bout the fine people hoax, Ted? Do you believe that one? You do? You do? Okay, all right. And then you just go down the list of hoaxes and you see how many he agrees with. Trust me, it's better than telling him he's got his facts wrong.

All right. So Georgia, the governor has signed this Georgia election bill. It's a 100-page election bill, so there's lots of stuff in it. But it includes stuff such as including a requirement for photo ID for even mail-in ballots, reducing early voting for runoff elections, and banning the distribution of food and drinks to people waiting in line. I guess the theory there is that that can influence their vote somehow. I don't see how. By the time you're standing in line, are you still undecided? Or is this just to keep people standing in line? You give them food and drink, they'll stay there longer. I don't know. What's the thinking on this?

So you and I probably don't know all the details of why these are even in the law. The Democrats say it's voter suppression. Is it? Are the Georgia laws voter suppression? Of course they are. Of course they are. Now they don't sell it that way, but of course it is. Just as the rules changes for 2020 were, let's just say they were politically motivated as opposed to fairness motivated. They weren't so much for the republic. They were for the Democrats.

So we have a situation where in all likelihood, I think most smart people would say this is true, that the 2020 election was decided largely by the rule changes that happened before the election. Wouldn't you say? Because the rule changes allowed far more people to vote in ways that people question. But there were more of them. Lots more people voted. There's no doubt about that. And so some people say that the rule changes is what determined who the president is as opposed to the public, because the public was the same public before the rules as after. The public didn't change. It's just how they count stuff and who they can get to the polls and how easily you vote. The rule changes decided who won.

So Georgia, having apparently a Republican legislature, they just decided to win next time by changing the rules. So they just changed the rules in a different way. Okay, so they just changed the rules in a different way. Would this be enough to guarantee that Republicans do better in the next presidential election? Well, if it's just Georgia, maybe that's not enough. But will other states follow? Right? Don't you think other states will follow? And we may see the Republicans smartening up and just making rule changes that are designed for nothing but winning elections.

Let's face it. This is designed to win elections. It's not about what's fair or good. Nobody cares about that. Nobody in the government cares about that. They want to get reelected. So I feel as though, given that the 2020 election was based entirely on shenanigans with rules, that if Georgia does some shenanigans with rules, they're playing the same game. I feel that's fair. I don't think the rules are fair because fairness isn't a real thing. It's just subjective. But it's a good strategy, and I think it's perfectly acceptable in the context of the rule changes being the only thing that determines an election.

All right, this is fun. So Dominion, the election software, do they have hardware and software? Is it just software? But the Dominion, I guess, is both hardware and software, is suing Fox News for 1.6 billion because they say that Fox was claiming they were, that the Dominion stuff was intentionally rigged. That was the claim. There's no court evidence of that whatsoever. No court proof. No court has ruled that Dominion did anything wrong.

But here's the interesting thing. Have you ever heard the phrase a Pyrrhic victory? I don't even know if I'm pronouncing it right. Might be Pyric. It's spelled P-Y-R-R-H-I-C. Have you ever heard that? I'm teaching you that because you hear that by people talking on TV. If somebody uses this phrase, they're bad at talking on TV because if you're talking on TV, you shouldn't use phrases that 75 percent of the public or more have never heard of, right? But I'm going to teach you so when you hear it on TV next, you'll know what it means.

A Pyrrhic victory. It's a historical reference to an army that won the battle but so many of their soldiers were injured or killed in the battle that they ended up losing the war because they used up too much of their resources winning a battle. So the idea here is you can win the battle but be careful that that didn't cost you the war.

It feels like Dominion might win the battle because they might prevail in the court case. That's possible. But what is Fox's defense? What do you think? Will Fox use the Sidney Powell defense, which is, well, you can't take anything we say seriously? It worked for, didn't it work for MSNBC with what's her name when she got sued? Didn't she actually win her case by saying you shouldn't take anything I say seriously on a news channel because she's an opinion person? Rachel Maddow, right? I believe she used that defense. Sidney Powell is going to use the defense. I think it'll work. I think it's a solid defense.

But there's another thing that