Everybody wanted it's time for coffee was got homes. The best displays in the entire universe. There are other dimensions. Are we having checked yet? But all indications are that this is the best place to be of all reality. Don't know for sure, but less time All you need is a cover of all your glass attacker jealousies, Diana can't age, Eyeglass vessel that guy fill it with a favorite like with like coffee And join me now the unparalleled pleasure, the dope immediate of the day. The thing makes everything better, including the vaccinations he's got the simultaneous and it's gonna be

how can people all over the world at the same time, hence simultaneous happens now go I never disappoints. I just saw tweed by Richard, grew now: He says that the border to Mexico was opened up before California was reopened, and if that doesn't bother, you you haven't been paying attention led, does bother me, I gotta say that's a good so how many of you have neanderthal genes? Heavier read your dna tested. Well, I have like a little neanderthal genes and me, and it turns out that that can have a big impact on your corroded virus outcome.

Now, who told you really early in the pandemic that we would probably find out that the biggest difference Adele comes? Was genetic tat looks like the biggest difference and outcomes is genetic? Now, that's on top of coal more abilities, so the cool more abilities were still bigger, but within the, a morbidity is, there are plenty of people who go out that outcomes so, People were overweight and live there older and whatever they do. Fine, apparently is genetic so that the genes can protect you, even if you ve not protected yourself with the lifestyle.

And I think that we will find a more and more about this now raises an interesting question: does suppose just brain stormier suppose the United States have national registry of DNA. You don't like the idea, you don't want the government having your dna idea But what if they did luscious walk ass if they had your dna and if a pandemic came through in, they could fairly quickly determine which it wouldn't take long that some genetic situations are dangerous and some are not given that the biggest challenge with the vaccinations is together, get him to the people who were in most danger. What would happen if you could take the people? You know our most?

the co morbidity people and then you could further divide them by which ones are really endanger because of genetics. Suddenly you're giving your vaccines do exactly the right people at the moment work. Vaccines do soared over generally. The population that we think is statistically has the biggest problem, but once you have their genetics, you can give it to exactly the people did it. You know you you're getting really close to knowing. actually what a person lives. Now, of course, there are all kinds of privacy questions and what not about anybody having your genes, but here's the thing you need to know. China is already collected your genetic material, civic. So the question you have is: do you want to live in a future were where China has your genetic material.

but the United States does not cause that's where we're heading and we're having their fast one. Other stories didn't give much play. Is that you're a number of lab resources that people are using the word chinese? companies. Do you want your blood in your dna to be analyzed by an american company, that's owned by China there, because everybody they test gonna have dna. So I think the world is heading in the direction where governments will have your dna. So do you want your own government to have it cuz? China's going to China will have your dna. Now to the question of whether China had developed this, this virus.

to be less say, work on some people less than others, while this up there there's no evidence that by the way, so that with that was just a conspiracy there. But Apparently, there's more neanderthal genes in Eastern Asia than there is in most places. so try to actually as the high percentage of neanderthal DNA, but apparently there are two kinds of just having the end result. In aid doesn't mean you are good or bad, as some people was some subsets of that Situation can do worse than others, so as a little more complicated, but there doesn't seem. It doesn't seem to be true that the virus is less effective against chinese ethnic people.

One of the most fun stories day is that a writer for Vocs Aaron Rhubarb became so famous for tweeting misleading videos that he got in the dictionary. So the urban dictionary now calls Arup or his last name. It turned into a verb enemies to purposely mislead,

Miss characterize a video Serbia, the video of trumpets at the left, the Charlottesville five people hoax? That's a Rupert because it's a misleading video there was cut out the end where he says he's disavowed racist completely see just take their part out, looks the opposite. Looks like you. The same with the drinking bleach hoax is just and edit you take out the part where his best, by light, which he did before he talked about it. So you know you're talking about light and then it will use done. He brought it back. The light,

no you talk about light, all time, which is a real thing, but it got rhubarb Rupert by taking off the end and the beginning. So you didn't see the reference delight and then they report and say it's bleach and then that's the story is this guy rhubarb now, there's nothing makes me happier and by the way report has come after me personally, so we ve had some exchanges online, so I can say he's my natural enemy on twitter, but you learn any sort of this. But tat he made his into dictionary before I did. I call that winning so. Here's the interesting thing Rasmussen is going to be reporting today and uphold. This says forty. and presented Democrats think their borders,

security is not a vital national security concerns. What what Forty seven percent of Democrats don't think that protect your border is a national security concerns. now remember when I was telling you about how consuming news from one source doesn't matter if it's just the left or just the right, Science has shown that it causes brain damage. Now you lucky this the story, you saved yourself, ointment. nearly half of Democrats think that protecting the border doesn't have a national security elements to it. This

perfect example. If you tried to explain this, how do you explain that? Would you say to yourself how it looks like forty seven percent of Democrats are really stupid, but you know that's not true. You know, that's not true. Half of all Democrats or stupid, I mean not more stupid that anybody else right. So it's not there and right and but is, is there some kind of bias play? Well, I'm not sure it's exactly a bias. It looks like brain damage. Doesn't it because this is the kind of opinion that you could only have if your brain wasn't working because there's no argument It's not like. There are two arguments and they're pretty well. I can see

other side, but I prefer this one. There is no argument in favour of opening the borders. There's none and The other certainly arguments by how many people you let the EU through through certainly not an argument argument. Those vital security concern anyway, so once you realize, and you re frame your understanding of the world to say that these people are problem. Literally so this is not I'm not giving an analogy, not speaking. finger doubly literally and scientifically brain damaged, and almost certainly you can tell the source of the brain damage consuming too much news. I once

Once you see it, you cannot see it because it explains everything right. It just explains everything. Why doesn't make any sense when you're talking to these people? This doesn't make any sense. It's like you're talking to somebody with a brain damage, and it turns out that literally eggs. What's happening exactly was so sometimes things are just the way they look. Here's a story that is sort of teasing us about becoming a big story and boys are going to be a big story, so you don't the Taiwan a little island country that sits just off of China, and you know the China has for decades claim them as their own, even though they are the fish.

a separate country and the United States is sort of you know back to Taiwan and giving them weapons and stuff. So they can protect themselves. But here's the thing you need to know Probably in the next ten years and say the experts, China will take to take Taiwan and it's going to be easy. It's going to be easy, and the things I know about. This apparently spend work aimed at every time States does a war game on this to figure out what would happen if China tried to capture Taiwan and the answer China captures Taiwan every time it's not even close because of proximity.

Now, what's right is doing is quite clever for a long term plan if they were just start, a fight, it's going to get pretty bloody and it's going to hurt them and international relationships forever, at cetera. but as China builds up more and more a capability around Taiwan, the number of hours. It would take to conquer all of Taiwan start shrinking. so we're at the boy now were China could conquer Taiwan in the bad day so that its about one day process currently with their current military situation. Nobody believes that I want to defend itself against the legitimate attack. Nobody thinks it and that time we will probably get down to an hour, because I'll just keep adding assets in other, more missiles were more ships

capability and once Taiwan is completely surrounded and the time it will take to conquer it gets down to about an hour they'll just negotiate to become part of China, because it'll be. Only choice, so I don't see there's anyway, that Taiwan could go any other direction really and longer, and I think Our military is starting to will now starting to either the warning. The same thing, but the United States as this I soon there's some kind of military pact where we would have some responses your moral authority to help defend Taiwan, What do you do when it's impossible just impossible? You couldn't possibly militarily defendants does not So here is that we use ways should expect our respect sometime in the next ten years. China will just take Taiwan

it will become a giant, issue for a few years like Hong Kong and then we'll get over it. we'll just don't I want there. I don't say that any other future. I just can't imagine a lab in any other way. Bernie Sanders continues to be interest. And he said he was very uncomfortable about twitter. Banning Trump now needed here is no lover of tromp. Of course, but he says, but if you ask me, do I feel particularly comfortable that the then president of the United States could not express its views on twitter. Bernie says I dont feel comfortable about that. So thank you. Thank you. Bernie Sanders for being a voice of reason on us.

But there is an interesting trim developing and if you, if you're, not sort of in the writers world you haven't seen, it goes like this right now. We we, the public, are at the mercy of the big platforms of your other big platform twitter Facebook Youtube whenever you pretty much have to do what they They will allow you to do or else you're going to get booted off like like the president, so that gives us the platform's narrative control. So if you're saying something, that's against the narrative, you just can't shut down either Blue go off or you're

traffic is depressed, but there's something happening you might not be well. You ve heard of I've talked about locals, which is a subscription service, so you could be free of the platform control because the individuals on locals just charge you a small subscription fee. You can just see them directly and you don't have to give filtered by any our Forbes goes locals, doesn't do that each of the creators on their own content there, so the different situation, but even bigger than that is substantially. Are you familiar with substance now it's essentially is. I guess I call a platform for writers.

Who won escape the end of the narrative machines and they get paid a lot a lot. In fact, some of them are being paid in advance, so they can get very large paycheck and just for joining some stack more than they would make in legacy media, and suddenly they have your full access to lots of people you have to subscribe, but. and suddenly no platform tells him what to say so glad in a Greenwald is on sub stack and making making quite a lot of noise and he's big.

Even more interesting than he was. These always been interesting so to watch to watch somebody of his talent level, suddenly completely free. It's really kind of fun to watch matter you be, I believe, is also of their another proof. Example, somebody saying very wise. I think she is over there as well, so that some stack locals are both sort of recruiting. If you will get a really interesting voices that the people who don't quite fit in the official narrative platforms and here's here's the shift, that's happening, the shift is moving away from the platform controlling the narrative back to individual stars, interest, solvents and other one whose substantial Israel's locals is is bullion lots, people Gregg households on their I'm on their centre, so others

so this is a big thing, because the number of as the number of people who escaped the the narrative machines, the big platforms they would, they will become the new opinion makers and there is a trend towards taking the mainstream media a little bit to another and the power structure. So just keep looking at this and see if there's any, if there's a threat to the subscription model. Now, what I think will happen eventually my require some new company to do this, but I think eventually you will be able to choose your voices.

And then some service will stitch them together into a channel so that you can say well rather than watching, who CNN think should be on tv or who fox NEWS once they interview I'll just pick my individual writers I'll. Take you to one Glenn Greenwald I'll, take you know, Scott Adams I'll take a very wise and I'll just make a channel. That's just the people. now we're not big fuckin liars. Basically, albeit shell of people, were not liars, they could be wrong right. I could be wrong about love stuff, but I'm furnished I have a life idea. I mean I can think of it. There is no need to what would be the reason. Why do I don't have any reason so the people don't have a reason to lie. Not part of I've got enough money that if I get cancel the against an same with green world and Davy etc,

their voices are unleash now and that's a really good thing to watch, for I told you yesterday The I thought the suddenly Powell had an airtight defence nigh or tighten sensational deftly whim. By solid defence, legislative, solid, it doesn't mean Sherwin, I want to see an end. You lie honey. Who, apparently, is brilliant lawyer, according to Vienna, and he disagrees with my completely uneducated legal appended sellers talk about that. So, according to Eli, Therefore dominion to prevail over seventy pal. If you don't know the issue so that people have made claims about dominion, election systems being able to use the word, because again,

then from social media, but though she said there are some problems with dominion. Dominion Dominion is suing her for making these claims and Electronic says that the dominion only has to prove that certainly power new but she was saying, was false and that she is basically admitted it in her filing. Because every file- and she says you shouldn't- believe me- basically, I'm paraphrasing you Shouldn'T- have taken it. As fact you should have taken it s, my opinion. They would need to be verified. So do you take the Scott Adams, legal opinion or the Eli hunting legal opinion, so my opinion,

Is that I'm a reasonable person, and when I heard suddenly Powell Talk, I believed exactly what she said, that she had an opinion like a hunch. It was based on stuff, but it was basically a strong opinion and that she was she was advocating. That we find out another words, her whole thing was that she doesn't know she believes it to be true and we need to find out, Now if she said we know to be true, and we don't need to do Any research, because we are the information we know to be true or not reliable right if she knew It was not true, and she said it was true. That's pretty bad, but I think her case is solid, so I've now I've heard the opposite.

And how do you prove somebody knew something was that there were saying was false. How do you do that? How do you proves They knew what they were saying was false, especially somebody's job is an advocate if here to advocate hearsay, and some stuff is certainly could be questionable, but it's your job to be an advocate. Of course, lawyers say things like

exactly true sort of the job there, and so I'm going to say again that I think Sir Leopold when this will prevail, because it was clearly stated clearly and in my opinion is obviously an opinion, because how can somebody knows something really care be known that the whole the whole problem with the many is that it was non transparent. Nobody looked at the code in nobody looked at all process from beginning to end. has it been audited in that fashion, I think she went gun sales or up of course. Of course people can find more guns, Khazars, national shootings and because the Democrats you're talking about Morgan control. So so good luck, good work on that Democrats, more guns common,

Sir said to circumvent the mass shooter, always talking about the guy user, I guess he was an emigrant from Syria. He and mental problems seems very clear. He was empty trump and he was against Islamophobia. But beyond that, there's not any specific motivation for it. So we don't. Oh yeah, the immediate cause of. Why did this? We just certain now you might have some mental problems. It looks likely. He does.

statement you're not like at all to do this to you, but I have to do this because otherwise you out, you won't believe, I'm telling you the truth. Unless I occasionally tell you something you don't like otherwise, you're just like until you are, you are here, and here it is you get a unified and eighth us, in my opinion, is just an opinion and this opinion is informed by my experience with hypnosis my experience with just the way the brain works, and it goes like this. If you banned the the cool, looking weapons. You would have far fewer mass shootings. I hate to say it now what I say: the cool looking weapons, I'm talking about the coolest, I'm not talking about the killing the killing power cuz as weed,

yesterday, somebody with a hadn't gone can do a lot of killing and it's gonna be almost no difference if they're good at it, but imagine kids playing video games. She wore things and then their imagining their last moments. Does anybody who goes this because smashing anything? They certainly have to imagine it before they do it. Imagine yourself going in with this really cool, sir, What military is looking gun that you just love holding in your hand, media just you just love it now, if you're shell or if you don't, have any for you say, a cool pool objects. you understand what I'm saying this may be harder for women to understand, and I'm gonna be a little a little over over sexist here. To make the point, obviously, some women, like guns, your world,

that's right. When I make a general generalization about gender in your head, Did I say was not everybody? Obviously it's not everybody. plenty women, I'm sure like the look and feel of a cool gun. That's something, but I would say in general guys are more likely to like just justice, physicality of it just the coolness of it. What happens if you take that away. It doesn't end all mass shootings course like he said somebody who's crazy or as a motivations, just gonna get him God or some other weapon, but I do think that people like this guy, this particular guy- that's a mental problems. If you took away the coolness factor, doesn't look the same. I just don't know if it looks the same. You ve heard that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you build up

military. Do you think you're more likely to use it? Then, if you of course. You tend to use a tool or just because you have it so if you have it away and also What military is looking gun, not really military? It's gonna feel like you need to use it cause you haven't and if you're not a hunter, and you have a bad day and you ve got to schools, One plus one and you get a bad situation now I dont imagine this would have an effect on most mass shootings because there either you ideological or some of these crazy whenever but this guy probably wasn't so crazy that you wouldn't be influenced by the say, the via above the whole situation. That makes them what kind of awesome in his

she's- mind now, services nice mind raining source. mind really. If you're talking about people in general, mind reading would be if you talk about an individual, but if you make a general statement about Bell People act, you can be pretty safe about that relative to guessing what one person things now. Of course, I'm watching your comments, love people. Crazy on this now the numbers don't show that I am not aware of any numbers. There would suggest one way or the other are you that there's no way the coolness of it has no effect? I just don't know how much gotta be five percent. Ten percent- I would say that is at least ten percent I dont think is eighty percent is a fifty percent could be good,

There is less less than fifty percent bunker now allowed one another factor the news: what would it look like if the news did not report these and almost always report that it's the same kind of weapon? Do you think that this guy would have had this idea to be mass shooter at this grocery store? Do you think you would have even thought of it, except for the news? Probably not. Now so you need two things: you need a news, they care shut up about it and you need a really cool weapon and then You need somebody whose life is not going well, apparently couldn't get a girlfriend. That's some mental problems. I don't think he's life was gonna, go there.

anyway. Now this is all separate from whether there should be gun control. This clearly the question of whether there should be gun control opens up all kinds of other questions, so the question is not just if you made this change would have reduced the number of shootings. You have two way that against freedom and. protecting the country, etc. Now things are people that I often say about gun control, in the reason that I am in favour of guns is that there is at least a small chance that you have to protect yourself from the government itself, and somebody said to me what The odds are that we built around three hundred years or whatever and and the country S. You have fallen borri up. Do you really need those guns to protect yourself against the government of the United States? really to which I say, I don't think it's a big chance. Two percent

I would say the odds are two percent now, if you say zero, I think you're not in intellectually secure territory, so I think, is closer to a hundred percent. If you wait long enough it just how long you wait, because are no dynasties that lasted forever. they all have a upheaval, so the picture of the United States of Sunday, not being the United States, is one hundred percent. It's just. I will lol you wait. Is it a thousand years or so,

So there is some chance. I would put the odds that just for discussion purposes to present two percent. This is just a decent math right. You know I have to agree with another. Now, how would you look at the risk of a two percent chance of this big problem? We like the government turning on the citizens, two percent. How would you rate that compared to the death by guns, while the deaths by guns, you can count

And you can say era we get this. Many thousand people per year die from guns. What is a two percent risk that the entire United States would be new devastated by some civil war? The of the government would turn on the people. While you multiply three hundred seventy million people times two percent, you get the seven million people at risk. Now that would be if the whole country was fighting each other with weapons which wouldn't happen, but you very quickly you very quickly this. by the way, this type of analysis is called an expected value. You multiply the odds of something happening times the cost, if it did happen now, both these gases, but it allows you to leave

I have some kind of rational comparison to an alternative, so the alternative is what thirty thousand people a year die from guns in the United States, but you gotta two percent chance of preventing millions from dying millions. So I would say that that's worth it to me as an insurance policy against led to present in the short term, but really a hundred percent longer I'd say: that's a good insurance policy. Yet so representatives doesn't mean that everybody dies,

I didn't say that two percent chance is that there would be a lot of people. So let's say was a million people died, the civil war will say, did two percent of a million, so ten percent we are two thousand. Do the math. The? I think the news plus the coolness of the weapons are the two variables that we won't talk about. water at least a big part of it. It's not the whole story I guess by them is talking about some Maybe using his power

wherever executive orders to do something with which these weapons and thinking what kind of executive order can you do about that? I still confused about the the scope of executive orders like when: can you use them? How can you use and executive order to make a constitutional right less available feels like feels like it fashionable thing to do, but maybe can so. He hasn't ruled out the executors, what they mostly want or they're asking for, is a background check. Improvements. I dont know why anybody disgraceful background checks- and I don't know if this guy could have been stopped with a background check.

But here's the scariest they you'll hear today. Do you believe that you could write a an algorithm? There would detect somebody who is a potential mash you'd her before they do the shooting here's. The things that could have been detected about the shooter in Denver he's is concerned about is Lama phobia. He doesn't like job you get a girlfriend and there's some indication of mental illness. Now if they also had access to the fact that you'd recently bought a weapon, could there be- Kind of algorithm look and see all of those things say: a government algorithm. They could look into your financial stuff and also look into your postings and say: wait a minute wait a minute. We ve got a bad match here. Here's a guy who's got sort of the characteristics.

that doesn't look safe. He doesn't have a happy life little mental problems and he's got a political motive as bad, and then he just bought this. This particular type of weapons and there's nothing on the social media to suggest he's a hunter and there's nothing other social media to suggest he's just a second amendment. Guy right. Do you think you couldn't write an algorithm that would find the shooters before they shot? Now you would find too many people. That's the problem right, you'd find a way more people than actual people commit crimes But I feel like we're ahead: hello, Adam, yes, money.

Wait today, capital how voting today on great, but you I don't need any capital. I am actually I will direct manner. We have fifteen plus long programme where we don't need a guarantee funds alone during an appetite for everything he had suddenly ejected, be great problems. Say about that, but I get these can send me a check. I was a so? Everyone is talking about the authenticity of the shooter and in the beginning, People like me, and people like. commonly Harris's niece, I think it was was internees. Her niece said well, probably a white guy, with, though with a big weapon.

You may recall that I said the same thing I think is probably a white guy. As that as that feeling about Turns out, I wasn't Yesterday I had also raised the question about what his ethnicity might be because it hasn't been released. the longer it takes them to release the ethnicity and the more you suspect there wasn't a white guy. I feel like it the white guy. You know right away what the races, but people are saying that since they took him alive, he must have been a white guy, but that didn't turn up if case so everybody got to have their their biases tested by the situation I got, I got my biases tested now. The bias is just in my case who statistical I just thus, statistically the odds are good at. It was awake

but it wasn't I saw occurred from, I think, a gentleman who lives in India. If I, if I'm correctly, seem at any between those who said this is very brave. You just said it was brazen letter just openly discriminating against white people. Now in the Senate, you probably the Tammy, Duckworth and me Verona said: the vote against all by the nominees were not racial minorities. So these these stories end up becoming the same. Laurie, because every story just turns into a racial filter,

oh, the shooter, its racial. Yes, in the comments on the same issue is already on F B. I radar, which means they already do, have an ogre if a fairly they do have an algorithm that can put you on the radar just by your social media traffic and if they haven't yet bash that against fire on purchases. Why haven't seems like the obviously to do so. Amazingly to democratic senators said the you can't that they won't vote for white people to fill these cabinet positions, and I almost don't know what about that. They literally one vote for white people. and they said that out loud now. I think it was Duckworth who may have pulled back a little bit, but

They would only make an exception if you're algae Bt Q, which is an interesting exception, because if I were a nominee, And I were adult white guy who is qualified for the office and I knew that Tammy Duckworth, amazing Rona would not go from unless I was ill, if less I were algae, beauty, q, I would become elegy Bt Q with immense. Could you just have to say you are right and wrong about that and if you think I'm joking now now, if I were that, if I were a nominee, our a white guy I couldn't get the job because of my race. Unless I were algae beauty you, I would stand in front of the public and say I maybe not naturally,

leading that way, but as a lifestyle choice. It is my right to make it and I declare myself to be gay for the purposes of employment. and I understand I don't- have to actually have sex with anybody, because you can be gay without the actual sexual act? Obviously you heterosexuals were not having sex or so heterosexual, so I don't have to prove I'm gay. I just have to be gay and my personal preferences and I would play a completely ironically. I would play it straight. I wouldn't joke, and I wouldn't say I kidding, no matter how many people asked. I would look you right in the eye and say: yes totally asked his gaze. You can get for the job I'm doing from the job, but I'm Devil gay for the job.

Now this is. One of my perma trolls somebody unto recalled Hampton Stevens. You saw me tweeting about these issues. and before replying to somebody else he goes right, Adams is going full on white grievance to which treated in reply. Yes, I am. Our system works best with guard reels in every direction, and only the people who can survive the blow back. Have the ability to perform that public task. you can set it down. If your frightened, I understand, so I told my my critic that if he's frightened to people

this conversation might understand. He has every right to be frightened. It's a it's a scary thing and only the only people that can't even talk about this topic in public or people or bulletproof and I'm kind of bulletproof. So It's almost like the Spiderman problem, which is really want to talk about this. I really doubt I'm just not interested, but I'm the only one who can not the only one, but there there's a small number of people who can even talk about this in public and not have their life rule. So I guess I guess I'm one of now, because I cab and it's important Full of racism in the Senate, Tom cotton pull you called the down as well on twitter, and

I feel as if they should be removed from the sounds like they should really be removed from the Senate, as in all of the white people in the Senate should walk out until they are. If I were a white straight Republican, I would refuse to do service we refuse to do the work of the people until they're gone. I wouldn't do any work of the public. I wouldn't do anything in the Senate. I wouldn't look at. I wouldn't look at a nomination. I wouldn't even look at that I wouldn't even show up until they get really stupid because if you think there's something more important than this that their work it out,

Well, you're wrong: this is the most important thing that happened in the country ass to get fixed, that people were openly racist in the Senate and don't think they'll be real, cushions for that, so you need to play by their own game, which is if it's racist is racist. They have to deal with it. It's the biggest issue, and this is really racist is like super racist. This is racist as you can be, Does anybody feel sorry for the white people who will be victimized by this now, but you still can't be racist, doesnt, work and long term.

now I ve told you before the only way to stop the the crazy brain damage to part of the left from the slippery slope. That just goes reverent. Madness is aggressively agreeing with them disagree with somebody who s brain damage doesn't work. Do you know why it's sort of in the setup it's the brain damage puckered if they, did the brain damage. While you could try regional, but they do so. You can't say after use, persuasion, not reason, and I would say the way to do that would be to embrace their policies and watch the break. So that's happened with immigration. right. So the Democrats got to try their immigration plan and gotta see it didn't work.

That would be to have a lot of stuff there doing if they got their way. If the dog caught the car, it wouldn't know what to do with it. So some time yet let the dog catch. The cards are dumb ass. Nobody, Whether you on the bumper Hauser Dazed, someday you have to let them get their way because their brain damaged and just see what happens then talk themselves out of it. They can talk themselves in their way. So, that's why I think the GNP should just shut down the Senate, because that's what the Democrats would do if, if there are then we'll say a GNP member who had said something,

was not just maybe a little racist, not just a dog whistle but direct. If, if some white, adult Republican had made a direct racist statement like this, I think the Democrats would just stop this and when they were just stop everything's. I await a minute. This is the biggest problem, nothing else This is bigger problem as this is these two people have to be gone, be or we're not. Gonna. Do any other business. I always using the example of representative king. King, is an example of the the dog whistle type. Some people thought they heard it in his words, other people said that he's just bad at talking in public and it's not really there, but you could imagine it if you want to.

The dog whistle stuff is a little bit mind reading and we have to assume you know what they're thinking and the account, but if somebody says it directly as Duckworth and run it did you have to stop the Senate and fix that nothing else matters today. He got a fix it, so the other way to go would be for the GEO P to em,

a sense and use the aggressive agree idea. Imagine if you will the G Opie introduced some legislation to ban white men from serving in the Senate from that point on or serving in the cabinet decision. From that point on what would you do what would happen if the GEO P said? Let's take your lead, Duckworth Ronnie, we're going to put together a bill says at white people, kids

government what would happen because if they disagree with the idea is just another, disagreement means nothing, but what would happen if they said the eldest? Let's take this to where you want it to be less, let's put it into law and then put all the Democrats on record to see. If they involve for citizens of all for putting on record seventy Democrats will vote, then no white people can serve in the girl. You like it, don't you so! This is why I can never be in the Senate, because I would just be drawing the other side. Nonstop

person, the whites humor, wouldn't put it on the calendar, it doesnt matter. It doesn't matter if it is voted on it matters if they would do it because it would, it would be a news, a tractor that makes you overqualified for the son you definitely the lobby and the seven all that would be fun. Maybe the said it will be better than the present, because I can. I can cause more trouble in the sun, so brain damage They will probably vote for it here, but you're really going for the other. Half of the Democrats were not brain damaged. They just have different policy preferences.

That's all I got for now and follow me on locals, undoing lots of stuff refrain. so I've discovered that people like best my lessons on re, had a look at the stuff you're already looking at in a different way, so that you can, you can deal with more productively some putting a more refraining lessons on there and asked a number of times lately by my critics, to explain how I was so if she were that dead Trump would win the election even after the election, because I was, I was suggesting that there might be some improprieties. discovered and people say well. I guess you're wrong too, I say I am I am I wrong. We only know that hasn't been checked, how'd you. How do you.

How do you know, wrong on the thing you haven't checked: cuz, that's the whole point is that now we know that the courts did not overrule everything. We know that Biden's and office. I'm not arguing any that, I'm just saying you don't know if I'm wrong, you just know we didn't. so I tweeted the other day that sometimes you think I'm wrong, but really just haven't waited long enough. That's one of these! I cannot. Can we get a simultaneous up every time you speak publicly well uttered off you ve noticed, but I've stopped speaking publicly. Zimbabwe noticed I just stop taking interviews, I'm going to be doing less. It gets Lessing, its postpone, I'm gonna be doing clubhouse event

Later this morning- and I haven't better clubhouse yet I just signed up displaying with it this morning and I'm gonna be. If, if this happens, I think it's gonna happen, I'm going to be defending the indefensible, so I'm gonna be picking a topic which cannot be defended and then I'm going defended anyway. I'm gonna have a guest, controversial guests, controversial we're really controversial. So look for that unless it is possible- and I will talk to you tomorrow-. I just saw your comment: go by this is the Beatles in the best band ever I am totally obsessed looking at all the Beatles videos.

stories and learning about how they succeeded, because s really interesting and. when you see that they had systems, so the Beatles had systems, they didn't have goals and we look at their systems. It becomes somewhat almost obvious why this they just I'd better systems and I'll give you one example. One example would be when they were writing a song different bear numbers would have like little bits of ideas of things, for there are completely different and the Beatles would say well if your little bit is awesome, but you you couldn't build a whole song around it, and then you, if you do just a little bit, that's awesome. While we just put the bits together and will make a song of all the way

and I'm bets anything well what about the the vehicles and the vocals while we're just do random sentences? What you're gonna make music that is ready. how the literally domain anything and your song will be a hotchpotch of different things that you just like that just were put together and that's what they did That has a better system, because people like music, where they, like all the good points. You ve noticed that a lot of modern music has the you may have the hip hop artist with. Maybe you re at somebody reaction. what are you gonna sing and then you get a little bit of a rap and a little bit of singing and you gotta like it, because it's like a little bit of that little bit.

So the Beatles sort o pioneered putting things together. They shouldn't be together, sort of the pine apple on the pizza sort of thing, and they did tons of experimenting and tons of practice, and then they took it from the that they were stifled, doing life performances because they couldn't hear themselves. The crowds were too loud annually change their system and the move to the studio and started making sounds that you'd never heard before so another part of their system is they would make their equipment differently than other people. I think in one case a piano was microphones underneath

they were, then they would have different devices that nobody else use different sounds and they would just make music at the sounds. So once you dig into what the Beatles did, systems wise is pretty impressive, so is not exactly an accident that they succeed in their talent was off the charts and they had exactly the right people, but their systems were Maison. That's the real story of a sovereign I'll talk to you tomorrow,