Yes. Yes. Yeah. Incredible. That is so disturbingly dangerous for this country. Wow.

So I was thinking to myself, how do you deprogram those people? And the answer is you probably can't because they've chosen to have no contact with you. But if you could I would start with the fine people hoax and I would set it up this way. I would say have you ever found out something that just totally rocked your world because you thought it was one way but then you found out you'd been fooled and it was another way? Such as let's say the nutrition pyramid, the food pyramid. Now if you can get your family member to admit that they had ever experienced believing something was completely true and then learning it wasn't, say, can I show you another one? Just to blow your mind. It won't change your view on politics, but I want you to see how easily you could be led to believe something that isn't true. And then you do the fine people. But make sure you found the American debunk website because it'll show you the full video to prove what's going on.

But then a lot of these people think that the real problem was the January 6 insurrection. And I'm going to tell you the worst argument you can make if you're trying to talk somebody out of believing it was an insurrection. All right? You can't say it wasn't dangerous because people got hurt. So you have to acknowledge that you both agree that the violent part was uncalled for and that those people had to be dealt with. Now they didn't go to jail. Even if they were pardoned, they did serve some serious time. But here are the bad arguments.

Don't say the feds were behind it because that's unproven. As soon as you say, "Oh, the feds, it was a Fed erection." No, feds erection, not a Fed erection. As soon as you say it was the feds, even if it was, even if it was, it's not an argument that would work with a Democrat because they would just reject it as ridiculous. It's like, well, there weren't that many. So whether or not you're sure the feds were behind it, it's a bad argument, so just drop it.

The second bad argument is you know for sure the election was stolen. You might be right that the election was stolen, but since there's no proof that any Democrat would ever accept, it's a terrible argument.

Now, you just said to yourself, Scott, you just said don't use the argument that the election was stolen. Here's the tough part. I didn't. What I said was that the protesters might believe that based on the fact that it broke pattern. So it broke pattern in terms of those last minute votes for Biden and the fact that there were so many of them and it's off historical pattern. It broke pattern in the bellwether counties or precincts. So it broke pattern. Now that is not proof that anything was stolen. The only thing you need to know is that the protesters believed it didn't look like a credible election. You don't have to argue whether it was actually stolen. If you argue whether it was actually stolen, that's the end of the argument because a Democrat will be like, "All right, go away. Go away." There's no evidence it was stolen. I'm not going to listen to the rest of it.

But if you can get them to understand that it's not about what you or they think, it's about what the protesters thought. So if the protesters thought it was a perfectly fair election and they were trying to delay it or stop it, it was an insurrection. That's what I'd call it, right? If they believed that the election was fair and they did what they did anyway, trying to delay the certification, well, that's a little bit insurrectiony, you know, not really effective because they didn't have any chance of succeeding. But if they believed, right or wrong, and this is important, right or wrong, if they believed that th