you don't think that changes your preference for a candidate?

If you're thinking of doing a major scientific research study to find out if hormonal birth control changes your political preferences, can I interrupt you for a moment and save you some time? I can save you a lot of time and a lot of money. You know what I'm going to say next, right? Just ask Scott. Of course it does. Of course, of course it does. There's no way in hell that it could change your mating preferences without changing your election leader preference. There's no way in hell that they could be unrelated. No way. But if you want to do the research study and waste your time and waste your money, go ahead.

And by the way, we know that if you pump somebody with testosterone, it's going to change all the preferences too, right? So it's not just women. Men who are doing testosterone upgrades probably are changing their preferences. Probably. Has anybody noticed that? Let's see if we can think of an example. Do you remember what Mark Zuckerberg was like when he first founded Facebook? You probably would have said he's a nerdish kind of a guy. He was always in good shape, I'll give him that. But have you seen him shirtless lately after a bout with some MMA fighters? He's freaking ripped. Do you think he's taking any kind of testosterone boost? I don't know. But the activities he's involved in are absolutely testosterone boosters. He's doing more dangerous stuff, definitely dangerous. He's doing physical stuff. He's clearly lifting and working on his fitness. And then magically, unexpectedly, surprisingly, he comes out a strong appreciator of Trump saying "fight, fight, fight" and how awesome that was. Are these all coincidences? It can't be a coincidence if you can predict it.

Let's take Reid Hoffman, put him on a diet, give him some testosterone, make him lift until he looks like Mark Zuckerberg with that shirt off, and then you check. You tell me if his political preferences changed. Now he might have other reasons for his political preferences. We don't know. But just using that as an example, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Democrat men have a certain look and the Republican men have a different look. I think a lot of this testosterone—and I don't know if anybody studied this, but I'll bet you if you just took a random 100 Democrat men and a random 100 Republican men, I don't think their T levels would be even close. And don't waste your money on it. Just ask me. I just told you it's obvious.

Well, Politico reports that January 6 has now been deemed a national security event by Department of Homeland Security, and that means that they can put way more resources into protecting it. So here's the good news. It authorizes the Secret Service to have a greater role in taking care of things. You know, it'd be the other law enforcement as well, of course. Lots of law enforcement. But Secret Service would have a bigger role. Well, you can trust those guys, can't you?

Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat, he told us that the report on the Trump assassination attempt—which by the way also involved the Secret Service—that the report coming out will absolutely shock the American people. He says, quote, this is Blumenthal, "I think the American people are going to be shocked, astonished, and appalled by what we'll report to them about the failures of the Secret Service." The assassination attempt. They ought to be appalled and astonished by the failure of the Department of Homeland Security. Well, so those are the same people who are going to make sure that our Capitol is secure this time.

Now I'm no person who's developed a multivariable model for the future, but I think it's deeply unlikely that Republicans are going to storm the Capitol again. Does anybody think that a Republican is going to storm the Capitol again? Because there was never any chance it would work, and a lot of them went to jail. Now if it worked even in any way you could determine that something worked, if you could make any argument at all that at least in some small way it worked, well yeah, it might happen again. But I don't believe there's a single person in the world who says, you know, if we had just sauntered a little bit longer, I think we could have fixed the country. Nobody thinks that. Nobody thinks that they under-sauntered. If we'd moved that lectern a little bit further, we could have changed everything. No. No, I wouldn't worry about the Capitol getting attacked anyway.

But at least our elections are secure. Let's see. The Concord Monitor is reporting that apparently there's a way of auditing their machines so that you can feel confidence in it. So here's their auditing technique they're using in New Hampshire. And I'd like to ask you after I've explained it, do you feel good now? Because I'm doing this to make you feel like our elections are secure.

All right, so they have an audit process after the election to make sure that the machines didn't do anything sketchy. Now you're happy about that, right? Because we all want to make sure, you know, obviously they test them before, but they also test them after to make sure that there's no mistakes. That's pretty good, right?

Here's how they test it. They randomly select eight machines. Randomly. Who do you think does the random selecting? Do you think they put all the machines into a random number generator, or is there somebody whose job it is to determine which eight of them are the randomly selected ones? What do you think? Do you think the scrappy little state of New Hampshire put together an AI model and some—maybe had some kind of nuclear decay thing like Schrodinger's cat to make sure that they had randomly picked the machines? Or was it just some guy whose job it was to pick the ones that were easy to drive to? What do you think? I'll tell you what I think, but I probably don't have to tell you what I think.

Now suppose the randomness was actually appropriate. Suppose that wasn't a problem. And suppose they had actually randomly correctly randomized. Do you think checking eight machines is going to tell you anything? How in the world is checking eight machines going to tell you anything? My assumption about cheating is that if it involved machines—and I have no confirmed evidence of any kind of cheating of that kind, but hypothetically if it involved machines—do you think they were going to spread it across all the machines? Do you think they were going to just put a bug in every machine in New Hampshire so if you check eight of them you're going to catch it? That's not the way I would do it.

Do you know what machines I would corrupt in New Hampshire if I were trying to influence an election? None. None. Because New Hampshire is not in play. It's not even a freaking up-for-grabs kind of a state. Nobody would cheat in New Hampshire. So no, we don't care if you check your eight random, not random machines. You're not even trying. That's like not even trying to audit. Now again,