se it's true. Just hold that in your mind. He can't say it because it's true. And Trump dominates in the public's mind about who would do a better job on the economy. So the moment you put Carville on the air and then Carville says what made him famous, which was always true and remains maybe even more true today, nope, can't say it because it's true.

So then here's the second Anderson Cooper propaganda thing. And what you should watch for is how the question is the only thing with substance, and then the guest that he has on adds absolutely nothing. Right? Here's what happens. So Cooper starts out with stating what he would consider an obvious truth, I guess. So he stated it like, you know, everybody knows this. So here's the thing that everybody knows that propagandist Cooper told his dumb viewers. He said that obviously hand counting would have more errors. Does that track with what you know, that hand counting would have more errors than machine counting? The entire reason that this was talking about, Georgia just changed the law so that in Georgia the ballots will have to be hand counted. They're not going to use machines for that. So this, of course, if it's true that Georgia was massively cheating using the complexity of their various systems, then the hand counting would eliminate their ability to do that. Why would a news organization be opposed to somebody getting rid of all the complexity that lowered the credibility of the result and putting in the system that everybody who knows anything about elections thinks is the better system? The paper ballots, especially when you have somebody watching you count them. Let me ask you this. If you've got a Democrat and a Republican watching every ballot get counted, which is how you should do it, how many mistakes are you going to make? Is the watcher going to go to the bathroom or something? I don't know. And then if you don't get the right answer, you can always just count it again. So you have a perfect audit because you just recount it. You can't do that with the current system.

So first Cooper says it's sort of obvious that hand counting is bad. That is the opposite from true, but he stated it like it doesn't even need to be discussed. It's just, you know, everybody could tell hand counting. I mean, really, how are you going to compare like a stupid human to a computer? Obviously the computer is going to be better at math. I mean, seriously, right? No, the hand counting is by far the more reliable system, and that's why it's used. It's used specifically because it's more reliable. That's the only reason. Anyway, maybe because it's cheaper in some cases.

So then the guest who is there to add value said stuff like blah blah blah, they're trying to carry Trump's water, they ankle biters, conspiracy theories, they're basically MAGA. This. He didn't have anything on the topic. Nothing. He didn't say, well, the studies have shown that this is a bad idea. Nope. Well, here's the logical reason why this can't work. Nope. He simply insulted Republicans. He was a guest to talk about this technical issue of ballots versus machines and all he had was some insults to Republicans. He didn't even try to offer a reason why anything was better or worse or preferred. And then Cooper ends the segment by reminding the audience that we do know the 2020 election was fair and everything was fine, which is a lie because we don't have a system that could be audited completely, and therefore there is no way to know it was fair. We can only know that nobody proved in the court that it was unfair in time. So one lie that hand counting is unreliable, and then he ends it with knowing that we know for sure that which cannot be known, which is the quality of the prior election. Can't be known. There's no way to know it. The only thing he could have done to make it dumber is to say our elections are as accurate as our ability to use a robot to measure the temperature of the entire ocean. Should have thrown that in there.

Well, what is the most ignored story of 2024 that also was the most important? Well, here's my nomination. Now, I think this is all true, so I have to say that first. It could be ignored because maybe I have something wrong. Maybe it's not true, but I think it's true. I saw the documents. I didn't see anybody just debunk them. So the claim is, and you see this in a bunch of places, but the claim is that we now know in writing because we have the document that Trump gave clear instructions to the Pentagon before the January 6 riots that he wanted to make sure that they were fully staffed and they had all the defensive military assets they needed and they were all ready to go so that there was no violence that day. Now, that one fact, if that's true, completely eliminates the entire Democrat reason for running against Trump. Their main thing is that January 6 proved that he's an insurrectionist, and now we have written proof, written. We have the documents to show that he absolutely was trying to make sure that there was no violence. How exactly was he going to take over the country with troops that were not loyal to him? I mean, they were loyal to their senior officers, and they were there to protect the Capitol from his people. In what way do any of the narratives make sense about it was some kind of an insurrection?

Now, I should be clear that, and so my main point is this is the most ignored story of 2024. Two questions for you, my audience. Is this true? Is this story true that we do know for sure that Trump was trying to organize and put effort into it and that the help was denied by maybe Milley because of optics when it came down to it? So if this is true, everything we've been told about January 6 is a lie. And also the January 6 commission, if they were aware of this and they left it out