y tried to get across the Mexican border, the Venezuelans would probably, you know, we've already stopped them.

Excuse me while I take a sip from my awesome water thermos bottle that will make you wish you had one.

So if you're just joining, I'm using my NPR ASMR voice to conserve my energy so I can go as long as possible. Probably won't go more than 20 minutes, but we'll see.

All right. So it looks like we're at least teasing going to Venezuela. But here's the real question. I'm going to get into some conspiracy theory stuff. It sounds better when you talk like this. Conspiracy theories.

Is it really about the drugs? Maybe. Some people say fentanyl is not a Venezuela problem. So there must be some other reason Trump wants to go into Venezuela. Is it because Venezuela has some implication in our election systems? I'm going to talk about that separately. Is it because what we really want is regime change?

So do you think the war on Venezuelan drugs is about voting machines? Is it really about drugs? Or is it really about regime change? Or is it some combination of all three or two? And how would we ever know?

Now today, this morning, since it was slow news, I had some gaps in my understanding of some recent stories. And so I used Grok to fill me in and it ruined all my fun. Has anybody tried that yet? Have you tried using Grok on stories within your own bubble? You will be very disappointed if you do. Not disappointed in Grok necessarily, but you'll be disappointed in how many things you believe that are pure fiction.

So my experience this morning was, "All right, Grok, does this look reasonable?" Nope. How about this? Does this look reasonable? Nope. So it turns out that there were several things that I thought were at least possible in my bubble that Grok says were not.

Now that doesn't mean that Grok is right. Grok is intended to achieve maximum truth, but it's not done yet. You know, Grok is still a work in progress. So it's possible that Grok is the one that's wrong, but it's pretty convincing.

So the first thing I used Grok to help me on was the Emerald Robinson long thread in which she weaves together a very convincing story that our elections have been fake basically for years as well as the elections in other countries and that there's a very specific set of allegations of why that is.

But so I ran that against Grok and I said basically summarize it and then tell me how reasonable it is. What do you think Grok said? Grok wasn't buying any of it.

So Emerald Robinson's thread, and I'll just throw out some of the main points. So one of the points is that the chips in election machines are made in China. Do you believe that's true? And that they have malicious code basically, that the chips are malicious but that they were laundered through Taiwan so it would look like the chips came from Taiwan but they really were made in China. So I'm not sure that's proven.

Then there was the allegation that one of the main election machines had as its CEO a George Soros ally. So there's a Soros connection alleged and there's a Chinese chip part, but there's also a Venezuelan software allegation. And there's something about Serbian servers and the CIA.

So the idea would be, and here's the part I was trying to understand, how in the world could all of those entities be working together? How could Soros be working with China who is also working with some Serbians who is also being managed maybe by the CIA? Does it seem like they would all be on the same team?

And Grok's explanation is that the CIA, now this would not be Grok's opinion, it's description of someone else's opinion. But the idea would be that the CIA is allowing with full knowledge China to manipulate our elections and Soros to manipulate them and some Serbians and maybe some Venezuelan software. And that the reason that the CIA would allow all that is that somehow that would preserve the deep state as it is now.

Do you think Chinese microchips, if such a thing were real, do you think that all those entities would be working toward the same end and that the CIA would be completely aware of it and allow it to happen? And then separately, why didn't it work in 2024? If our elections are completely compromised, why in the world didn't it work in 2024? And the explanation given is that the good work of the people trying to uncover this vast conspiracy were so good at what they did that it increased the potential for audits and the oversight and that in some cases they got rid of election machines.

I don't know how many places but so the theory is that for maybe decades the entire system has been rigged, that hundreds of people are aware of it and part of it but yet somehow we only hear about it from a few whistleblowers even though decades and hundreds of people have been involved. That's a stretch.

But we have seen real world situations where hundreds of people have been involved and it was actually a conspiracy. COVID, for example, that was an example of a lot of people being involved who could have been whistleblowers but weren't. So we do have some precedent of lots of people being involved and nobody talking because they'd be afraid of being executed presumably by the CIA.

So how much of that sounds real to you? Do you believe that all of those entities, let's see, I'll give you the entities again. It would have been the Soros organization, Venezuela, some Serbian hackers, the Chinese making microchips, and the CIA. Do you believe that they were all coordinating? That's kind of a stretch.

I'm just looking at your comments. So Grok's spot on. Well let me tell you what else. Just give you as much as I have.

First of all, the story is kind of confusing. Exactly. It's a big confusing story. So that's your first hint that maybe there's something wrong. Meaning there's a lot of parts to it. And if there's one thing I've taught you and only one thing, it's that things which are not true can often have a lot of circumstantial evidence that they are. So it's not unusual for something not to be true but really looking like it is for 20 different reasons. That just doesn't mean it's true.

So let's see what else. I also looked to Mike Benz to tell me if this all tracks. And I think Mike, I don't want to mischaracterize him, but I think he would be on the side of not completely embracing the Emerald Robinson version of events. I didn't see him debunk it, but nor did I see him fully embracing it. If he had that would have added a lot to the credibility because he knows the context of things in ways we don't.

Anyway, so part of the theory is that the reason that the bad people got away with it is that they learned to shave votes only from the deep red pro-Trump districts. And the idea is that nobody would suspect if they did all the cheating in the red areas because the red areas are Republican controlled and you wouldn't expect those to be the places that there would be cheating against Trump. And the theory is that if it's a Trump 70% area that if they just shave it back to say 68% nobody would notice because it would still be a landslide for Trump in a Trump area. So that would look legit. It would just look oh it's off by 2% from what we expected. But you know you can't expect that accurately.

So that makes sense. I don't think there's proof of that, but it makes sense in the how would you cheat? If you did cheat, how would you do it? So it makes sense that way, but I don't think there's evidence of that.

I've been saying for a while that the best evidence that the electronic voting machines are not legit without stating who might be behind any bad behavior is that they're not cheaper, they're not easier, and they're not more secure than the alternative, which is paper ballots. So why do they even exist?

I'm leaning toward the idea that they do exist for the purpose of rigging elections in other countries. But that would still raise the question, who's doing the rigging? Is it possible that the CIA was working with Maduro and China? I don't know how all that makes sense.

Anyway, so let's see what else Grok said about it. The theory that the CIA allegedly allowed China to insert spyware because they were okay with it. Does that really track? Does it make sense to you that there would be at least two or three entities that all had some access to be able to rig the vote? I don't know.

So I'm going to say this about that. First of all, Grok, there's really a spoiler. This won't be the first thing I tell you that they kind of debunked. Now debunk is a strong word and it does not mean disproven. So just get that part straight. Grok did not disprove the theory. It simply did not find it compelling, I guess.

But is that evidence? Are you convinced by Grok's opinion? Well one of the things that Grok did was it mocked me and actually it used me as an example in its response. It said it sounded more like a Scott Adams conspiracy theory. And I said, "Why'd you bring me into it?" And that was the funny part. Grok knows who I am. It knows who I am, but it also used me as an example to make its point. Anyway, got a little personal there.

All right. So I also tested Grok against the Mike Benz hypothesis, I'll call it that, that it's not a coincidence that there are these big immigration waves into America that follow some kind of CIA color revolution in another country. So I think he had some examples, maybe there were like eight different examples of countries where we were actively, meaning the CIA was actively trying to do a regime change and caused instability in the target country, be it Syria or Afghanistan. And then once that disruption of their society happened and it triggered a bunch of immigration or migration out of the target country, that there was a secondary benefit that the deep state or the CIA or somebody knew would happen. And what they would do is they would aim the refugees for areas where the extra population could be used to change the vote.

And Mike gave a bunch of examples that you would have to believe that they were all a coincidence for that to be any other reason. In other words, it does look intentional, but only by the fact that there are too many coincidences. But Grok, I thought, was going to buy into this a little bit more than it did. Grok said that there's no evidence of intent. So it didn't doubt Mike Benz's facts. It only said there's a part missing which is some evidence that anybody intended for this to happen.

We can observe that it does happen. We can observe that something like color revolutions that we're pushing in other places does create mass migration and we can observe that it changes the political dynamic in certain places. But the part that's missing is some kind of a more direct smoking gun that it's all intentional. At least the intentional part is that it's partly to change the voting balance in the United States.

So that ruined some of my fun there. As far as I can tell, Mike is undefeated in terms of showing his receipts, but sometimes you have to make a little bit of a leap and say, well, this doesn't look like a coincidence or if it is a coincidence, it's sure a weird one. So I would say that Grok was not at all convinced. Now again I remind you that doesn't mean Grok is right. That was just sort of Grok's take.

Then this one will kill you. You ready for another one? I don't want to ruin all of your fun with the conspiracy theories because they are fun and I get drawn into them as much as anybody else.

All right. So I saw a post by Eric Daugherty that summarized what a number of other people have said about the seditious six. You know, the seditious six, that would be the six Democrats who did the video that suggested that people in the military should not follow orders that are illegal.

Now as Eric points out, and this would be what I'd call the Republican bubble. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Doesn't mean it's right. It's just what the Republicans are saying on social media, but you know, maybe the Democrats don't even see it. I don't even know if they see it. But it goes like this.

There is an alleged, and everything I say about this will be alleged, an alleged nonprofit linked to George Soros that is fomenting sedition within the military. So the thinking is that the video we saw was inspired by or even the script was written by some third party external bad player and that that bad player might be linked to maybe George Soros.

But also there's some group called Win Without War that put up a billboard, just one billboard in North Carolina. And that was similar in tone to the seditious six. So that would suggest there's some external maybe larger play bigger than just some Democrats wanting to do a thing. There's some link to Antifa allegedly.

And then as Eric Daugherty is reporting, that on November 11th, just days before the video, the National Lawyers Guild published a page urging service members to refuse illegal orders. And it would be basically the same talking points as in the video. And then Win Without War, that entity. Let me see if I got the right entities.

So there's a National Lawyers Guild, but there's also the Win Without War nonprofit, I think, who are backed by the Soros Open Society and the group had some previous name. All right. So and then the Win Without War is partnered with the National Lawyers Guild.

Is this all too confusing? So the short version is that the belief is that the six Democrats were not doing this on their own, that there was some external guiding force still unidentified that allegedly had some connection with Soros. I guess the National Lawyers Guild supports Antifa.

And then here's the key part. There's something that Sen