M: Go online, please. There was, you know, like, a year or two years ago, reports that Donald was not exactly the most pleasantly fragrant of people. But one of the—how would I put it? One of the most self-checking of the conspiracy theorists I know, that is, may have no problem with the idea of a conspiracy theory, but they are equivalent to the guy who simultaneously leads Bigfoot hunts and debunks false Bigfoot stuff. The guy is saying that there are a couple occasions where it looks like Donald is shitting himself. It's kind of crude, but putting it nicely on that topic sometimes makes it sound worse. Is this a thing, and is there any demonstrable evidence one way or the other? Okay, just the one way. Proving that he is not is one of those scientific impossibilities I shouldn't challenge you to. And any denial of it is in that area of, you know, why would you in either case say yes? So, just wondering how well this is backed up. Whether it's the kind of thing where a grimace at the wrong point became the entire factual grounding of the conspiracy level. I mean, conspiracy is kind of strong, but you know what I'm talking about when I say that, I hope. Is there anything more than a subjective interpretation of one scenario by someone obviously who isn't a fan available?

M: The original one from a year or two ago came from someone who was a senator saying he was speaking from personal experience and again, if you check online you'll find that it's difficult to trust anyone supporting Donald to be factual about a video that you guys are both watching, let alone this kind of hearsay, so forgive me if I take the denials with a grain of salt. I want to make sure though that we both are talking about just a relatively recent version of the idea. Like since he was inaugurated for the second term. My point is that I really hate that I have to keep repeating this to you, but this administration, starting at Donald and all the way down, is not a trustworthy source. Either when talking about something that makes them look bad or often even in times when they would look good, but instead of taking the win, they exaggerate things. Like for example, even if there was some kind of official agreement to bring down medicine prices, which I don't believe actually exists on paper anywhere, in talking about it, the guy said that prices were going down by 400, 500 or even 600 percent. Since that is a financial impossibility, much less any echo of the truth, you see what I'm talking about. Denials of people near him are at least as questionable as those of you know people who have actively rejected him. The people who have rejected him usually are more reliable not because of any kind of quality of character that they have, but because the higher up they were, the more aware they are that any inaccuracy on their part will give a guy like Donald decades of material to work with in order to give them even more grief. And while I'm willing to believe that there was some kind of, you know, deepfake variation of an actual occurrence or something like that, lack of verification does not mean untrue with this group. There's no room for benefit of the doubt with people who were ordered to turn a plane around and then later on said that they were unable to do so or any of the other myriad invasions that have occurred. Calling it a joke is only true in that the entire guy is a joke as far as how he portrayed himself as a business success, but regularly failed until he had the entire power of the United States executive agency behind him, and even then is doing so in the most petty ways possible. So yeah, I think I said it. We're in that area where I'm not willing to just bluntly accept any assertions from anyone who has business with the government or is considered friendly towards Donald. I'd be willing to accept a denial from someone who just straight-up disliked him, but at the moment that would be talking about a couple years ago. A couple years ago. Most of the people who have just decided to drop him are either people who did it more than a year ago or have just decided to shut up entirely in public. Like in one of your statements, you're saying that Donald would have his medical records referenced. That right there is an example of why you can't rely on him. If... Recently, there's been talk about how he had some kind of... Like, he tried to claim that he had a full-body MRI just in case, which is not how an MRI works. And people who have had to deal with similar situations say, his bruised hand looks like he's constantly getting IVs. And yet there's complete denial of some of the stuff, and everything that's released is so provably, you know, inaccurate, that his saying something is more likely to indicate that there's more there than that he's telling the truth. Like, there's no way to even partially disclose this. I didn't think that he might be having a heart problem until they started talking about... ...how he had some sort of... ...thing that was making his ankles swell up. Then when I looked into it, basically all of the visible symptoms are the same as if you're having a heart problem. And none of the indicators that differentiate between the two have been discussed or are visible. So the claim that he would have said something is woefully inaccurate. Once you realize how habitually there is lying, even, like I said, about situations where there was an objective success, but it's ruined by the need to exaggerate that. So, while I don't think this is necessarily true, I've never been one to really get behind a conspiracy theory unless there was evidence that it wasn't just a theory, but actually tangible and outside verifiable by people uninformed about the rest of the context. At least, I don't think so. I'll put it this way. If I am a conspiracy theorist, it's in some sort of weird, isolated subset of one, because anything that's classically been called a conspiracy theory is something that I am not in alignment with. But this is about the President, and a President who habitually doesn't tell the truth. So while I'm willing to accept that there isn't any direct evidence, that really does not settle my mind about the possibility that it's true. Just because people who have an interest in making sure Donald has a record that can't be acted on, say so. Because this group, they're not even good at it when they are demonstrably lying. Either they don't get their story straight, so there end up being five different versions that contradict each other out there. Or they are all so completely in lockstep, it's like they memorized it off a card. There's never a situation in which one person tells the official story at a press conference, and then another one at an interview shows that they have a little bit more information and the stories mesh, but this one has a little bit more substance to it.

M: I mean, I'm listening to the podcast with the guy I was talking about, but he's talking about things that are, you know, just factually demonstrable. In the regular news outlets, like the fact that Donald keeps speaking as though executive orders somehow are actual laws, you know, you hear it in the declarations. That right there is enough to show that he's, you know, under the best allowable interpretation, given the holistic situation. Not prone to connecting statements to reality in an accurate or complete way. As I'm reading, I appreciate that you're trying to be meticulous and accurate while understanding where I'm coming from. And the problem is that due to his megaphone size and capacity to communicate, basically anyone who reported anything like this or would be willing to has already been labeled as being hostile, up to and including the public broadcasters that have been operating for decades. So you can be completely accurate about that idea of hostile source statements subjectively, depending on how you look at matters. And what you take as being true in a vacuum versus true as part of the actual connected world. People doing neutral reporting are more rapidly labeled as hostile than the issue is actually addressed. This doesn't quite work. As an argument, at least not with the broad structures with which you painted it. The Kissinger stuff wasn't that he actually was tied into this, but the guy doesn't exactly have a clue about his personal odor is the reason why it came up at all. Or what makes it stay in that plausible level that you were talking about. I don't know. And again, we get to the problem where the idea of him being a hostile source is due to be labeled by Donald as being such. After the guy saw a coup being attempted, and after looking at the information, he determined that Donald was at least involved, if not responsible. So we run into the problem that is often the case. People who have been labeled as hostile sources are not done so because of a social analysis of their action, by an objective source, but because Donald has been shouting that so long that it's just taken as a given, and perhaps worse, as a simple given, rather than recognized as being in that grey area of it may be true because he had experience with Donald before being ostracized. When you cause someone to be labeled hostile, it's difficult to give the same full weight of knowledge of their hostility due to social analysis versus them literally deciding to cut the person off. And again, I refer you to the idea that the higher placed you are, the more you're aware that this guy who consistently lies also is very good at taking even a little bit of inaccuracy or even incomplete knowledge being given out as some sort of cudgel with which to hit people for decades. Don't respond yet. I need to send this and switch apps so I don't lose what I just sent. Wait until the next reply before responding.

M: And the guy does like to cudgel without worrying about who's getting hit or the response from them. So while you're... while the lack of confirmation is taken into account, you have to take into account that even people who dislike him are reluctant to directly make statements due to his willingness to drop billion-dollar lawsuits which have no hope in winning but are intended to scare people into shutting up. Like right now the atmosphere is getting to the point where anyone labeled as hostile is from some perspectives gaining credibility because they felt they had something substantial enough that they were willing to deal with the idea of Donal having a tantrum and coming after them to do so. Hmm, and even if you're right and he's not shitting himself even when directly questioned there's no acknowledgment that there was any other explanation. Or at least there's rarely an explanation outside of that. Like if he winces they won't even admit to like the average acid reflux or something like that. They'll try and say he was experiencing pain at the plight of the workers or some other obvious bullshit facade. And evidently, on at least one of these occasions, the evidence was the secondary indicator. Again, this was kind of mentioned in passing, which is why I started asking about it in the first place, because there wasn't even enough detail for me to say, you know, it'd be funny if it were true, but it doesn't sound like it. The two incidents that were caught on tape were a woman wincing as though she had just been, you know, hit in the face with something, like perhaps an odor or some other, you know, gross realization, and that something seemed to be dripping or leaking during an interview. That's really all I've got to work with. A lot of this conversation has been more of a, you know, generic letting off steam that's getting to the point of being boring about this group, because I still feel, since I don't have an emotional trailing, or what's the word I'm looking for? My emotions don't fade away, so when I remember shit, I get just as upset, so I end up having to go through the entire thing as briefly as possible and vent about it before I can function properly. And yeah, that's getting kind of boring. But it seems like the only way to deal with a limbic system that won't forget things. In terms of emotion. Either that or avoid the topic entirely, and this is the, you know, leader of the nation being led by a guy who managed to crash a casino multiple times, so ignoring it does not seem like a practical approach. Anyway, I kind of wandered off my train of thought for that one, trying to explain that I'm not really going for much, but because of the situation and the people involved, ignoring it doesn't seem to be... a viable option. Especially when a lot of your arguments seem to hinge on the idea of himself and his representatives functioning like normal people instead of the demonstrable falsehoods that are given on a regular basis about things that don't even really matter. I mean, you keep trying, but without broad information altering the situation and making you realize that you're not helping. Like the idea that there have been no leaked medical files? There's no indication at all as to who his physician is. While there is evidence, or at least I believe there to be, that notes from his doctor were dictated by him, and there is certainly reporting that the guy who was holding his medical records basically had his records stolen by a Trump thug. So when you say that nothing has been released, that just is a reminder that anyone with access to them is not necessarily a doctor. He's basically saying, I am the president, give me my stuff, I don't want anyone having this. Which, particularly in comparison to other presidents, makes the idea that there were no leaks less than comforting and more disturbing when it's brought up as being some of the only argument against something being true. I was hoping for something that would cross the threshold of evidence. Like I said, there were those two things that might have been specific enough for you to figure out what was being talked about, and if you know what they are, I'd like to know. But in general, this is not a group of people where I can simply say, okay, there's no evidence, therefore it's just fantastical or untrue. Like everything that they've done has discouraged the ability to do that. And what might scare me more is that I'm not sure that many of them actually understand why that might be the case. You know, that they might actually be truly baffled about the idea that, you know, just because they were shown to have lied in the past, that they don't understand why people would distrust them now.

M: Hold on a sec. Dot, dot, dot. Yeah, the overarching problem comes from just failure to be honest or consistent on a regular basis. Like, I would never have looked up the heart stuff being associated in terms of symptoms with the same thing they were talking about if they hadn't simultaneously been completely denying that anything was going on with his hand. I mean, they still are claiming that he shakes hands so often that it's bruising, or something like that. The kind of argument where, if not Donald, then his representatives should have better language to work with. You know, like an exact medical explanation of the mechanism that's going on, if it were true. Instead, they all use the same phrasing, which makes it sound like Donald decided the lie he was going to go along with, and everyone had to work around it. Or consistently firing people, not for doing a bad job, but just for not kissing his ass enough. It really makes it difficult to take at face value the idea that no one has said anything bad. Because they've created an atmosphere which is overtly demonstrated as one where anyone who gets noticed by the ogre gets stomped. Not even for not kissing his ass, just not doing it enough. Anyone who survives in that kind of situation is unlikely to break any kind of code of silence unless things are so bad that they really don't need to say anything. And it's just so fucking tiring. I mean, without using my past rants, but just people who record their words for a living. This current end-of-year analysis has just been depressing because so many of the people who were doomsayers are saying things along the lines of, I'm not happy because I was right, I just didn't see how bad it would get in things like that. I mean, if you looked up some of the bulwark podcasts, probably would be the best place to start looking for that kind of transcript. But it's just like, usually people are saying, I knew it would be bad, I just didn't know it would be here. In that kind of, again, demonstrated atmosphere, in terms of what has been done versus what was predicted to happen, the idea of dropping something just because there's no evidence of it morphs into being a situation where there's no evidence of it yet, but there's definitely something going on, and they're not giving anything plausible to work with, so we have to keep juggling all of the possibilities so that we don't miss some kind of piece of evidence because we dropped one of the ideas as being impossible. It feels awkward and I keep being defensive because that term you use, the epistemic one, is where conspiracy theories usually start from. It's that little kernel of truth that usually doesn't come into play outside of conspiracy theories because, especially with public figures, the answer about what is going on is either directly addressed or indirectly addressed sufficiently that some sort of public addressing of it becomes necessary to maintain public function. So, it's at the point of, there is definitely something going on here, but not in the way that usually morphs into a conspiracy theory where correlation is confused with causality, and you end up with people thinking that doctors cause illness or something like that because people only see them when they're sick. In this case, though, there is certainly something wrong. I mean, even if we just limit it to the physical symptoms, the guy went in for an MRI, claims not to know why, claims it was a whole body thing. When MRIs' purposes are predefined so that the people know what to look for, there's the weird hand bruising thing going on. So, it's not a situation that's being based on wanting to see a conspiracy. It's that there's literally something there on record, and then when it's addressed, it's done in such a painfully wrong way. Like, there's no way it could be the truth without more information, at the very least. That the only thing left is what usually is reserved for the people who are the only option is to either drop it entirely, which is not in this case possible, because of the nature of what's of the person involved, or to drop it entirely, which is not in this case possible, because of the nature of the person involved. Or just spend way too much bandwidth trying to figure it out based on people who are interested not even in giving disinformation necessarily, and this is a complicating factor, one that infuriates me more when I think about it, and every time I have to check myself. It's entirely possible that this is not even so much disinformation as just trying to protect a very fragile ego from even a modicum of discomfort. Like, the reason behind the various stuff could be completely innocuous, but because it would somehow make Donald feel like less of a three-inch dick man, they all decide to go along with the idea that, no, it's not, you know, an ivy drip because he has, you know, a low sodium due to being so active. See, there we go. This is why I keep saying they're so bad at it. I can come up with a better explanation that still strokes his ego and likely is loosely connected enough to physical symptoms that everyone would let it go, or at least most of us would let it go, and the rest would want to, except for knowing how these guys work. And it wouldn't even need to be true. It would just be a thing. But instead, they stick to this wildly implausible line that is only kept from being shown as 100% untrue, because, you know, it falls into that same category as to why, even if I weren't feeling vehement about this, I couldn't 100% say that it wasn't true any more than I can, you know, specifically prove that leprechauns never existed. But it's so patently, you know, untrue that, you know, it flavors any other information that is given. For the specifics, the woman reacting, do we know when this was filmed and who it is and where it is? Because someone crapping their pants is definitively unexpected. In fact it would be more unexpected if they were just standing and talking. So saying, so a lot of your stuff, not all of it, but a lot of it is kind of moot. Like it, it doesn't have to align with him moving, sitting or shifting. I think I've crapped my pants once and it was just before a run, not even stretching or anything. I just wasn't able to deal with it. So an 80-year-old man just crapping while standing is not really an extension there. The corroborating reactions are better, but not entirely useful. I mean at this point anyone up there is a sycophant, so it's like a smelly belch or something. The person in direct line might catch significantly more of the effect than the people around them, certainly at once. And again, sycophants are going to mask it. And this is where things start to get really, really difficult because he's surrounded him so much with people who want to please him no matter what he does, that instead of being the corroboration of no one else reacted, except for the woman, the possibilities become polarized. Either she was reacting to something else and that's why no one else reacted, or he did crap himself. She was in the direct line of fire and everyone else around him was so used to his doing things like this that provided they were not unexpectedly blasted with a wave of odor. They were completely prepared to keep a straight face or even so inured as to not even have to think about not reacting. It ties back to what was pissing me off so much about the entire situation. The atmosphere of suspicion is completely traceable to their documented actions. Getting rid of anyone who would disagree means that what should be sufficient evidence to let something go has been polluted because the extremes you would have to go to in order for it to mean that it happened but everyone was covering up for it have been met instead of being, you know, a ridiculous requirement of people who are on the whole capable of understanding neutrality even if they don't participate in it. Yeah, the dripping thing was mentioned so casually that I can't even tell you enough to specify. Now, a secondary rage in this whole situation comes from the idea that, you know, starting with his predecessor and going backwards... Even if this were not true, the fact that it can simultaneously be thought of as possible but not explored is disturbing. Because I don't lose emotional connection with the past, it's got pain in the ass in aspects. But there are things that I wouldn't call benefits, but that mean that my interpretation has more value. Because I don't forget how outrage felt, and it keeps coming back each time, I can tell you that every time someone who is neurotypical and is by this point acclimated to the idea of If Biden had done this, we would be up in arms. That it's just so enraging, each of these things would have been enough. But because it's this downpour of bullshit, people have let themselves adapt to the point where that's a joke and not a rallying cry. Even the assertion that leakage is inevitable is compromised. Everything is self contained; there’s no required connection to reality. The The claim you're making assumes functioning in the usual situation. It's not confirmation, to be sure. But... It's not rejection. When you consider that we have no documentation of what happens when we get to this level of ass-kissing. This is someone who has practiced enough in surrounding themselves with information insulation... That it's questionable whether anyone in the IRS who is supposedly dealing with this case... Has any concept of what his actual personal value was before he hit the presidency and became... Whatever's going on now. So the claim that leakage is inevitable is predicated on the idea that things are functioning as they were. Not that... It is demonstrably required... Even in... This... Self-isolating ball of reality that they call an administration. The logistics and micro-changes and stuff are being documented in a way that indicates something being wrong, but the use of those analyses, it turns out, requires some sort of macro-acknowledgement of reality which never breaks through in this world, to the point of stressing the system before it shows signs of giving way. I mean, as an example, take the Epstein files. Every piece of the micro-analysis that you're talking about shows that something is going on in there and that they're trying to avoid talking about it, but because of where the logjam is, it doesn't matter whether or not those small analyses exist. There is currently a giant clump of Donald crap on top of everything, either directly or through people who have been convinced that protecting this fucker is somehow the best choice. So the assumption that things will eventually leak through, it's a nice idea, but that's like saying that the water dripping over a dam counts as a river, especially if you take into account the time factor that that metaphor implies. Perhaps it will come out, but in the meantime, we're all still dying of thirst, and the dam is holding and won't corrode without something catastrophic. That is what I meant about the secondary frustration. It's that I keep feeling flush with the entirety of each instance, as it brings back the emotional memory of related incidents, up to and past the point that I can consciously remember what those emotions are tied to. I mean, the fact that it is this single category should be indicative in some form. But every time there is this small bit of, you know, offhand third-party remarks, I mean, just look at the last year. There have been fucking offhand remarks in the middle of a goddamn war chat being held on fucking Signal. And everyone was outraged, and now the outrage has passed for everyone except for me, and they're able to rationalize it. Like people getting desensitized to murder by repetition, to the point that they start wondering whether the murder is really bad. Meanwhile, I keep feeling like I'm watching each slaughter afresh. So what you're claiming requires that kind of consistency, and we're seeing that your argument is failing because that emotional stress is being adapted to rather than resisted. I can't help but resist, and it becomes tiring because neurotypicals have managed to make it a passing joke until it becomes something that personally hits them where it hurts. Like, one of the people I often listen to is Tim Miller on The Bulwark, and he had a particular connection with the hairstylist who was sent to El Salvador. Like, everyone was outraged, but his continued because of that personal connection. But in other things, he has dropped the limbic response like everyone else. Before, anything could be done, often by getting distracted by something else equally outrageous, and now they're just fucking adapted. This was largely a rant, but my point is that a lot of your arguments make the assumption that this is something that can be measured against past standards. While I'm saying that they have completely de-standardized everything down past the bedrock, so assuming that something will fix it is blatantly bad logic.

M: Yeah, I don't know if I finished that thought because I'm trying to do some shopping in between bouts of ranting, but just an IV solution of the kind of, oh what's the word, not sodium, but there we go, electrolytes, due to his hectic schedule starting to take it out of him because he's been functioning great for 80 years and he wants to continue to do so. That right there would have been a single complete usable way of addressing something that is obvious without doing so in a way that is blatantly a lie. I just wanted to finish that thought. Like I said, I don't know if I actually did. I'm pretty sure I didn't just because I had to think of the word electrolytes instead of bringing it out of short-term memory. And, uh, in that, you forgot to include that when they aren't perfectly synchronized, they completely contradict each other. There's no light variation of the same idea that comes out when the story is at least mostly true, or based in truth. It'll either be utter repetition, or three or four different self-contradicting versions, or mutually contradicting versions, of a story that the news cycle will dissipate its energy in trying to come up with an explanation where everything that has been said is true, rather than confronting the fuckers about the fact that they are actually lying. Things have gotten a little bit altered lately, but they've done it way too slowly for it to have any effect. They're actually getting to the point where they're just about ready to, on public, you know, like NBC, CBS-level things, start saying, you're not telling the truth, what is the truth? Instead of being gentle like they were able to back in the day when people were better at masking the truth, and needed to be cornered and made uncomfortable by lying, instead of realizing that it's the soup that they swim in. In Part 2, I think you may have left out that anyone disagreeing or ostracized is automatically given a kind of label as a hostile source that in the past was a passive result of actually being hostile, so they're utilizing people who haven't adjusted to the fact that this is not the standard operating system in order to argue as though it were the standard operating system and that anything that has been labeled hostile is somehow suspect. I'm skipping over everything until the end because I'd just be repeating myself. It's like you're being thorough when I've gotten to the point where thoroughness doesn't really help. You're not saying anything I disagree with in a way that can't be addressed by going with the part at the end where you're asking, does keeping this one active help us understand anything better? And the problem is that the answer is, I don't know, and it might. It's part of the whole overarching problem. This is not standard situation. So the idea of knowing what needs to be kept track of is an impossible question. And if I make my best guess, I'm still in a situation where dropping it is not a good idea. Because we're talking about the health of a likely narcissistic Igam Niall guy in the position of president, who, you know, I'm going to go back to the Epstein stuff again. Not for content, but for reference. In the best case scenario, is willing to let the country go to hell either trying to get the files released or starting to view itself as being separate from everyone else because for some reason they think this guy is worth protecting and taking at face value despite numerous individual cases of fraud, including adjudicated ones. He's willing to let all of this shit happen in a position that's supposed to be serving the public in the best case to protect his ego. What I'm calling the best case is that there's something in there that he thinks of as being somehow a blow to his manhood, but which is not in any legal or practical application significant. There's something in there just by the hoops that have been danced through either in exact presence or in what it represents. Again, if the best case is that he won't let them go because somehow he thinks that means that he loses, that is not a good result. Now, someone with that kind of narcissistic, egomaniacal personality buffered from any consequences due to a chance of birth and now protected by people who literally owe their job to him in a way that he is not allowed to fail, which now that I think about it is usually the case in his life, and he has shown a willingness to discard those people as ablative shielding when things start coming at him. A person with that kind of personality also going through potential incontinence at the least and perhaps a failing mind characteristic of aging people and that is specifically in his genetic line up to and including his father to the point that they humored him by letting him think he was still running the company by hooking up a phone that didn't go to anyone except for someone who was in charge of making sure he didn't get into trouble and giving him stuff to sign that was meaningless all day. In that kind of situation, there is no good reason to drop any consideration of that person's health when you are trying to figure out what is going to happen to the nation and perhaps the world. When you don't know what evidence will matter but a lot of it can be thought of as potentially being health related in terms of what is important, then letting something involving health drop would be criminally negligent in that case. Particularly since I'm one of the few people, or maybe not few, one of the people who is biologically equipped to be unable to fall into the trap of becoming socially adapted to something that should be kept unacceptable by everyone, and still is if you manage to bring it past that point of adaptation to their attention. So letting it go would be socially irresponsible. And the reason it's exhausting is because even with all that, it still saps my strength and my attention, and I don't know what to do with it, so I have to constantly be on guard for the occasion where it could actually matter, if just in explaining it to someone who can do something that I can't.

M: Look, one of the reasons why Biden lost is because whether it was true or not, I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think that the people around him were not even lying to themselves, but had just adapted to the idea that he was able to communicate and think because he was able to think and his communication issues were so ordinary to them that they were unable to see things clearly. At least at that point. Right now, it seems like he may have actually hit a decline. Because he was brought down by health, the idea of splitting up health into relevant and irrelevant is outside the point. In fact, even if I did try to do that, it still would be right there at the forefront as infuriating and objectively energy-draining. Because this fucker keeps doing things like he almost he literally almost slipped down a ramp. He keeps not getting crap for things that Biden did when it wasn't even in the same category. They made fun of Biden as being too old when he fell off of a bike. Meanwhile, Donald can't even walk a golf course, he has to ride. And yet when he does things that are physically disturbing no matter what the actual source, if not disturbing, at least alarming when you consider that he's the president, it used to be that it was seen as some sort of personal attack. Now it's not even fucking brought up. So yeah, putting anything that seems irrelevant off the side is not just impractical in that it would still be the situation in my mind that was drawing oxygen. It's that okay, with the hand bruising and the symptoms that look like they could be either indicative of a benign disease or of an actual heart disease, the details are the things that could make the difference. The stuff that seems relevant is still unexplained, so the details have to be held even if it's at arm's length as not being verified, just not able to be labeled as impossible in the current situation, because that's what will tell us, if it ever does, what's going on or at least why it is that the current story is completely false. Which detail it is, is the reason why it's so exhausting. And then when you assemble them, you get people who are saying, well, that's not enough. Motherfucker, it was enough for people to say Biden was slipping. One instance broadcast was enough to bring him down. This asshole rambles about, you know, Hannibal Lecter as though he was real, mixes up the idea of political asylum and an insane asylum on a regular basis, goes off on tangents in a way that I try to keep myself from, but at least I can find my way back to and relate. He calls it the weave, and they take it as being a fucking truth and not the ramblings of someone who could be like their father, dropping into the tank of Alzheimer's. I can't drop it, because no one can give me in this atmosphere enough to work with, that I can completely drop it. There is nothing in that meme tier, because so much of what they do is so farcical and over the top in ways that would prevent it being used in a action movie, such as secretly trying to fly such as secretly trying to trying to fly children out of the country, that the idea that it is a joke is no longer enough to disqualify it from consideration. The motherfucker actually ran on the idea of Haitians in Ohio somehow eating cats and dogs, and instead of that being seen as insane, it became part of the culture. He keeps talking about things as though this were the 1950s, and I don't mean like even the big stuff, like he talks about how girls don't need more than a couple dolls, and children don't need more than one or two pencils. I don't even know what the fuck children don't need more than one or two pencils. I don't even know what the fuck that means, but everything that is small, when totaled together, indicates a constant disconnect from reality and a likely decline of facilities, even taking into account that the normal indicators of faculty loss have instead, with this motherfucker, been taken as just how he works when he was in his 40s and 50s. So I can't drop it, and I'm not trying to promote anything. I'm looking for reasons to promote, or at least let drop into a lesser bucket, something to be tracked and remembered, but not checked on. That's why I'm talking to you, and there is no tiny watch list. Like I said, if I asked you to go out there and get all of the various stuff over the last year, stuff over the last year, that people have said, well, maybe it shows that he's losing his faculties. You've demonstrated that you have difficulty in certain situations. I think you would run out of memory before you ran out of instances. So it's not going to be a tiny watch list. That's what I'm talking about, is that all of this aggregation requires that this little stuff be collected, and none of the stuff that gets collected indicates the ability to let go of the topic. It is either bad or unable to be specifically tracked. There is nothing that can be said to be good, and part of that is their fault, because even when things are good, they manage to turn telling good news into a lie, and in the meantime, remove data. They dropped fucking jobs reports because they didn't want that information out there, and now any information that comes out is suspect because of the way that they did it. And as far as I can tell, they are fine with that, even though it means that it's going to make the country weaker. So the idea of letting go of little things is impossible, particularly when you're trying to diagnose health. I mean, how many people have asked you somewhere to help them diagnose things, and because they didn't know what to look for, you were left in a situation where you couldn't tell them if they had a headache or an embolism coming on. And I want to be able to define my rule for dropping it definitively. That's part and parcel with the secondary thing that's infuriating me. Because they've changed the rules. Hell, they've changed the meta-rules. It's like they've started writing the rules in another language that's built on vagueness. So the idea of coming up with a rule that would let me let things go has become nigh impossible. They would have to admit to what the MRI was, and what's going on with the bruising, in a way that can be externally verifiable as being plausible, in order for me to even let that single part go. And even then, I wouldn't necessarily be able to let it entirely go. Because that minimal definition still leaves open the possibility that in their explanation, they are vague about something else that they don't have to be vague about. Or that what they admitted might actually be indicative of a larger problem, which they are still in denial about. And again, this is not my fault. They changed the atmosphere. They spilled nail polish on the rules, and instead of rewriting them, they've just said, well, what I think that means is this. Except when it works against me, at which point it probably means something else. I mean, on the whole, what would change my model would be someone coming in, and at least showing some competence at lying. I wouldn't necessarily believe them, but someone who was competent also could be used as a source of reliable information, even if it was false. And every time that I have tried to give some kind of falsifiability standard, they've gone and either confirmed my suspicions, or they've upped the ante to the point that the old condition no longer worked. I mean, if there wasn't an AI to repeat things back to me in a more... language-expanding or language-precise way, I'd start feeling like I was one of those guys with three ragged notebooks, wild-eyed and trying to convince people that they were crazy. I mean, not literally, but it would feel that way. Instead, I ramble to you, and it turns out that what feels like the tattered notebook scribblings can be sorted out into two or three major topics, which then can be verified, and usually are, or at least do not reach the point of being contradicted.