s I'm going to embrace it like crazy like I didn't see any problems and I'm not even going to pretend to be consistent because I'm going to assume that he managed to beat the margin of cheating. I won't know that but it will be my working assumption. So yes there's something strange going on in Detroit and I'm hoping that somebody's going to ask somebody this question this week. And the question is Kamala Harris, and by the way this would be a good question for Bret Baier and it would be a good question even better for Joe Rogan. Kamala Harris if the election result shows that Trump wins and you see that there are some historically out of balance results in other words there's some areas that voted for him in numbers that couldn't possibly be true based on historical patterns would you accept and certify the result based on what you're seeing? Well no. Nope. Get back to the point. If you see obvious things that are out of whack will you accept the election? Well in 2020. Well not talking about 2020. Get back to the question. Will you accept it if it looks out of whack to you? Well it's not going to look out of whack. No that's not the question. If it looks out of whack like Republicans say 2020 looked out of whack if it just looks out of whack are you going to accept it? Well you and there's your election. There's your election. If she can't answer that question and she can't it's their biggest claim that you won't leave office and blah blah blah.

Are here some more warning signs. Oh by the way Christopher Rufo has found that one of Harris's books she copied five passages which we call plagiarism. New York Times tried to slap him down because the New York Times wants her to win in my opinion. So they tried to minimize it by saying oh they just had were like five little areas you know five little areas that were copies. Ah nothing. They admitted it was plagiarism but then they said that noticing the plagiarism is racist. Yeah so that's the New York Times. That would be the standard bearer of news is that if you notice somebody plagiarized and you prove it and you show the sections so nobody can doubt your claims you my friends are being a racist according to the New York Times. All right great job Christopher Rufo.

Well more on the Kamala collapse. Harry Enten as CNN said that there are a lot of warning signs now going off. He says that if the GOP is ahead in party identification pretty much they're guaranteed to win. Now party identification means that you signed up to be a Republican or you signed up to be a Democrat. Generally speaking Democrats have more people signed up and when they have more people signed up by a goodly amount they win. Anytime it's close Republicans win. But right now Republicans are ahead. So Republicans this is according to Harry Enten CNN Republicans right now are doing even better than the average when they win. So think about that. So the average number of people who identify as Republicans will give you a Republican win. If it hits the average it's above that. These signs are pointing to a landslide. They're pretty clearly pointing to a landslide.

Now what happens if all these signs are pointing toward Trump but in the last hours of the election counting he loses? Are you going to accept that election? I'm not. Yeah let me say as clearly as possible if all of these signs are pointing toward a win and at the last minute there's a bunch of mail-in votes that counted I'm not accepting the election. Let me say that as clearly as I can and publicly. This is a public statement. If all the indicators or many of them indicate a strong win by Trump and in the last minute the mail-in votes look suspicious I do not accept that result. I want to make that clear. Yeah you're going to have to. The results are going to have to match the signals. If on Election Day the signals are all you they changed and they're all glaring that you know based on historical patterns Harris is going to win and then she does win I'm not going to question you know whether any specific votes were in line or around a line even if something is found but is smish. I'm going to say you know everything indicated she was going to win let's just move on. But it's got to work both ways. If everything's indicating that Trump is going to win and then the bellwethers go weird and the last minute accounting goes weird nope. No that's a hard no on accepting that result.

All right Rasmussen is asking people are you better off than you were before Biden was in office and by a 16-point margin most voters say no. When you've got that kind of a result it is nearly impossible for the incumbent to win. Here again another glaring sign that Trump's going to win. So Trump has a lead on the three biggest issues you know then abortion is its own thing but the three biggest issues he's well ahead which is the wars the economy and the border. He's ahead on are you better off and party identification. He's ahead and the polls say he's ahead in depending on which polls and they haven't all caught up to the current situation yet but he's ahead in like six out of seven swing states. Now let's say things stay the same and we go into the election and these are the things we know and then he loses by 10 million votes. You going to accept that? I think it depends how those votes come in and what it looks like. Like if it looked like it was organic maybe maybe but all right.

Heraldo just said he's endorsing Harris and that's because of January 6th. And the reason that Heraldo says he cannot endorse Trump even though they've been personal friends for a long time is that Trump did not acknowledge that he lost in 2020. Can you believe that that's his reason? He went public with it with a long post on it. It's because Trump won't accept that he lost in 2020 and that's the one reason that's the unacceptable reason.

So I responded to Heraldo and people like my response so much I think I will read it to you. Oh and Heraldo said that if you accept Trump's statements that he won in 2020 that makes you part of what they call the big lie. So Democrats branded January 6 and the claim that 2020 was rigged as the big lie. Now the big lie is sort of trying to make you think of Nazism because the Nazis try to push the big lie so that comes from Nazism. So Heraldo wants to note that Trump would be a big old terrible person for his lie and if you were to accept his lie you're part of the Nazi-like people who would accept the big lie.

Okay so here's what I said in a long post to Heraldo that people liked a lot. I said Heraldo no one knows who won in 2020 or any other prior elections. Our system is designed intentionally to not be fully auditable. We know the design is intentional because that's how design works. If a design persists for decades despite the ability to change it then the design is intentional. Did JFK win fair and square? Historians disagree. You can know for sure that no court has ruled the 2020 election was invalid but you also know courts are not the tool for that job. How would they know if an election got hacked without detection? After years of the press demonizing Trump as the next Hitler every thinking person knows the incentive to cheat him out of the victory in 2020 was through the roof. We also know state actors can hack any system usually without detection. Sometimes it requires an insider which is no hurdle for state actors including our own. We also know that if someone found a non-electronic way to cheat we would not necessarily catch it and it appears the mail-in ballot situation is easily gamed. Whenever a system can be gamed and the incentives to do so are sky high we observe that such gaming happens in every domain every time. For although I can't enter the dreamscape in which everything in our country is corrupt and broken except our election systems speaking as a hypnotist and a longtime observer of your usually well thought down opinions this opinion does not seem to be derived from reason. So that's my take. It is not derived from reason. Whatever is driving this it's not because he thought it through. Now most of us are not operating from reason we just rationalize after the fact but sometimes it's a little more obvious than others.

All right here's some and I told you that Harris has a new plan for black men because she's losing with black men. Not losing totally but she's losing support from black men. She wants to give a million forgivable loans up to $20,000. What would you call a plan to give $20,000 loans to people who don't have to pay it back? Do you know how much theft there's going to be in loans that you don't have to pay back? Do you know how fast I would apply for a loan I didn't have to pay back? Well you still have to say that it's a loan for a business. Oh well yeah totally I'm going to start a business. What's your business? I'm going to sell I'll probably I'll make jewelry in my house. All right that's the business. When are you going to do it? Well soon as I get the $20,000. All right can you pay it back? Doesn't matter it's a loan I don't have to pay back. Oh that's right we said you don't have to pay it back. All right so you say you're going to do a business and you want 20,000. All right here's your 20,000. And then we check later how's your business going? Oh well I just spent the money on stuff. I didn't really start a business. Oh well you're not supposed to do that. I know but you know when you said I don't have to pay it back that was really telling me to just steal it. No no we said we want you to start a business. I know but what I heard was you're not going to be checking very carefully and I can just say I started a business and it didn't work out. I just spent your money and kept it all and you know good luck. It's basically just giving a whole bunch of criminals $20,000 because they asked for it. You don't have to live on this planet for very long before you know that this is nothing but an invitation for fraud. You don't have to be some kind of an expert to see this one. I refer you to everything that happened during the pandemic if you're wondering if this will be gamed. Yeah yeah it's going to be gamed.

Then what else? She's going to do education and mentorship for black men. I told you that that seemed like a good idea. More mentorships good. But why are you limiting it to black men? Because you're a racist. This is racist right? If the government says we're going to do something and you're not allowed to get any if anything the government says involves not for you whitey then that's racist. You should just put that right in there. It's not for you whitey.

Then they got the protect crypto investments so black men know their money is safe. How stupid do you think we all are? Because there's some special magic that's happening to black men. Are you so racist that you think black men uniquely cannot protect themselves from crypto? What the do you think is wrong with black men that they alone the only ones can't figure out how to handle crypto? Could you be more condescending? Could you be this is horrible. This is the only thing I've ever seen this racist against everybody. It's racist against anybody who's not included but it's also racist against the people included. What do you think black people somehow magically are the only ones who can't get a wallet and that they can't join Coinbase they don't know how to buy some crypto and protect it? I mean it's pretty hard to protect in c