t anyway, but trust me, I could have if I tried a little harder.

Well, here's the kind of stories I see every day lately. So the Michigan mail-in ballots are now only going to be counted if there's proof of signature. This is Gateway Pundit reporting this, to which I said to myself, wait a minute, are you telling me that in the past the Michigan mail-in ballots didn't need any signature verification? The most basic thing you would do? No. And wait a minute, are you telling me that they're only just barely fixing this in time for the election? That's right. Just a few weeks before the actual election.

But thank goodness, thank goodness there's no other irregularity to report about the election. Well, Jim Jordan has accused the Department of Homeland Security secretary of stonewalling the Ohio election integrity, according to Raw Story. So Jim Jordan says the Homeland Security is refusing to respond to requests from Ohio's top election official for federal citizenship verification records. I guess they want to make sure that the people who are voting are citizens, but the Department of Homeland Security is stonewalling them.

Do you know how many stories I see every day, almost all of them on X, about something that is clearly broken in our election system and somebody's trying to fix it? Now, sometimes successfully, sometimes they get stonewalled. But if we have a pristine election system that we're quite all sure has been perfect, why are so many things getting fixed? Are the people we elect in various states so dumb that they don't know the elections are perfect the way they are and they think they're fixing something that ain't broke? Or is it stuff that's really obviously broken and was obviously broken before, and yet the news that you thought was real told you, "Well, we know those elections were good"?

Yeah, you can know what you don't know. That's what the news told you. Here's a list of things that can't be known that we know. But wait, that can't be known. Yeah, but we know it, right? But there isn't any way to know it, but we know it. Well, how do you know it? Well, we didn't look into it. No, not looking into it is not how you know things. Well, there were no complaints that we saw. But you just said you didn't look into it. That's right. So if you don't look into it, you can be sure what happened exactly.

And that's actually what the news has been telling us for years, and people just sit at home going, "Uh-huh, uh-huh. Didn't look into it. Must be a good election." I can think of no better evidence of a good election than "we didn't really look into it." Oh, by the way, it's designed so you can't fully audit it. Yeah, just normal stuff. Nothing to be concerned about.

How many Democrats will hear either of those stories today? How many Democrats are going to hear about Michigan not checking signatures in the past? Oh my God. Or that we're not entirely sure who are citizens and should be able to vote. Do you think any Democrats will hear that? No, no. It'll be basically zero.

Let's see what the public thinks about election integrity. Well, it used to be that Republicans were confident in the system and Democrats thought it might be a little sketchy. But according to Gallup, that is somewhat reversed, and now the Republicans think the elections are more sketchy than the Democrats. But both sides think they're a little bit sketchy. So 57% of those polled by Gallup said that they will be only somewhat confident in the accuracy of the election, where 24% say they're not too confident and a whopping 19% say they're not confident at all.

I would have added those two together, but only 57% of the public thinks they're very or even somewhat confident in the results. Does that sound about right to you? Does that sound like a system that's been designed to make us confident that we know what happened? No. I don't think you can get to only 57% think the election is fair and reliable unless it's designed to keep you from knowing who won our elections.

Let me say it again. Our elections are very obviously, very obviously designed so you don't know who won. I think that's the only thing you need to know. If you spent a few minutes looking at the design of the system and then I said to you, all right, would you know if the post office threw away some ballots? No, you wouldn't. How would you know that? How would you catch that in an audit? There's no way to catch that. No, it's uncatchable.

If I told you that a state actor, whether it's the CIA or some other country, had worked with an insider at one of the voting machines or tabulator companies and had hacked it with the help of an insider to cover up any trail, would you be able to spot that? No, no you wouldn't. No, there's no way you could catch that. What would be the most obvious way that anybody would cheat? Well, one of those ways. How about if somebody was a non-citizen and yet they got a mail-in vote and then they voted? What part of the process checks all those names against real voters? Well, maybe some states do, but not all of them.

So the most obvious ways that anybody would think of, you know, if you were going to think of a way to cheat, none of them are checkable. The most obvious ways you would cheat. And so to imagine that you could know who won an election is sort of just naive. Yeah, but there we are.

So CNN did a fact check on Kamala Harris's claims about manufacturing jobs. So she said something about Trump being bad and losing manufacturing jobs and Biden being good and getting them back. But apparently it was just wildly incorrect, just a lie basically. But CNN fact-checked it. Now here's my question. Have you noticed the selectivity of CNN's fact-checking? How many votes do you think got changed because somebody exaggerated or had wrong data about manufacturing? None. None. No. Even if the Democrats heard that this was a fake claim and it was a lie, there's probably not even one Democrat who's going to change their vote because somebody exaggerated or said something about manufacturing jobs.

You've got two candidates who both say they want to bring manufacturing back to the US. Both of them are going to use hyperbole about their numbers. Both of them are going to choose a period of time that makes their thing look good. Both of them are going to pad things. It has no effect on the actual outcome of the vote. Now, you know it would if they fact-checked the hoaxes. If they fact-checked all the hoaxes every time she used one, that would affect the election. Because nobody thinks that an ordinary lie told by a politician is different or even noteworthy. Nobody cares. It's just part of the process.

But if you told the CNN and MSNBC viewers that their entire worldview was created by a mesh network of hoaxes that the media creates, that would change some votes. Because we've saw that a number of the people who said, "I've been a lifetime Democrat but I changed my vote," the number one thing they point out is the fine people hoax. The fine people hoax is the tentpole hoax, meaning it's the one that keeps all the other hoaxes alive. If you believed the fine people hoax, then you accepted as