if the public at large would put partisanship over truth when consuming news. In other words, would being on a team make you accept a partisan truth, in other words something that isn't true, over something that was true? What do you think? Do you think when people join a team that they value what the team says is true over what seems obviously true? Do you think they needed to do a study? Do you think they could have just asked me, since I say about once a week for the last 10 years that if you're on a team you're going to vote for them whether your team is batshit crazy or not? No, you didn't have to study this. People, I could have answered this quite definitively.

But here's the funniest part. You see if you picked up on this. This is a study in which the researchers were trying to give people true facts, presumably about the news and life in general, true facts, and then they were going to give them some not-true facts and then they were going to see if they could sort them out and who could sort them out better. Do you see anything wrong with that? You see any problem with the study design? It means the researchers believe they could tell what was true. That's not a thing. There's no objective source of truth. I don't know that you could study that because if it was anything from the real world there was no objective truth so they wouldn't know who was right or who was wrong. They would have no way to know because they wouldn't know if they were being affected the same way everybody else is being affected.

But if they didn't use the real world for their test, and I don't know what they did, but if they used an artificial statement and some artificial false thing, I think people would have detected that it was artificial so you wouldn't get an actual test. So I think they should have just talked to me about that. Save some time.

All right. I would like to give you a summary of all the stories that I'm hearing about the election. This will be a jumble of just words and things that are coming out. Something about the drop box and the post office should have mailed the thing but they didn't think the thing and then the court, they ruled on the thing, they overruled the thing that was the thing but then they ruled it back but they might change that because that might be challenged but that might only be 50 ballots but it could be as many as 500. There's some people that saw some things that happened with boxes but maybe they didn't see it. There are some people who say that the court should be involved in the thing. The voting, the people that the address is not matching the voter rolls. Okay, I have no idea what's going on with the election. All I know is that the number of reported irregularities is very high and they're all over the place and on first hearing they sound credible, right?

So there's one, you know, one says somebody dropped a bunch of ballots in a box. Sounds credible but it could very easily be it was just their relatives and everything's fine. So you can have a lot of claims. And remember my rule. The rule is this: 99% of the claims won't be true. They will be false, guaranteed. 99% of all the election fraud claims won't be true. What we don't know about is the 1%. And I'm not saying that the 1% will be true. I'm saying that you could be pretty sure that 99% won't be. It's just that if there were any true ones in the mix you wouldn't know which is a problem.

So if the number of potential, and this is just hypothetical talk, speculative, if there were real irregularities they would be so buried with the fake ones that no legal system could sort it out before a president is picked. So we might be drowning in our own good luck, meaning that we've got these thousands of election observers, a lot of them are attorneys. They're going to find stuff or at least they're going to see things that they don't understand and then they're going to say, hmm, I don't understand what I just saw. Like why did that box get moved over there and who unlocked it? So they're going to write it up and maybe it was