Well, I'm Lane postdoc at Tufts. Tufts is close by in case you didn't know. So if you're in the area You should drop by some time and visit us So I work in vault visual analytics lab at Tufts with a lot of great people a lot of great research going on and Today, I just want to share some of that with you You know, what does it mean to take a user-centered approach to data visualization research? Sometimes we see things that kind of focus on the technology the graphics maybe the aesthetics that sort of thing and We really take you know kind of this I guess really strong user-centered approach to the work that we do and it's because you know use users matter, you know like Nigel said context matters and We want to explore that quantify that and use that to build better data visualizations And we do that because I'm going to give you a reminder in case you know, you've forgotten We've all you know kind of staked our careers on the belief that visualization is an indispensable tool for analysis and understanding I know I have And fortunately in recent years, it's been a lot easier to kind of push that I mean if you look at successes like Tableau, right?  This this is amazing And then you know on the other side things like the New York Times, you know, so if people were like, what's that blow? I don't get it. I'll just show them the New York Times stuff. They're like, oh, that's great That's great, but casting these in a broader light I mean we've had a lot of successes in both exploratory data visualization and also kind of on the expository side So like an exploratory, you know a problem for instance is where you don't know You know what's in the data until you get it in there and kind of discover the story and expository is where you you know kind of have a point to make and these are important trends and important ways of thinking about data visualization and these We've had so many successes in the recent years. I'm so excited about that however You know, there are some areas and the exploratory side and the expository side where we have data and The data has a lot of promise, but that promise is not being realized My own experience working with cybersecurity analysts, you know, we know that the data is there Everybody's tracking it, but it's currently not, you know Doing a great job of keeping our data safer as evidenced by the fact that in the past year I've replaced my credit card three times It's not really working for them And you know part of the problem is that and I actually just came across this visualization last week of a new product But you know security analysts are really excited about but it looks like this So I see the appeal right I watch minority report and you know, I look at this Future AI I want to be that But we know that there's some things going on here that might not be optimal for the the task and you know the gravity of the task that security analysts face and We need to do better But on the expository side where we kind of already know the story and think about this So a person getting a diagnosis and this is happening day after day after day It's very difficult time. The data is there, but it's not being realized It's not being used to its full potential to help people through this difficult decision process of like what treatments to get and what are the risks and trade-offs between them and You know, I just want to point out that these areas demand accurate and precise data visualization All right, so it kind of gives us a license to look at data visualization under a microscope to put it under a microscope to understand you know how it works and I Kind of experienced an exit to existential crisis during my undergrad and PhD years where you know I was going along building cybersecurity visualization systems for you know, a lot of different contexts and you know I looked at these I knew that there was a lot riding on the decisions made with these tools And I realized that I was just building the same things over and over again All right So bar charts area charts stack bar charts node link charts line charts radial scatter plots so on and so forth and I couldn't find you know a way to make an optimal design decision and That's that's kind of what I wanted to work towards right So how can one of I'm presenting this really critical information to a user, you know make a more optimal design choice and That led me to some really interesting research questions that I'm going to you know tell you about today So just getting right into it So one of those is that we want to leverage, you know the human ability of perception and our understanding of it to improve visualization design and So the problem looks like this we have many techniques that work for the exact same data So if we're familiar with you know a parallel coordinates plot, which is on the left, you know it's sort of an isomorph of the Scatter plot matrix which is in the middle Which is you know also a scatter plot matrix is an isomorph of a radial scatter plot these are all showing you know They can show the exact same data. They're quite different, you know What are the trade-offs between them? How do how do we get it that and typically in the academic community or even you know some of you here are familiar with AB testing right you can do a comparative evaluation right I can take the scatter plot here and Test it against the parallel coordinates plot and the scatter plot against the line chart and the scatter plot against the stack Bar chart so on and so forth, but you end up with a large experiment. So 8 choose 2 that's 28 conditions I don't want to run that that's going to be expensive So there's got to be other ways that we can get at this problem and in a principled way So another possible approach is to do a model based evaluation So in this case we would instead of you know just doing a comparative evaluation we would model the performance of Fort for instance a scatter plot on a given task and we could take that same modeling procedure and Apply it to a different set of visualizations now We have a set of models and you know if you've worked with models before you can compare them You know very directly and efficiently in this case model 3 is outperforming model 2 is outperforming model 4 Hypothetically the data actually does not back that up at all But you know the point is that models of performance can be compared directly and efficiently they're very easy to get It's just choosing the model is the hard part models are so scalable and falsifiable All right If somebody comes along later and they have a better model a better way to look at this data You can just you know regenerate throw it out start over But to really be effective and I really want to make this point a model has to be grounded in theory So if you've done any sort of modeling, you know that you can build a model out of anything, right? You can do overfitting so on and so forth, but you know for for this problem We really want the model to be grounded in some sort of theory So whenever we're comparing a parallel coordinates plot to a you know a radial line chart or a Scatter plot to a line chart, you know We have some notion as to why we see the effects that we see and that kind of kind of connects it to how humans actually work So to get that in this experiment we turn to a psychophysiological methodology and you know I'm not a cognitive psychologist, but We're gonna try this I'm assuming you know what correlation is so I'm gonna ask you which one is more correlated Left to right Good lots of people think it's a trick. It's not a trick So yes, if you're on team left Congratulations You won and you know on the right. There's a point five difference point zero five. Let's try it again Left to right right Right lots of bright Are you sure who says right? That's also true. So Pearson's Pearson's correlation. All right. We get the Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, so Pearson's are for this one so So later on I'll talk about the the effect of expertise and visualization Really believe something there and this does happen. So if you were on team right, I'm sorry to say Yes team right you were you were incorrect this time But the real point that I want to make here is that these have the same difference So the first one had a difference of point zero five and the second one on the right Also had a difference of point zero five. Why is it? And it turns out the the perception of correlation in scatter plots We know from previous research that can be modeled using Weber's law Which if you've taken, you know an intro to site course or sensation and perception that sort of thing You might have come across papers law, but it's a model for low-level perceptual discrimination So things like you know the perception of line length The perception of weight was actually how it was originally discovered Brightness and sound and taste saltiness follows Weber's law. It's really interesting But here it is applying to something that we think of it as a high-level task the perception of correlation How can we reduce it to something like this? So perception of correlation follows Weber's law and don't worry about that equation. Let's break it down just a bit You know in case you're not Matthew Santiago you're gonna So to perceive a difference, right? It depends on a few things right so in order to see a difference It depends on the actual intensity of the stimulus so kind of like a baseline and it depends on the difference between the two stimuli and All of that is modulated by a constant K which you can get through an experiment So if I were to ask you, you know about up 200 times You know the thing that we just did for one correlation level I could get a good value of K right we're not going to do that today or we might But so this is how Weber's law works So one thing I want to point out is that Delta P is actually the just noticeable difference the J&D and you know If you studied anything like compression or how MP3 works and that sort of thing. It's really interesting It's the same concept. So just noticeable differences are used in that sort of context So the hypothesis that we came up with like if we know that the perception of correlation in scatter plots follows Weber's law Like this with worse performance, you know being higher So you guys were kind of on the the right side for the easy one, right between 1 and 0.95 so discrimination threshold was lower and for the other one you were further down So worse performance is higher So if we know that the perception of correlation in scatter plots looks like this What does it look like for other charts right are some linear or some nonlinear? Are you know exponential logarithmic? I mean we really didn't know going into this so And whatever we found we thought would be interesting information, right? So if some of them are nonlinear, that's interesting, right? At least for this threshold We can say that the green one which corresponds to a parallel coordinates plot is better than you know The or is more discriminable than the the radial line chart there So that's interesting, but there's another possibility Whenever you have two that are linear All right, and there's no crossing between them you can start to say things like well in this case The parallel coordinates plot is strictly better than or the perception of correlation for a parallel coordinates plot is strictly better than that of a Radial line chart and if we were to find things like this in an experiment That's really really interesting because we can make really strong claims about which one is best for the perception of correlation So to test this we ran an experiment which we are apt to do And you know first we had to choose some stimuli, right? So what charts do we want to test and how do we want to test them? So of course the scatter plot from previous research The parallel coordinates plot because everyone uses them Apparently they're good for something What's interesting here is that we made the decision very early on to test both negative and positively correlated data, right? So on the negatively negative side it kind of looks a little bit different than the positive side That's something that we'll return to later on The next set of charts we tested are the stacked area stack line and stack bar chart The way that we arrived at this is that we took one of our data sets through an excel and we saw well What charts are one click away? All right, and I mean it was a really great way to you know figure out Charts to test and if there are differences between these that's really interesting great So things that are one click away should they really be? Other charts also very common line charts, and we also you know ordered one of the lines to test for a possible effect there And finally to round things out We tested the donut chart.  It should be sufficient So the design in case you're into that if you're a stats person, right? So we had about 1700 people nine charts It's between subjects and you know any statistical analysis I talk about you know It's a pretty strong correction for determining what statistically significant so But the moment the truth came you know when we talk about the results, right? So we ran this experiment we ended up with 200,000 individual perceptual judgments, which I'm showing you right here Previous research only had the chart at the very top left And so now we have 18 of them nine charts for both positive and negatively correlated data And the real test you know is are these actually linear do they follow the labor's law or can they be modeled using? labor's law and The way that we do that so you can fit a line to anything, right? So the real test comes whenever you actually go back to statistics turns out statistics are good for something And so we tested the correlation coefficient, which we're in general, you know very high we tested the fit the r-square value also high and we tested the rms error, which was low and So that led us to this really interesting finding that we can say that the perception of correlation in every chart that we tested Can be modeled using labor's law Which is interesting this low-level perceptual thing for line length and brightness, you know It's now giving us a way to connect a scatter plot with a donut chart Or a stacked area chart with a ordered line chart and kind of talk about them in the same way So that's really interesting from like an info this theory perspective But you know what can you do to improve visualization design? And it turns out if you have a good model you can do a lot of good with good models So one of the first things we did was to come up with a perceptually backed ranking of precision for judging correlation so Now with these now validated lines, or you know, we at least know that they can be modeled using vapor's law You can make some design decisions based off of this, but it's a little bit messy So we decided to simplify and one of the things that we did we just obtain rankings that you know each value of r And though we produce this chart Which we call a noodle chart for obvious reasons It's just a simplification of the chart that you saw before but it's a bit more readable, right? So the best performance is on top. So parallel coordinates plots that show negative data Scatter plots or among the top performers perhaps not too surprising But down, you know worse performance on the bottom, right parallel coordinates plots again, but showing positive data And you really want to stay away from a line chart that shows positive data that turned out to be the worst overall Another interesting thing that you can do with a model Note that we didn't test every correlation value, right? We didn't test like one two three four five six seven eight nine We only tested the mid-range and one thing that you can do is kind of interpolate or predict performance based on a model So if you have a model and you have a reason to you know Believe that this model is reflective of how humans actually work You can you know make a reasonable prediction about how people are going to perform on r equals 0.9 and r equals 0.1 So that's also pretty fun And then finally if you're tired of the noodle chart we can just produce an overall ranking, right? So if you just want you know a ranking of precision for correlation you can get this one So that's one thing the first thing that we wanted to do But another thing is that we can explore properties of the perceptual space of correlation So taking this example again. I hinted at it earlier, but it turns out there's some really interesting findings here So if you look at the scatter plot between negative and positive it kind of looks symmetric, right? You can kind of fold it over on itself But you can't do that with parallel coordinates plots and does that manifest in performance? You might have solved before but I'm going to show you very explicitly now that you know If you're showing positively correlated data right this stuff with the parallel lines on the right. It's terrible All right people perform horribly with this for you know detecting correlation Whereas with the negative right where the lines are crossing a lot Over here on the left actually performed almost as well as scatter plots It's really interesting for us to know that the the perceptual space of parallel coordinates plots At least whenever it comes to correlation is not symmetric. It's asymmetric It kind of changes the way that I think about visualizations now, right? So if I'm looking at them I'm looking for symmetries and asymmetries and what benefits that might bring In the noodle chart it looks like this So there's definitely some a gap between them so One final thing you can do, you know with a good model is that you can guide a novice user in depicting correlation All right, so if you you know The way that we get this is that we look at the charts that were one step away in Excel All right, so and we found the the line chart So the stack line chart at the top performed the worst In the middle of the stacked area chart performed Okay, and actually it was the stack bar chart that performed the best and these are all statistically significant differences between them So if you had a tool, you know for novice users to depict correlation You might guide them towards you know Picking the one that's best for them or at least telling them what the trade-offs are You know, I don't know how to design an adaptive system. That's an open challenge But if you can figure it out, here you go. Here's a model that you can use so all this to say that a Theory-grounded model can help build the science of visualization and still provide actual information for visualization design So that's one. That's just perception All right, people do a lot more than just perceive visualizations. All right, so If you look at a person you have to worry about things like their cognitive states, right? So what mental state are you in right now, but also cognitive traits? Who are you? I mean there's things like personality or things like your spatial ability or numeracy that sort of thing An experience and bias so these are all things that we sort of proposed You know might modulate the effectiveness of visualizations and I'll just give you one more experiment today in the interest of time That deals with cognitive states specifically So broadly you can take this as you know quantifying the impact of individual differences differences between users and you know how that might impact visualization and visualization design and Shout out to Nigel for mentioning this yesterday emotion Actually came across this problem when I was in grad school I wanted to know like does emotion impact how we perceive or does emotion impact graphical perception and it turns out Emotion is pretty difficult to study So what we did it was we've leveraged a well-studied graphical perception tasks something that's been around since I think before I was born So replicated many many times we adapted a well-studied emotion priming technique So we went to the cognitive psychology were like how do you prime people emotionally and they're like we have ways And they are effective And so we ended up with an experiment combining emotion and graphical perception it's a really fun thing to run So the the task you know if you're not familiar Cleveland McGill studies in 1984 You know this is kind of one of the reasons why we know that a bar chart is better than a pie chart They tested this explicitly right so they asked the same question over and over so which of the two is larger Right a or B and what percentage is the smaller the larger and it turns out they had really awesome results from this turned out There's not a pie in this chart. Thanks Jeff so They have these results that give you a ranking right so if you're a robot you're gonna be closer to the 1.0 side This is log error, and if you're pretty terrible like the stacked Stack bar chart t5 is you're gonna be you know pretty far up on the error scale, and it turns out that Jeff here and Vostok Replicated this right a few years ago on Amazon's mechanical Turk, which gave us a great baseline to study these experiments further so But we had to take this task and combine it with emotion in some way and it had to be appropriate for the web And so after scouring the literature for a while the first you know way that we came up with is to prime via stories, right? So we actually turned to I think you know I was doing this I went to the New York Times and you know I had the the great task of looking through these stories finding ones that were very emotionally sad or emotionally positive Making sure they're about the same reading level and the same length and that sort of thing and you know after I would say a week or two of looking for stories. I settled on this one for a negative prime So looking for a place to die From Teresa Brown. I'll give you a second to read that just to make sure you know you guys think it's negative enough to Prime someone Pretty negative. Yeah, so my participants would agree So after obtaining all the proper proper approvals and that sort of thing for RV We actually validated this on mechanical Turk Well, we tested the stories with users before we did anything with the visualizations and it turns out that yes This story prime people negatively and yes the positive story that I chose Prime people positively it turns out that a negative prime is really tough to get so following previous literature I tested Stephen Hawking's a brief history of time and that was really negative So and this is a known problem. So we just ended up with positive negative in this case So the full study we tested eight chart types kind of inspired by previous research was about a thousand people on mechanical Turk and you know, we had ways of measuring whether they were primed or not and We ended up with these results So this is log error by chart and you can see that you know the possibly prime to the the ones in blue The negatively prime the ones in red and they're pretty close overall but there's some that have a really, you know, it's seemingly strong distance one in particular is this and Just to let you know what's going on V1 in the top is when the bars are always next to each other V2 is that there is at least one bar separating them and it seems like there's an effect there But I wasn't sure right You have to validate like once you come across a new hypothesis. So I increased the task difficulty, right? So I you know had an adjacent task with 20 bars a non-adjacent task with a Few more so I wanted to really tease out this effect if it was really there And I actually switched the primes out to and I've tested them both ways But this time I was using pictures from the international affective picture system This is not one of them that you're not allowed to put them out there You know, but this is you know reflective of some of the cute stuff that you get and I guess I'm too kind to put some of the negative stuff you get you guys will probably not be ready for lunch. So So what were the results from this experiment? so we tested 450 people and you know just a small number of conditions this time and It turns out the reaction times you had this interesting effect that you know if you use the more difficult task We saw clear separation over time. So that's the top left and you know the blue and purple We're mostly together over time and you know the easier task There was you know some separation there But what was really exciting to me is whenever we found that this error over trials on the right So for the difficult task, you just got this you know increasing separation between them And it turns out that was strongly statistically significant So we found that the people that were prime negatively actually performed significantly worse on the task whenever it was this difficult task right and Like I said, I'm not a psychologist I don't know how to interpret this in terms of you know theory and that sort of thing So it's good that you know in the academic community you can reach out to people and so we went to Steve Franken area Northwestern University a cognitive psychologist and he gave us some you know Possible reasons as to why that we're seeing the effect that we're seeing and one is that positive moods can expand the scope of the perceptual spotlight of attention Another is that they can encourage the observer to process a larger spatial area of the world in a single single glance and Conversely that you know negative or anxious moods can really constrict this area So it's you know interesting to see that Emotion which is something that's always present with us right we're always you know experience of flux in emotional state It could be some hypothesis you just have rejected it could be some email that you just got This can actually have an impact on the way that we perceive and interact with data visualizations Interaction would be a fun thing to test in the future But needless to say emotion does play an important role in visualization and it does influence graphical perception accuracy So we have about five minutes left. I just want to leave you with kind of a problem and a challenge All right, so visualization in critical situations. Can you solve this problem? So imagine you just got you know a positive test result. Can you solve this problem? All right, it's a it's a really difficult one and one that people face daily right understanding conditional probabilities One of it relates to you know screening tests and that sort of thing It's not just for breast cancer It can be for things like prostate cancer lung cancer Neonatal screening we're currently collaborating with Tufts Medical School to kind of explore the space of this and what the implications are and turns out that You know lack of understanding of conditional probability is you know one of the causes of over treatment, right? If you don't really know where you stand on this You know you're more likely to just take the most aggressive approach to treating You know your cancer or your potential for cancer and I can give you the answer, but I'm not sure that helps that much So take a second to read through and I'm just kidding found at the end You're about the true percentage risk is about 8% I'm not sure if any of you got that if you did congratulations You're on the the high scale of this but you know for years people have been studying this since the 80s So gigarensers in the 80s Was studying this and you know visualization At least the people that I know thought that you know visualization would come in and save the day, right? Oh, I know how to represent this I'll use a Venge diagram and you know maybe some icon arrays and that sort of thing and we know from previous research that these are absolutely unsuccessful so The the accuracy rates still hover between like six and forty five percent And you know I want to leave you with this what would it take to solve a problem like this right a problem that has real social impact And you know I would I would offer a direction All right, I think that our innate perceptual and cognitive abilities should really become an integral part of the next generation of visualization systems All right and to illustrate that we have the human on one side and the system that has their data on the other and I've described today just a few things You know perception in cognitive states and we also know that cognitive traits things like personality impact the effectiveness of a Visualization it kind of modulates the effectiveness between the human in the system And what I would like to see is that instead systems that kind of take these two in account into account, right? How does that happen? I don't care What I want is you know, I do care But what I really want is just to smooth that out, right? So I want the human to connect with the data as well as possible And I think this is one way that we can do that So with that I will give thanks to all my collaborators at vault. These are amazing people Presenting their research here Caroline inspired my research to do emotion and Remco has been a great mentor to me and Check out everything that we have there So Eli's doing some amazing work in user-centered interaction, right? And I didn't even get a chance to even touch it today So it's definitely worth checking out. So any questions guys?


Hey everybody, this is Brian and welcome to our first C-Sharp tutorial. So what is C-Sharp? Why do you need to know it?  What in the world is C-Sharp? Well, C-Sharp is a new language developed by Microsoft specifically to work with the .NET framework. Now it is an ECMA standard and an ISO standard now, meaning it doesn't have to work with .NET. It's a language in itself, but Microsoft designed it primarily to work with .NET. .NET is language agnostic, meaning it doesn't matter what language you use. You use Visual Basic, you use C-Sharp, C++, it doesn't matter. So why learn C-Sharp? I mean there's always other languages, why even bother learning it? Well, Microsoft designed this from the ground up. They actually hired this guy, Anders Heisberg, who if you know his name, you know that he was the lead architect of Delphi. I think they also hired some very strong Java people too to design this whole architecture from the ground up. And basically what they've done is they've designed this thing to be an entirely new language for the modern era because most of the other languages were designed years and years ago. So they're very archaic and hard to work with. C-Sharp happens to be my personal favorite. I love working with the language. So you can just kind of go out here and read up on some stuff. It's a general purpose object-oriented programming language, strong type checking, array bounds checking, garbage collection, internalization, it's for use in embedded systems, operating systems up to web systems. I mean you name it, you can do it. There's a lot of history behind C-Sharp. You don't really need to know it, but it'd be good to get familiar with it. One of the myths is that C-Sharp only runs on Windows, and that's not true.  It's just very dry in here. Mono is a compiler for Linux and Mac OS, I should say, where you can take C-Sharp code and recompile it for that platform. So it doesn't really matter what platform you're on. Now it's come under some heavy criticism because there's always going to be a step behind Microsoft, and it's not as good as this, and it's not as good as that. Well, it's a fairly new project, so I think people should really cut it some slack. That being said, if you're going to do cross-platform, there are better tools out there, such as, you know, the cute tutorials that we've been doing. To do the C-Sharp programming, one thing you're going to need to do is go out to Microsoft. So say Microsoft.com, and go to Express. Microsoft.com slash Express. And what you're going to need to do is download the Visual Studio Express for C-Sharp.  There's for Windows Phone, for Visual Web, Visual Basic. You want the one for Visual C-Sharp 2010 Express. Now, if you've done the Visual Basic tutorials, you're probably thinking, well, I've already downloaded this note. You need to download the Visual C-Sharp 2010 Express. The Express versions only handle one language. They do one thing, and they do it very well, and they are a lead-in to, you guessed it, Visual Studio. Visual Studio, unfortunately, costs a lot of money to the tune of several thousand dollars, but it's a very high-performance professional tool. I do use it every day, actually, and I love it. But for these tutorials, I'm going to use the Visual C-Sharp 2010 Express. The reason why is very simple. It's free. It's within the price range of everybody. So it doesn't matter if you make a million dollars or two dollars, you can still do this, and you can do it very easily.  It was actually fairly fast on my system. You just install now in whatever language you want, and it walks you through it. Now, it's pretty similar to what you're used to. Here's actually a screenshot of what it looks like. This is the C-Sharp language right here. As you notice, it's very similar to Java and some other languages out there, and that was one of the criticisms of C-Sharp is that it was a Java clone. I've worked with Java. I've worked with C-Sharp, and I can tell you the syntax may be the same, but they are two totally different languages, and they have different quirks. They have just different personalities about them. I prefer C-Sharp mainly because most of my work is actually done on Windows systems. That being said, if you're programming on Windows, C-Sharp with .NET is the de facto way to program. They do have the C++ common language interface, so you can use C++ and bind directly into the .NET framework, but it's kind of clunky and hard to work with. At least that's my opinion. I like C-Sharp much better. It's much smoother, easier to work with. And if you've worked with Java, fear not, C-Sharp and Java are almost identical in syntax, so you just have to learn a few things. It's been said that if you know Java, you can learn C-Sharp in a day, and if you know C-Sharp, you can learn Java in a day. You just need to learn the frameworks behind them. So go ahead and download the Express version, get it installed, and then we will start working on these tutorials. In the meantime, feel free to check out my website, voidrealms.com. No banners, no advertisements, no garbage. Simply, I have my tutorials in the source code up there, so as I work through the tutorials, they'll be under the C-Sharp section. I don't have anything up there now, because this is obviously the first video, so we'll go into Visual Basic here, and you can just kind of click on one, and it'll have the video, and it'll have the source code. So if you're watching on YouTube, you can get the source code off my website, voidrealms.com.  All right, this is Brian. Thanks for watching. I hope you found this tutorial educational and entertaining.


Alright, welcome on in to another last American pubcast. This is episode 10. We appreciate you being here. This is Tom from America Floats. I'll let everybody else be introduced. This is Frank from Let's Be Frank, Abby Libby from Conspiracy Pilled, PJ from wartime propaganda. And you know him from his many panel appearances, as well as his videos that expose the mainstream media's biased agenda. This is Ryan from Drone Tech, the Drone Tech channel. So thank you all for being here and for all of you at home watching and liking, subscribing and following commenting along. Everybody say hello. Hey. Yo, yo, yo. It's great to see everybody. Okay, now I'm just going to say this right now. I can't hear you. So I'm going to jump and try to figure that out and I'll be right back. Hi, Tom. Hi, Tom. Yeah. There we go. That was a fun show. Good night, everybody. I actually also have to jump really quick and I'll be right back to some worst time for something to happen. Good night, everybody. Somebody came down to me and was like, Hey, we need you real quick. So. All right, we're losing everybody here tonight. I don't know what's going on. Hi, PJ. All right. Well, let's get going tonight without our host that had to bail on us out of all of a sudden talking about what's currently going on. We've had a lot of issues.  Tom? I'm good. I don't know what's going on there. It's really weird. Yeah, it's great to see everybody. Great to have Ryan here tonight with us joining us and talk about things that are currently going on. And it just seems like it continues to get worse from week to week with this current regime and the way they have been going after their political opponents. And of course, it's always different when they do it, right, Ryan? Yeah, always. Of course. I mean, that's what do you think like all the propaganda that we hear from a day to day basis. All of it is just meant for that.  Oh, no, no, no, no. It's because it's different. Yeah, there's been a lot of stuff.  And of course, it was a prelude to what we've been seeing with the raid of Bannon who they decided to go ahead and perp walk for aesthetic effect, because that's what they want. This is a trial run, a dry run, if you will, for their attempt to arrest Trump before the midterms. I'm still going to stand by that. That is something I've been saying now for quite some time. I think you and I, Ryan, we're on a panel together. Will we kind of discuss this about a year ago that this is where we were kind of headed? Yeah. Oh, yeah, it's been, I mean, really, you could see this coming for the last 20 years, probably. I mean, during the Bush years, anytime the government, you know, there'd be a government shutdown or something like that. They'd always blame the Republicans, always accuse them of being like suicide bombers and terrorists.  And they've been kind of leading up to this point for a while. It's been pretty clear to see that, you know, especially with the media being dominated clearly by Democrats, it's been clear that they eventually want to criminalize. I know that sounds crazy, but they want to criminalize the Republican Party. And I've talked about it before that, you know, the Republicans are always accused of being authoritarians or Trump. The thing is, and I'm not an expert on this, but if you look at people who are, they'll tell you that you need, an authoritarian needs a support base, an institutional support base in order to, you know, help them be authoritarians. And Republicans and Trump don't have that. Biden Democrats do, and that should, I think, scare people, especially since we're so used to them accusing us of what they're engaged in. And so they're accusing us of being authoritarians, you know, it's probably because that's what they're doing. According to the most recent comments in our She-Hulk video, though, there is no such thing as left-wing media. So, yeah. Well, yeah, because it's not straight up communist like Stalinist propaganda. I mean, it's closed, but. Well, according to what is it? Who's it? Iber Max Kendi in his book. If you want to fight today's racism, you're going to have to project your racism into the future.   The next step is they call you an authoritarian.  Exactly. The rule is, it doesn't exist. And it's good, actually. Yeah. Yeah, well, that's the pattern, right?  This isn't happening. They're lying. It's all propaganda, especially with, like, Chris Rufo, you saw that. Oh, look at this quote. He said he's making it up. But then, you know, pretty quickly it's, oh, but we need this. And then you have, like, Malcolm Nance and Ben Shapiro arguing over it. And you get these people who have no idea what CRT, they accuse us of that, but they don't really know what it is. And they think it's history. It's teaching history and all this kind of thing. Yeah, we had this moment where they tried to define what the evil Magna Republican is. It's anybody that denies election results, anybody who riots or attacks police. But these are all the same things that Democrats have done for decades and up to recently, this last decade. And then, of course, we had a 2020 summer of love. Yeah, Peter Ducey during the press conference with Korean diversity hire Jean Pierre the other day, where he actually called her out on one of her tweets denying the election results of President Donald Trump, basically calling him illegitimate. So wouldn't that make her a threat to democracy? Yeah. I don't know if you guys want me to go. I definitely will, though, because for me, this was like, this was a big one. I had been wondering, like, why is nobody asking her about this? It's an obvious question because it's out there. It's public. I thought everybody knew about it. And I had actually tweeted, like, maybe three or four days before Ducey asked, asking, like, why is nobody asking this question? And besides the fact that she, you know, went into it, it's a different one. We do it kind of a thing. What's really telling is how nobody else in the media has asked that or did, like, any kind of, like, real follow up or anything on that.  But there's none of that because they're not interested in pointing out that because they're just themselves. They're so invested in this narrative. They can't do it. Yeah. And we forget that it's not even just Trump. Like, they were insisting that Bush stole 2000. And then I need a beer. They were insisting that Bush stole 2000 and then 2004. Yeah. Wasn't that Biden's recent tweet, you know, you can't be, you can't love this country and also claim that we have unfair elections, you know, except in 2000, 2004 and 2016 and Georgia in 2018. Outside of that, though, you literally, you just really can't question. Yeah. Even, even questioning the methods of vote counting, right? You can't question the Dominion voting machines. You can't question smart tech or anything like that. Unless you're in a Democrat to question about them in previous elections saying that they could be issues in elections and that would cause them to be stolen. If the Republicans win as much as they should in 2022, then voter fraud will be the new black in 2023. It'll be all the rage again. Oh yeah. Exactly. And we see this pattern over and over. It's got like a, I hate to say gaslighting because it's like overused now at this point, but it has like a gaslighting effect. You know what I mean? Like, when you have like the Bush years, they treat it one way. And then you get Obama and it's like, oh, okay. Now they overnight, they've changed how they report on everything. Then you get to Trump and the same thing over and over. I mean, what do you guys think? Do you guys think that's on purpose? Do you think they are trying to kind of poke us with that sort of thing? I don't know. Maybe or maybe they're just so disconnected from reality themselves. They just say whatever they want to say in the moment that's convenient. I feel like that's the question. It's like, do they know that they're lying? Do they know like? Who is this? I have no idea what you're talking about. I feel like somebody's about to steal my bike though. I feel so uncomfortable right now. It's just a D-Rank. Sorry. Yeah, I just like distracting. Like to me, it drives me crazy that like we have to listen to them talk about how violent, first of all, when Karen Jean Pierre gets up there she's like, how clear that they're being about everything. We're being clear. Biden's been clear when nothing about it is clear. It's all these kind of vague generalities that they're making with no examples to back up anything they're saying. And they keep accusing us of taking away rights, even though Republicans aren't the ones in power. You know, Democrats have been in charge of the country for two years.  Like all the biggest political violence that we've seen over the last seven years clearly has been from the left.  And then you had like the Democrat who attacked the GOP baseball game while screaming, this is for health care. You know, the FBI tried to claim that that was a suicide by cop. Like that's weird, right? Like why was that not dug into more? Like eventually Ray admits, yes, it's domestic terrorism. But why did they not say that for so long? You know, obviously because the media would have to ask, Oh, it was us. You know, that's not going to happen. It's like a dampening effect. Hello. PJ, I swear you're being robbed in the moment. We have people being robbed. I'm literally being robbed. Are you in California right now? I'm not saying any. Are you in a Chappelle sketch right now? We should be aware of. Yeah. So, you know, the left, the only way that the left's narrative works, though, is based on this victim mentality. So you're talking about, you know, as drone tech said, they have to claim that they don't have institutional power while they run on the institutions. That's the whole. I'm sorry. I'm trying not to laugh and make a salient point. It's just not working. You know, somebody else just take it. My mic's going to cut out at some point again anyway. I'm pulling in these non super chat beers because I just want to drink. Abby, when the super chat start coming in, you're going to be wasted by the end of the show tonight. I'm always wasted by the end of the show. What are you talking about? Oh, God. I made sure that it started drinking right before I came on here because normally I'd have like maybe two before I get on.  You know, it's probably not a good idea. We're like the founding fathers. Everything's in cursive, including our speech. So. Yeah. Just like the founding fathers. Yeah. Yeah. The one thing that I that I noticed over on your Twitter, when you tweet out, Ryan, is that you make it very clear about when there is something going on with a Democrat regime currently what we have here with Biden with the inflation and the food shortages, energy shortages, and anything else that's a negative, it gets covered. But the Democrats are never attached to that coverage. Exactly. Yeah. And you saw that big time during the Obama years. That was a big thing. I always, when I talk about this, I use this example, but I went back and I looked during the whole kids and cages thing when that was going on. And I'm like, I seem to recall that there was some, you know, similar thing going on during the Obama years. You know, he built these things, these places. And I started looking into it and I found, I zeroed in on some NPR articles where they talked about the overcrowding. But I noticed nowhere in these articles that they ever mentioned Obama, it was always kind of vaguely government, you know, government this. And I actually reached out to one of the writers on Twitter and she actually responded back and her response I thought was so ridiculous. And I don't have any more because it was on a long band account now. But she basically said something to the effect of the lawsuit that we were talking about did not mention Obama. And I'm like, but he's the president. It's his centers. Like, and that's what we have to deal with. And then at the end of the Obama years, they say, Oh, was scandal free president? Oh, well, because you didn't report any of the scandals. Like, oh, he's scandal free. That's another like just messed up thing is that they create this like alternate reality bubble, you know, where these things don't happen. And then they spend so much time calling us conspiracy theorists and demonizing us so that if anybody within their bubble does happen to see any of this information, they're just instantly going to discount it. They're still tweeting out the meme of Obama in a tan suit saying this was the worst scandal the Obama presidency. And it's like, I don't know how intellectually dishonest you could be, but that that pretty much goes right up to the line.  And it's like, but Democrats set that precedent. Like Eric Holder had a congressional subpoena. He ignored it. And double nice. He ignored that congressional subpoena. And was he held accountable? No, when when they tried to hold him accountable, Democrats got up from the vote and walked out and Obama and all these people are saying, oh, this is all political. It's just political witch hunt. And the media applauded, you know, oh, great job. This is great. This is American. And and then so they set that precedent and then it continues happening. Oh, now it's a problem. Now we want to change the rules back. Now the standards have to change because it was different when we did it. I want to say something about this comment right here because she's she's right. Double think is really powerful. And I think one of the reasons why is that it's difficult and when you're in a process of trying to double think you feel really smart. And it's taken hold at college campuses where kids get really high on the intelligence they feel from thinking two things at once and people are mistaking it for intelligence. That is a good point. I think. Yeah, that is. That's interesting. Let me ask the panel, you know, because we've talked about this now for the last three weeks and talking about the prospects of the Biden regime arresting Trump. Does it happen? Do you guys think this happens? Are we witnessing the changing landscape and political warfare in a chest in a chess match? Do you take out all the pawns and rooks and knights and then not go for the throat? You know, do you not take out the queen? I know it's a bad example. King Queen. But you get my point. All these arrests, all the people are going after they're building up the case to take out Trump.  It doesn't seem like the way they're going. I think they're just trying to scare him off. I don't think they don't think they're going to actually arrest Trump unless they have to. And I don't think they want to have to. I think they might. But if I had to guess, I think they just want to scare him away from announcing a run. They want to ransack his kids room ransack his wife's closet, like make his family members afraid so that he might feel like, OK, this is not worth that. I think that's really their last. Beyond. I made the queen jokes like five minutes later. OK, so it's not too soon for me. Everyone knows you have to take out the queen before you can get to the king. Yeah. Well, without now, now they see. But here's where I disagree with you, Tom. I mean, I always disagree with Tom, but especially right now is that I lost my train of thought because I was being. I can say something about it. I agree with Tom. It's hard to say which way it's going to go there. But and I do agree with Tom in that a lot of this, even if they don't actually arrest him, is meant to scare away anybody who might think about working with Trump or, you know, saying the same things that Trump says. It's all meant to be like a threat. Like if you do this, we're coming after you. But you guys are assuming that you're dealing with adults and I assume that we're dealing with angry, petulant toddlers. That's why I think they're they're projecting and mirroring what they're afraid he would do. So like they're, I think they're going to go as far as they would want him to go against them. They're going to set a precedent that says we, we raided, we investigated, we looked, we had a commission. We dragged this out through 2024. But when Trump becomes president inevitably in their mind, right, they're planning this out, they'll be able to say we didn't have X, Y and Z. We never arrested. We never had a perp walk. We never did these things because that's kind of the deal they want to be cutting with if Trump takes over in 24 and then he does all those things that they walk up to the line on but don't actually commit to, then he is the tyrant that they said he was and that he is just going after harder his political opponents. They can go up to the line of punching them just like your kid brother or your sister would go, I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. And they'll do that with the arrest. They'll probe, they'll prod, they'll make him really uncomfortable, but they won't actually go that far. I don't think and I hope they don't prove me wrong. When have they not gone over the line or gone in one direction? That's the thing. The Republicans are always the ones that are like, well, we don't want to do anything as bad as the Democrats do and the Democrats continue to push further and further and further.  Isn't it great that Hillary Clinton broke the law and we didn't arrest her? Look, we're the good guys. We're wonderful. We're great because we don't prosecute our enemies when they break the law. So they know that's how we play the games and I've just never seen any evidence of the Democrats going, well, that's a little too far. We want to push them but we don't want to be talking about a party that is mainstream wanting to mutilate children's and tell you that it's good and make you say it's good or you can be kicked off social media. I think people like that have no, there's no line for them that they won't cross. Yeah, I think resting Trump has been their wet dream since the very, very beginning. Right. It's how a lot of congressional brands ran back in 2018 was we're going to impeach that MF or remember that? Well, yeah. It's the impeachment stuff started like before he even after he was elected before he actually took office before the inauguration. There was already articles and stuff about impeaching them. So, yeah. Yeah, they've been wanting this for a really long time and I think that they're so lost in their own desires, their own narrative. They're so self-indulgent. I don't think that they're thinking things through to conclusions. Well, they had years worth of the walls are closing in bombshell and all that. Like they need satisfaction. Yeah. Now, with that say, for example, let's just go down this rabbit hole a little further if we would. They arrest them.  I've been adamant about for sure. That is the plan. And I'm not a genius. I'm not anybody, you know, that can predict this, but it just looks like it's moving in that direction as Drone Tech said, labeling anybody that's basically a Republican, a domestic terrorist. Right. Like when Biden gets out there and he says that like half the country are the domestic terrorists and he actually had one of his speeches, a couple, maybe a week ago or so ago, he said, oh, we got to save the planet.  And that's what should scare people, I think, because I think there's no limit to what they can justify doing. I think they could go the full way. That's what they're going to do. They're going to say, again, like if they can call you a racist, they can be racist against you. And if they can call you an anti-coward, they can be racist against you.  So we have to get rid of them. They will be justified, they think, in their genocide. So I guess justifiable genocide will be a term of the future for the lab. Totally. And you know what? I noticed that right after the election of Biden, it's just because he tells the truth.  What are you talking about? And that kind of evolved over the couple of years now where now they're saying, oh, well, we can't be objective. We couldn't possibly do that because the threat is just so, it's so persistent and existential that we can't be objective. It's so funny. It's just like the Obama years all over again.  So they got to put out this sort of rationalization for it. I would assume only hardcore Democrats believe Biden's such a liar that his own White House has to fact check him on whether he has cancer or not. And the media waits to do so until the White House tells him it's OK. That's how fact checking works into this presidency. There's no running list of all of his lies, even though they're constant. Right. Brian Stelter would be having a hey, Dave, he was counting all the lies that Biden was doing. You know what's messed up about that? Not to get on a Brian Stelter thing. But if you know if you guys remember and I'm sure you saw this when Brian Stelter was first let go, there was like and I don't know why I was getting all these tweets, but I'm seeing all these different tweets from different people in the media like, oh, we're losing a great hero in the media and all this sort of thing. I every time I saw one of those, I would ask them and a lot of some of these people, you know, they work for the Washington Post and BC, different networks. They weren't getting like a lot of response. So I, you know, I know they saw my response, but I would ask, you know, show me a single example of Brian Stelter holding Democrat Party power to account. You never get a response ever. Well, you don't have to. I mean, he doesn't have to do that. They don't ever step out of line. And that's why he called his show reliable sources because that's he always proposed the reliable source. I'm wondering where we're going to get our reliable sources now that he's been fired. It's hilarious seeing the meltdown on Twitter of people thinking everybody calling CNN now a far right network and they're saying it's Fox Light and stuff like that. Really? Like especially after Trump had put out on truth social, he might need to start backing CNN if Fox continues down the path of never Trumpers or rhinos. Well, I hope he's saying that tongue in cheek because I don't want anyone to think for even a second that CNN might have a change of heart might turn around and say, oh, you know, in second thought, we're with you guys because unless there's some kind of, you know, stroke of miracle of genius of whatever that this new CEO has, the new owner has my suspicion is they want to become like a newsmax. Like, hey, we'll act like we're on your side. We'll even, you know, cross the line that Fox won't cross sometimes. But at the end of the day, they're still going to be controlled opposition. They'll act as the punching bag when they need to. They'll act as the Scarecrow when they need to. And it's Katie said. It is Katie said. Hi, Katie. Hi. Hi everybody. Hey. Hi. Did you want to sit down with me for a minute? Okay. Well, hey, so, yeah, sorry. I'm reporting here live from based con. So for people confused about what's going on. Yeah. You should tell us about that. How's it been? I will. I will. I want to make one point about what you're just saying. Do you think it's a form of gaslighting though this idea that CNN is moving further right? And like, like CNN and Fox News are coming into this new center where they're like this mainstream, like not but nonpartisan media. But what's really happening is CNN went crazy, crazy far left. Fox News went far left. And now they can meet in the middle and they can be look, this is the middle of the country. But the middle of the country would be far left of 10 years ago. It seems like a form of gaslight to be to lie to everyone and be like, look, the media is fine now. We went crazy. We went to the opposite sides for a little while. But now we're back in this very neutral center area, except, you know, it just happens to be communist essentially. Yeah. That's a much better way of explaining it than I did. It's the Incsoc party. It's like what they're making. Right. Yeah. Exactly. And you see 1984 with the two hands like merging. And it's inside. That's what's going on right now. Yeah. That's like what's happening. I've known. And that's so like cliche too. But man, there are so many similarities to that book. Right. And like things that are happening now. It's crazy. Hey, do you guys remember that journalist that was murdered over in Turkey, you know, Kosoki and all the mainstream media press were outraged at Trump and abled this murdering of this righteous journalist who is holding power to account. Yeah. Donald Jr himself. Donald Jr himself went to Saudi Arabia with the Prince and hacked up Jamal Khashoggi all by. That's right. That's what I heard. That's right. I want to ask both of them. It was right after their triceratops hunting tour. Is it is it fair to say that Fox is far? I don't watch Fox, but I got the feeling that they were I'm not saying they're pretty center. Well, but my point is if they're considered the right, the extreme bounds of the right and CNN is and they're going to both come in and be like, okay, we're not going to be so right. We're going to be tried to be center. Fox News is not right wing. They're just not like they're at best center with with the George Soros backing and a lot of leftist like rhino bullshit. So the idea that these are the bounds. These are the goal posts, right? Fox News on the right, CNN's on the left. It just happens the entire that they went like this and then they all went like this. Right. And that's supposed to be center now. That's what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. What do they call that the Overton window? The Overton window has shifted. Yeah. And so that. Go ahead, Abby. I was thinking about this the other day, people, people like to say, oh, they're saying the quiet part out loud. They're saying the quiet part out loud. At least they're saying the quiet part. No, they're not. The Overton window just shifted. They're still a quiet part. It's just way worse than the thing they're saying out loud. It's just Maoist now instead. Right. Yeah. When you, when you have Fox News featuring. Oh, the tranny from California. What's her name? His name. Yes. Obviously. As a paid consultant or a paid person that comes on to give their. But they're not left wing guys. They're not left wing. Well, did you guys see. Then they featured a a glowy review about kid transitioning as well. I believe that they had one of their online. That was weird. Yeah. That was really weird too. That's right wing now. Then yeah, I'm sorry. You're just wrong. It's not right. Something about that Frank that you were talking about that Fox News did something I found very strange about that. And I don't know if you guys saw. You probably did on Twitter the picture of the girl that got her. It was like a 13 year old girl. Yeah, awful. Double mastectomy. Yeah.  Yeet the teets. No, no, no.  And it's like, you're not being yourself.  She's being the way that God made her. And it's like, but that's not the way that got like, what are you talking about? I've said this so many times. The opposite. Yeah. I was born this way. This is Orwellian man. Jesus. I was born this way. That's why I need surgery to be this way. Right. That doesn't make any sense. Yeah. I need to stop my normal biological processes and mutilate my body to become who I'm really supposed to be. Right. Yeah. Then we had that one segment up. We have a. You know, maybe a better visual image of this is a slinky, you know, like Fox News stays where it's at and the slinky gets pulled this way and then you let go and it looks like it came back to the center. It just happens to be over here because of which side you let go of, you know, like the whole thing shifted. Can I ask you a little relativism? Yes. That's why I'm going to say this right now.  If you're in the middle knowingly, then you don't have my respect. Like you can't be in the middle and say, well, I can see why they say this and so I can go either way. Like if you know the evil that is represented and it is right now on the left, it could be on the right in the future. Who knows. But right now that evil that's trying to corrupt the world is coming from the left. And if you are knowingly a bridge to it by just being the happy middle and you know what's over there and you're allowing these people over here to get that, then, you know, that's that's what I have a problem with Fox for. Yeah. Have you guys, did you guys happen to see and I would ask you Major Garrett. You guys know who he is a former Fox guy. Yeah. He's on CNN, I think now. So he was a guy who his whole persona is that he's a centrist and yet he tweeted out the other day. He's got this new book coming out called The Big Truth, which is Orwellian when you hear the rest of it. But he put out this tweet saying that the 2020 election was the the best election in American history or the most democratic election in American history. That's what he said and the book is called The Big Truth. And, you know, I made the point that we know for a fact now that the FBI just this one fact, the FBI, you know, they helped suppress news that was bad for Biden. We know now for a fact that they did that to help buy his chances. And we know for a fact now that they were telling they were ordering their agents not to investigate Biden for that reason. And we know, you know, Zuckerberg said that yeah the FBI came to him. So they definitely without a doubt influenced the election. So how can you possibly call that and he's supposed to be the centrist guy. So I will say that's the new center. Just on on Fox's behalf that for a long time media tried to be unbiased and really valued like deeply value the idea of being unbiased. And I think that Fox is still not because they're not actively refusing to hire liberal people the way that the other places are. You're getting people who are putting forward these stories like the transition story and putting forward awful stories because they're not doing what CNN's doing, which is really, really awful. And I, I understand why that's difficult to respect and I also still kind of respect that they're still trying to hold on to this old ideal where they're not discriminating. I disagree. I don't think that there is actual. I don't think that the idea of unbiased news has ever been true. And I've actually been putting a show together with this premise just going back to the Benjamin Franklin talking about this problem of fake news back in 1860 or in 1760 like, sorry, I said 18. Oh, that's, yeah. Oh, no. Yeah, I told you I was getting robbed.  What was my point? Don't need to street food. What was my point? Yeah, good point. You know what? Somebody asked for tin pool earlier and I got a tin pool as a gift. Oh, I was wondering what that was about. Yeah. That was just holding the basin. This is almost as bad as my poster falling on me that one time. So you guys get to see my hat here. It's all good. Do you know who? Do you know what red letter media is? Oh, sorry. No, I lost my point. You look like Jay, man. I keep thinking I'm like on a stream with Jay from red letter media. Okay. I should look him up later. I want to be clear. I'm not trying to defend Fox. I think that they are. They've done awful, awful things. Everybody. Everybody. Abby loves Fox. I understand why them and a lot of the old guard Republican people are still trying so hard to hold on to these old ideas and ideals that they were comfortable with and not seeing the need to shift. I remember my point now. So the point I was going to make is that I don't I don't respect Fox or CNN for the same reason because CNN pretends to be the, you know, trusted reliable source and they hide their bias, even though it's plain to see they hide in plain sight. MSNBC have a lesson problem with because you know they're left-wing bias. You know what you're getting into CNN lies about it. And then all of the NPCs go, look, CNN, they claim that they're a reliable central source. Right. And the problem with Fox News is that they claim to be or not claimed. I mean, they do. They lean into the right-wing bias thing, but they're not. So I would rather have news media that actually just tells you, look, this is a story. I'm going to try to get it right. But I'm also explaining this is where my biases come from. Well, it's an infiltration. Right. Like if I if I want to be on the right and tell the right what to think, then I'm going to feign being on the right. And I'll say I'm conservative. I agree with you on that. But then when I interject in the conversation, I'm going to say something that you'll feel like you have to agree with too. And you won't. And it's like what you look at Fox. They say, you have a border crisis. It's terrible. We have this other tax issue and it's the inflation is terrible. Hey, look at this trans kid. And so they can subvert your culture that way. And, you know, DroneTech made a point of, you know, they're mentioning, hey, we're on the left. This is the middle now. How can this be? No, they're going to bastardize the language itself. That was the most Yeah, he said the most democratic election in the most democratic election in American history. Then that's them bastardizing the word democracy as they continue to do the our democracy is just their communism. And eventually if you want to tear it down, you're going to have to be the guy who's saying that democracy is bad as they have defined it. And you don't want to be the guy on paper saying democracy is bad to them. Yeah, I mean, I think they actually believe at least some of them that democracy means their rights and power. Yeah.  No kidding. They're shifting of language as their biggest weapon. So you're right on that. They're very, very good at it because the right falls in line with their language changes. Because we're just like regular normal people. Yeah. Sorry, Frank was going to say my point. Sorry, Frank. Now go finish your point, PJ. I was just going to say this goes back to what we were talking about last week with some CNN. Who's on point with the leftist talking points. And when you have the NPCs on the right getting the talking points from Fox News who's becoming more and more and more left. That's why we lose because our low information NPCs, which we have, let's not lie about it, they are feeding into Oh, well, I'm just a I'm just a what would you call it? I'm a liberal, but I'm not going to call it. I'm like a soft leftist, but that makes me right wing now. And that's what they go to the right and the talking points from Fox News are just leftist talking points. That's why I think there are a lot of really, really good people on the right. I went to a deeply conservative college and a lot of people there have not kept up with the world. I think things are changing so fast and it's so scary that there's a lot of really good people who are very like their spirit is conservative. Their spirit is wanting to preserve the way that things are and things have progressed into this awful place so quickly and that's why I think there are a lot of people who are just not there yet. Right. They're not bad people. And that's a trap. I mean, like I was talking about earlier about buying, you know, casting us in the most horrifying light. If we go out and protest, then, and I've always said another one of the things I always say is that the only legit, one of the things I always say is that the only legitimate thing that the only legit, one of their rules is that the only legitimate protest is one that is advancing their agenda, you know. So, if we go out and protest, it's obviously going to be demonized. They're obviously going to crack down on us. You know, it's just going to lead to them further. Like we're in this weird like Chinese trap or something that no matter what we do, it's the wrong move almost. We just got a new Super Chat IRL for the first time in the history of the Last American Podcast, $5 Super Chat IRL It's basic. It's going into the cup. There's a drink for Mr. Zed. Thank you. I think they call that a virtual Super Chat. Yeah. Actual reality. Actual reality is weird. Go ahead, Frank. I'm sorry. And speaking in the media and talking about, you know, the outrage of journalism when a journalist is murdered and they can blame it on Trump. And I think that's the biggest news story out there, but it isn't because it impacts their benefactors, right? A Democrat in Las Vegas stabbed to death an investigative journalist in that city.  Turns out what happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas. Right. And then they tried to turn it as they were questioning the sheriff about it. Are you and condemned Trump for this? Yeah. Here's the reporter. I just linked it in private chat. But she, yeah, she came on. Her name is Dana Resnick Gentry. She tweeted out Metro Sheriff talks about slaying of the person says, murder of a journalist, especially troubling, but declines to denounce former President Trump's normalization of violence against reporters. That's insane. First of all, but like, how did he normalize violence against reporters? That's because she's referring to when Trump would call them the enemy of the people. Right. But Brian Seltzer did that to Fox News like every night.  Well, they always use as a shield that like there's threats. Like you saw with the Children's Hospital thing. Oh, they're getting threats now. It's probably life. Now they're making them danger. Right. Did he take the super chat? Yeah, we just lost our first IRL super chat. No. No. The show's going off the rails. I apologize. Sorry, where were we? Hey, Obama, do you guys remember Obama targeted journalists? He did. I was like, I was going to say that. Yeah, Mike, he's done. Go ask him. He's done. His communications director actually, we're on Fox News. Like she said that we're declaring war on Fox News. Was that not normalizing like inciting violence against Fox? Of course it was. You know, also jailed more. The situation where it or like Jim Acosta being as smug as he is. That's normalization. Oh, yeah. It would be violence against a journalist. Remember when Jim Acosta was costed by the White House aid when she tried to take the microphone away back from him and how they tried to play that and being the victim of all of that. He hit a girl's arm. He cried. Andy No. Andy No. That's a great example. Yeah. He actually got attacked and yet he's still like, it's not like the media was like, oh, Andy No was attacked by Antifa. That never happened. Yeah. No, I thought that's how they are. They're not real. Right. They're not real, but they're good actually. Right. They're not real, but they're just anti fascist. Right. Yeah. That's what they always say. It stands for anti fascist. You know, I always tell people it's like Antifa, at least the Antifa in this and what we see in America here, it's like if the Nazis were to get together and start a group called the good guys and then you're like, the Nazis are acting like they're going out and doing the mobs and beating people and burning stuff and making people put up the fist. Oh, no, no, no. They're the good guys. Yeah. What do you say against the good guys? The good guys are out every night. We love that. Wait a minute. I'm proud to be a boy. Sounds silly. Right. Exactly. What's up? It says, I will read this one because it's such a big super chat right now. It says off subject, but to our brave arm and forces, 9 11 Eve, I thank you for all of your guys of services. Yeah, this one is for all the people we lost on 9 11. Absolutely. Which apparently no, no, generate as I don't know which generation. They don't know anything about 9 11. They can't even tell time. So I don't know what's wrong with these people. Well, if you ask Omar, some people just did something. That's all. Some people did something 21 years ago. Yeah. Yeah. So thank you so much to a waffle salter. We will address that at the end for the last call as well. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Yeah.  So, you know, before drone tech gets out of here for the evening for joining us tonight at the bar at the pub is that we are on the anniversary of 9 11. I didn't really kind of wrestle with that until just now when I saw that super chat come up. I knew tomorrow was 9 11. You know, remember last year at this time the whole reason Biden wanted to quickly exit Afghanistan so he could get the anniversary of 9 11. Yeah. It's really, really disgusting. I work with I work with combat veterans. That's my, I work for a nonprofit that helps combat veterans and it's, it seems like every year it gets harder where these guys are looking back on everything that happened and kind of the results of it and how meaningless it was in the end and just really, really struggling. So keep them in your prayers especially on 9 11. I would, yeah, you have like that everything else going on in the military where, you know, they're focused on white rage and pronouns and things like that and you're finding that nobody's joining there. They're having a real problem with retention. And then you have, yeah, you have Joe Biden leaving people behind and apparently nobody really cares because it's a Democrat. Yeah. Yeah, my daughter just got a text message from a army recruiter today and she responded back when you guys decided to go ahead and stop prioritizing trans agendas. Maybe I will consider joining the military, but until then, no, thank you. So I would say, I would say there's there's another group that I feel like we should also try to remember on 9 11, but at this point, what difference does it make? Yeah. No, you know what I'm talking about in Libya. We lost those people because of Hillary Clinton and Benghazi. Thank you. I was struggling with the name, but yeah, so that's another one. That one happened on 9 11. I think some people forget that. So, that time as well. Yeah. I did. I did forget that. Yeah. Remember, it happened right after it was 9 11. Because they said it was in response to a video and they were and they originally said it was protests because of 9 11. They arrested that guy. They arrested him. Yes. Yes. They did arrest him. Does anybody ever hurt that guy again?  More journalists arrested under Obama. Remember, they tried to arrest people for memes. Yeah. Oh, this one's important. Let's do this one. Okay. As an immigrant from Moldova, I appreciate the freedom that this country offers me and I will fight to keep it this way. God bless you all. God bless you. Thank you. Absolutely. And another one. Same. Oh, wait. No. I was wrong. I got confused. Well, now somebody's got to buy a super chat to make Abby not a liar. You know, I have a mild boss. He's a, he's the guy I just talked to. And he's been there for a while. He's been running a sound system. He was running for some time in the 80s. And they actually, when they came here, they were Democrats. Over the years that they lived here. That changed because you said they more and more were like, this is what we fled from. Yeah. You hear that in South Moldova as well, with the Cubans that are over here that escaped Castro who they continued to, He was a Cuban who fled from Castro. He's an older guy. He just a work horse and he's like, Frank. He's like, I don't know why people cannot see that the Democrat party is exactly the way the Castro's goons and the political party is over there. They are the actual communists.  But they are, they truly are. They are the party of authoritative political authoritarianism. Yeah, absolutely.  This street, I don't I don't think I've had enough to drink yet. And you have not bought me dinner. Second IRL Super Street Super Chat. Virtual Super Chat. What are we going to get it right? There we go. You know, but the people that flee these countries that are ruled under those types of tyrants can spot these people within the political system from a mile away. They're like, yeah, that's what I escaped from. Yeah. Do you remember that guy, Caesar? Or something? He spoke at the Republican National Convention. Oh, the Goya CEO.  And he spoke about how, hey, we came here and we were fleeing these kind of policies. And he was totally right. One thing that didn't get much attention was the Democrat National Convention that year. If you go back and watch, they had this kind of border that would appear when people were speaking and it had communist symbols on it. It had like the communist raised fists on it. Mm hmm. Yeah, I remember. How do you think like people who, who, you know, escape that feel when they see that? You know, then they're called then they're called white supremacists. They're minorities who are white supremacists.  The black women were saying that the black men were enabling white supremacy in this country because they weren't going to be voting for Stacey Abrams. Right. Well, that's the same thing with the Asian violence, the stop Asian violence.  Just don't look at the FBI statistics. Yeah. Right. Oh, man. Yeah. Yeah. Don't look at the DOJ. You don't want to see that. You know, and really moving forward, can we really believe starting, you know, in the next few years, can you really rely on the statistics that the FBI will be providing out everything they will be classifying will be white supremacists, attacks of things. Yeah. Yeah. A few bad actors. The FBI is wonderful. They've always been great. It's just like one guy. Come on.  Who let Sean Hannity punch my own face? Oh, Sean Hannity has done really, really great things for the company I work for, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut. Don't tune into my channel, then, because I got a lot of Sean Hannity videos. I would never do it later. And Sean Hannity was better when he had combs. I liked I liked the show back then. Did you really? Oh, yeah, I watched it back then. I was in the Air Force in those days and I loved it. Yeah. I remember I was I remember one of my friends, his his grandpa would always have that show on. It was always the Sean or Sean and Combs or whatever thing was Alan Combs, Alan Combs. But yeah, he would always have that opposing viewpoint on there. It was almost like your crossfire. Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't as good as crossfire because Combs was always kind of I always felt kind of weak, you know, crossfire was awesome. I love that show back in the day, too. You couldn't have that show today when when Tucker was on. Oh, yeah, no way. It's almost like we're all in this river and it was it was a really calm river at the time. And there were a lot of good people and then we were all allies and Sean Hannity was right there. Fox was there. And then the current really just picked up and some people didn't notice and they drifted super far. They just drifted like they didn't intentionally go over there. And some of us held on and now we're like, what? Where are you? Abby, can I jump in here a second? My whole channel's name is America Floats based on something similar. And I can tell you that was a bad promise. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Oh, yeah, that was a bad premise, you said. Yeah, yeah, that was the river thing. I'll tell you from a water based experience. I'll just tell you that was tough. We got to find another way to say that. I assumed we're all in a river like a Stephen King reference to it or something. OK, we all float. We all float. We all float down here. Yeah, so, I mean, with with this revelation that took place yesterday with Bannon talking about how there were 50 Trump allies, homes raided or served with subpoenas yesterday. It was just, you know, it just is paving that way. It's paving that way. Somebody said the Biden administration has created a super highway over the Rubicon. Right. Yeah. Yeah. We saw like the beginnings of that. I feel like during the when the IRS was targeting the Tea Party and all that, I remember watching those hearings. And I went to jail, by the way. Yeah. And, you know, I remember watching the hearings and they were questioning not Lerner, but the head of the IRS. I can't remember his name, but they were questioning him about retrieving emails of Lewis Lerner's and other people. And he said, oh, I don't think we can provide that. I believe those hard drives crash. So we can't we can't provide that. And there was there was a backup like company that was working for them at the time called SunSoul or something like that. And it was like ultra redundant backup kind of thing. So that never could happen. And I just remember I was I was working IT at the time.  And it's just like, you know, when that took place, I remember Obama is like, oh, I just heard about that on the news today that the IRS was targeting the Tea Party members. Right. Yeah. Oh, I just read that. Oh, oh, Obama's got nothing to do with it. He's got nothing to do with anything unless it's good. Then he did it. Yeah, exactly. I just got a sandwich full of peppermint bark. So that's so weird. It's a party over here, guys. You guys are missing out based on 2022. I'm telling you. Coming based on 2023, it goes right back. The questions when they were asking Korean Jean Pierre about, you know, what did Biden know about the raid?  Oh, oh, yeah. And when the reports come out with all of the discovery that's coming out with the judges over, really shows exactly the Biden regime, the Biden himself gave the OK for all of this to start taking course. He did. Of course, he did because it doesn't take place unless he says it takes place because the DOJ is the extension of the White House. It's always been that way. Right. He's Commander-in-Chief. Yeah. And you got those Democrats. Oh, the the DOJ has to be a up and where's a separate unit of the White House? No, it doesn't. It's always been that. It falls under the preview of the president. The president tells the DOJ head, the attorney general, who to investigate, who to target and who to take out. Well, when Bill Barr was heading it, you remember, they were all saying it was just an arm of Trump's White House. Yeah, at least Obama was honest when he called Eric Holder his wingman. Right. Yes. You know, yeah. And that's one thing I will always give credit for the Democrat Party. They're not afraid to use power when they have it. Right. And that's why that is why I said what I said earlier. I think that they know that they will use power and they have it and that Republicans generally won't. Yeah. They basically have nothing to fear from it.  Right. Yeah. Right. They have nothing to fear from doing it, only we do. That's how it's always been. Like we will for so long, we just turned the other cheek while they were ramping it up.  Oh, boom, January 6th. Now that's a propaganda, you know, effort for the next two years, three years or whatever, however long they need it. My favorite. It's going to be burned into the brains of Americans. My favorite meme is these two guys being shot in front of a wall with like a shooting into one guy's like, can you imagine if Republicans did this? Right. Yeah. That meme. Oh, yeah. Could you imagine? Yeah, that's what we're always doing. It's because we're we're like the same rational people who are like, what's happening? You see what's happening? This isn't right. You see that. But the other side, it's like that thought process is not at all like they don't care if we stay united. They don't care if they have to throw us in the gulags. It's like none of that. One side's playing to win. And that's the problem. Right. And we're playing as like good people and good faith who love our country, love our fellow Americans. We want to we want us to be united.   I mean, I'm not saying there aren't people like that out there, but I don't think most of us are like that, you know, right? Yeah. Now, and Jesse Kelly is right when he says things like governors and red states should be authorizing state police to start rating homes of Democrats. And you will see this stop really quick when they start hitting home. Yeah. Suddenly, the rules will change again, just like it always does. I mean, yeah, you just go Republican Democrat, Republican Democrat administrations, the media changes on the dime. And suddenly, the things that matter before don't matter anymore. And that's I mean, that's what I always tell people is that the media really is the crux of a lot of our problems because they are supposed to be the check on power. They're supposed to be the ones holding my cattle. If they're not doing that and they're only holding their political opponents to those standards, then it's like we're not a democracy anymore.  We cannot continue united in that environment. Right. Now, and you're right about that. Then it's just the way it continues to be. And it's, you know, the media does drive a lot of that force division and hostility and fanning the flames of whatever is taking place if it's race, class warfare or even trying to demonize you for wanting to drive your car because it's horrible in the environment because you refuse to eat the bugs and sleep in the pod. Yeah.  And if you turn on network TV and watch the shows that are on network TV, they're all driving those narratives. So your average simp or whatever person who's not really involved and really trying to figure things out on their own. Those people fall prey to all this easily. Absolutely. I think to people who are not very online, people who are, you know, actually living healthier lives than a lot of the little bit of information they do get is from Fox. And just they don't even realize that it's not my point about the NPCs. Yeah, they get like this much information and the information continues to slide left. And they just assume that that's the Republican response. Yeah.  I think there's a lot of really, I didn't mean that for everybody, but I'm just saying like, no, I'm just I'm just trying to say, I do think that like this is something I woke up to a couple of months ago where like there's really, really thoughtful, good people who just have an information problem right now. And I think rather than getting really mad at them and saying, I don't respect that motors. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's not even that they have like not a lot of education. It's just that they haven't realized yet that the sources they used to trust are no longer trustworthy. Yeah. They just haven't realized yet. They got a long way to go to help them. We can't just like vilify them like we have to bring them along, give them a reason to come along. Right. But it makes it harder when the the sources they're getting their news from are constantly telling them that anybody who says something that isn't with that, what they're saying, those people are, you know, white supremacist Nazis and all this stuff. So yeah, I couldn't possibly agree with that person.  I'm not a semi-fascist, you know, exactly. It's been a fantastic time. Have you joined us tonight, Ryan? I know you got a lot of stuff you got going on that got to take care of it, which is I'm glad you were able to give us at least an hour of your time to talk about the hypocrisy and, of course, all of the all the gaslighting that takes place in our media every day and in politics. And just real quick, you got about a minute while you go ahead and let everyone know where they can continuously find you and your content. Yeah, I would say the main place is YouTube. Find me on there, DroneTech, D-R-O-N-E-T-E-K. I'm also on Bitshoot and Rumble. I'm on Twitter as well. I'm constantly who knows how long I've been before I have to start and do it out there. But yeah, you can find me there. I upload videos, pretty much daily shorts, all dealing with media, hypocrisy, media bias, and just how all sometimes I try to do with humor. Sometimes they're serious videos. I try to change it up. So if you're interested in that and you should come check me out. All right. And the link is down below, guys. You guys can go check them out, go subscribe to them. I know it's been in the chat numerous different times. Make sure you go give them a subscribe and go watch this stuff. He has really good stuff. I love DroneTech stuff, especially his thumbnails. Those are always on point.


The day they both got married, she was getting married and they met Rabbi A impe. She earned a fortune with that girl, that they used to make fun of her and also give her the grace to be mine You parentheses show us that hil