Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1183 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About the Massive Brainwashing Operation Going on Now

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. It is delightful to see you all. I know you're coming here

00:00:16.800 because it's the best time of the day, every single time. And one way you can know it will

00:00:25.780 be an incredible day is if you have the simultaneous sip. Yeah, it's pretty much guaranteed if you do

00:00:33.160 that. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or

00:00:38.500 flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

00:00:47.240 for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better

00:00:52.700 except statistics. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.

00:01:02.080 Ah, I can feel my Benford curve bending. Can't you? Yeah. Well, there's an allegation that CNN got rid

00:01:13.580 of its COVID banner. Do you think that's true? Because I don't know if they use the COVID counter

00:01:23.860 on every single story all the time anyway. So are we only imagining that they suddenly took down the

00:01:31.200 COVID death count? Because I feel as though that wasn't for every story all the time. They just put

00:01:37.740 it up now and then. So I got a feeling that's fake news. But we'll talk about some other fake news

00:01:43.440 and some real ones. A company called Celex, a biotech company, and Gauss, who's a computer vision

00:01:52.960 startup, they announced that they have got approval for an at-home coronavirus test.

00:01:59.380 It has sensitivities of 94% and specificity of 97%. Now, I'm not going to get into the technical

00:02:10.620 difference between the sensitivity and the specificity. One has to do with finding the

00:02:16.620 virus. The other has to do with finding antibodies, I think. But the point is that these are sensitive

00:02:22.360 enough that if you had a lot of these and people had them at home and they could test it themselves,

00:02:29.380 I think it comes with this little inexpensive device that comes with the test kit or something.

00:02:35.200 That's how they make it cheap. But isn't it great that Vice President-elect Biden is getting so much

00:02:43.420 done? So now he's got a vaccine and it looks like Vice President-elect Biden now has a cheap

00:02:52.780 at-home test. Those were the two things we needed to get past coronavirus. And it only took Vice

00:03:00.160 President-elect one week to get all of that done. So jokes on President Trump for doing absolutely

00:03:09.280 nothing for four years. And then Biden comes in one week, one week. He's got this whole pandemic

00:03:16.280 under control. So I guess a pretty good deal. Here's some more fake news. If you saw on social

00:03:24.020 media that RealClearPolitics had decided to take Pennsylvania out of the Biden column and put it

00:03:32.240 into the undecided column, I fell for that one. I even retweeted that one. Fake news. Fake news.

00:03:39.900 Never happened. It turns out the RealClearPolitics never had Pennsylvania as decided in the first

00:03:46.840 place. So there was nothing to reverse. Just somebody noticed it wasn't there and assumed

00:03:52.680 it had been reversed. But they just had kept it undecided. Another fake news is also saw on I think

00:04:02.560 only on social media that Brett Baer deleted a tweet because it got so much pushback and Fox News

00:04:11.500 hatred. And the tweet that he deleted that got all of this Fox News hatred was him just tweeting that

00:04:18.120 he'll be on tonight with Martha McCallum. And that was it. His entire tweet was, I'll be on at

00:04:26.220 you know, X time with Martha McCallum. But in the comments there were just, you know, reams of

00:04:31.500 Fox News hatred because mostly because of the Arizona calling that for Biden in what people thought was

00:04:38.380 too early. And then Brett Baer deleted the tweet and it gets reported as as if he deleted it because

00:04:45.600 of all the bad feedback. But fake news. Fake news. In my opinion, it's fake news. Because even this

00:04:56.100 morning, I tweeted that same kind of tweet, which I will delete as soon as we're done here. Because

00:05:03.500 my tweet said something about my today's episode of this. So if I leave that tweet up until tomorrow,

00:05:11.780 it will look like I'm referring to tomorrow as today. So of course, I will delete it.

00:05:17.740 All Brett Baer did was delete a tweet that should be deleted because it times out because it's talking

00:05:24.580 about today. You don't leave a tweet up that talks about today after today. It would be misleading.

00:05:33.420 So, you know, I can't read Brett Baer's mind and know whether he deleted it because of all the bad

00:05:39.340 comments. But I know that if he didn't delete it just as a matter of course, because it is a

00:05:47.040 deletable tweet that should be deleted on the next day. I'd be surprised. All right. So that's your little

00:05:53.960 bit of fake news there. Fox News also reported that Bill Barr, Attorney General, has given the green

00:06:02.240 light for the Department of Justice to look into election mischief. And here's how Fox News couched

00:06:13.120 that. Even though little evidence of fraud has been put forth. Do you find that to be a true

00:06:22.760 statement? Would you say it's true that, quote, little evidence of fraud has been put forth?

00:06:32.140 Would you say that's a true statement? That feels like an opinion, doesn't it? Because how much is

00:06:39.160 a lot? How much is a little? If you've been looking at the statistical arguments, you mostly will,

00:06:48.340 or maybe only, mostly I think, we'll see it on social media. You won't see it on the news so much.

00:06:54.540 Now, I would assume that a lot of those statistical arguments, when you dig into them, you might find

00:07:01.240 out that they don't hold up. That's what I would expect. Just in general, any kind of claims in this

00:07:07.440 situation are not going to hold up in the long run. It wouldn't matter if the roles were reversed.

00:07:12.620 It wouldn't matter what the claim is, almost. You know, a lot of things won't hold up in the long run.

00:07:17.900 But there are a lot of them, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say that there are a lot of statistical

00:07:25.280 claims and that they haven't been debunked? That doesn't mean that they won't be debunked.

00:07:32.000 But what we're talking about now is, is there evidence enough that professionals should get

00:07:37.920 involved looking into it? We're not saying that something's been proven already. That's the whole

00:07:43.940 point of having the professionals look into it, to see if there's anything that can be or should be

00:07:49.000 proven. So is it accurate to say that there's little evidence? I would say that there's a lot of

00:07:57.280 evidence that's been presented, but it has not been confirmed. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

00:08:04.280 Plenty of allegations, plenty of evidence presented, mostly in the statistical sense,

00:08:11.060 but not confirmed. Isn't that exactly why you have the Department of Justice look into it?

00:08:18.900 Yeah, it seems to me there are plenty of claims. Whether they hold up is a separate question.

00:08:23.520 All right. Joe Biden could set a weird record by becoming president, if in fact he becomes president.

00:08:34.120 So every time I talk about president-elect Joe Biden or Joe Biden being president,

00:08:39.780 run a little recording in your head that says, but you know, it's not official and it could well be

00:08:47.260 reversed and there's a pretty good chance it will be. So play that in your head every time you hear me

00:08:52.500 talking about Joe Biden, okay? It could be reversed. It probably will be. Well, I don't know if it

00:08:58.500 probably will be, but there's a good chance. But here's the weird record he could have. He could get

00:09:04.700 the most votes in absolute numbers. He could get the most votes of anybody ever elected president

00:09:11.780 while simultaneously having the lowest approval of any president.

00:09:17.260 Now, I say he will have the lowest approval level without regard to anything he actually does.

00:09:26.580 Because can you say with some certainty that Republicans will say he's doing a bad job?

00:09:34.060 Yes, of course. Exactly as you could say if a Republican is president, you could count on just about all of the

00:09:42.440 Democrats saying that Republican is doing a bad job. But what's different is that while Trump consolidated

00:09:50.260 Republicans, he had something like, I don't know, 96% support, it looks like Biden's going to be going in

00:09:58.720 with a split Democratic Party, you know, the extremists, if you will, the progressives and the moderates.

00:10:05.440 So if you imagine that the half, or let's say a third of the Democratic Party will be unhappy with

00:10:13.920 Joe Biden because he's not extreme enough, and 100% or something like it of the Republicans will be

00:10:20.600 against him, doesn't that get you down to the lowest job approval of all time, while also

00:10:28.520 simultaneously getting the most votes for president? That's going to happen, right? I mean, almost certainly

00:10:34.620 that's going to happen. I don't know how it's going to be avoided. So I think we'll see Biden approvals

00:10:39.140 in the low 40s, eventually. You know, you'll have a little honeymoon period, perhaps. Maybe this will

00:10:46.880 be the time there is no honeymoon period. But I would expect it to drift into the low 40s. And I don't

00:10:52.860 think it will ever get anywhere near Trump approval levels. If Biden becomes president, which is by no

00:11:01.860 means certain, certainly has not been determined, and there's a good chance it won't happen.

00:11:10.820 All right. Here's an interesting question, which I think should be posed to Democrats.

00:11:20.160 And it goes like this. If you believed that Trump was an existential threat, and you believed he was a

00:11:30.940 Hitler-like character, and don't you feel that Democrats would say they do believe that, and did

00:11:38.200 believe that, that Trump is not an ordinary Republican, but rather an existential threat, and a Hitler-like

00:11:45.800 menace to the world, if not the country. Now, if you believe that, and you're willing to say that in

00:11:52.660 public, yes, I believe that is true, how do you defend not trying to rig the election, if that is also

00:12:00.340 your claim that it was not rigged? How in the world could you be a moral, ethical, good person, and you

00:12:08.640 wouldn't try to rig the election to keep Hitler out of office? Because let me tell you, I would try to

00:12:14.580 rig that election. I would risk jail to keep an existential threat and a Hitler out of office. Why

00:12:22.640 wouldn't you? If you put me in that situation, I'm either going to say, well, it's not that bad. He's not

00:12:29.920 actually Hitler. Or, if I say that he is Hitler, and I believe it, I'm going to act on it. You don't not act on

00:12:41.120 Hitler. Now, granted, not every person is going to act on everything, but shouldn't you expect the Democrats as a

00:12:50.020 group would have plenty of people who would say, whoa, this is not like other elections. This is not like every other

00:12:57.700 year. We've got to go here and act. I just realized I might be wearing my shirt backwards. Just ignore the fact that my

00:13:07.620 shirt is inside out. Not backwards, inside out. Act like you don't even see it. If you're watching, if you're just

00:13:16.040 listening to this on the podcast and you can't see the video, there's nothing wrong with my shirt. I'm wearing

00:13:22.880 my shirt completely correctly. So anyway, Democrats have some weird cognitive dissonance trigger here,

00:13:32.200 because if they didn't try to rig the election, they're either liars or cowards, or there's something

00:13:39.380 going on that we don't understand. Maybe there's some other explanation. All right, now you're obsessed

00:13:46.860 with my shirt, so you won't hear anything else I say. All right, one pushback I saw from somebody who

00:13:57.960 tried to argue against the statistical arguments about the election being rigged. Now the statistical

00:14:04.600 arguments, if you haven't heard them, it's a variety of different arguments about different things

00:14:10.380 that all have the same quality, which is this couldn't have happened by itself, meaning that some

00:14:17.300 of the argument is that there are more people who voted than has ever voted as a percentage of the

00:14:24.600 population by a lot. So much so that the odds that it really happened are not zero, but really close

00:14:35.980 to zero. But you could say to yourself, well, that's just one thing. It is natural that if you're looking

00:14:43.920 at a lot of different statistics, some of them are going to be weird, because that's how statistics work.

00:14:49.720 And here's an argument that I saw online from just random Twitter user, but I thought it was

00:14:56.500 interesting enough to talk about. And he said that the statistical arguments are cherry picking.

00:15:03.240 And his argument is this. You could find, if you cherry picked and looked for them, you could find places

00:15:10.840 where the vote was unusual for Republicans. In other words, you could find a city where the Republican vote

00:15:18.860 was way on a line or the number of people who voted doesn't make sense. Do you believe that? Now,

00:15:24.920 I don't know that anybody's looked for that. But if they did look, do you believe that they would find

00:15:30.380 also statistical anomalies that go in the other direction? Not a bad comment, is it? If we're trying

00:15:38.160 to be rational here, you know, and I try to create a culture, if you will, for my live streams, that

00:15:47.420 you're not going to be dogmatic and just agree with your team on every single thing, because that's

00:15:53.440 sort of not what we do here. So if you're being objective, and you saw a whole bunch of statistical

00:16:02.000 claims made by one side against the other, but you hadn't seen the full context, how certain should you be

00:16:10.660 that those statistical claims could not have been made in the other direction if somebody just looked for

00:16:16.060 them? It's a pretty good comment, isn't it? Right? No, not really. Because there's a second layer to the

00:16:27.540 claims. The claims are not simply, hey, we found some cities and some locations that have some

00:16:34.660 anomalies. If that were the only claim, then it would be a perfectly good debunking to say,

00:16:41.140 there are always anomalies. There will be anomalies in the other direction. There's going to be some

00:16:47.020 anomalies this way. Every year you looked at it, there would be anomalies. Any other situation you looked

00:16:52.900 at that that was big and complicated, you would see a statistical distribution where there's a little

00:16:58.720 bit of natural clustering, and it wouldn't mean a thing. It would just mean that you pick these ones

00:17:04.100 that are anomalies, and there are always anomalies, right? Except for the other layer. The anomalies that

00:17:12.080 worked against the Republicans happen to occur in all the right places.

00:17:19.000 So it's that second level of coincidence that takes it to, okay, this isn't just cherry picking.

00:17:27.700 Probably, right? Now, you and I have not dug into it. You and I are not probably not statistical

00:17:33.600 experts. So we could find out anything in the long run. But the claim that a statistical anomaly

00:17:41.280 will happen, or lots of them will happen in both directions, is fair. But when you add that extra

00:17:47.960 layer, why did they only happen in these places? Exactly the places that they needed to happen.

00:17:54.100 Once you add that second layer of coincidence, if the claim holds up, and again, I'm not the one who

00:18:01.080 looked into it personally. I'm just reading claims. But if those claims hold up, it's going to be hard

00:18:07.180 for it to explain that as a coincidence. All right. I don't know why I'm going to mention this, and I

00:18:17.420 probably shouldn't. But you know, you get something in your head, and you can't get it out of your head

00:18:21.880 until you say it out loud. You ever had that situation? There's just a random thing that's not

00:18:27.080 too important, and it's rolling around in your head. But damn it, if you don't say it out loud,

00:18:31.720 eventually, it'll just keep rolling around in there until you get it out of there. So I'm going

00:18:36.180 to do that. I will ask your indulgence for a point that has no relevance to anything. And it goes like

00:18:43.780 this. Maybe we live in a simulation because if you're a victim, and this is why I didn't want to

00:18:51.660 mention it, if you're a victim of sexual assault, what professional are you likely to pay to help

00:19:00.620 you if you've been the victim of a sexual assault? Now, of course, there's the legal system, but that's

00:19:09.340 separate. You wouldn't necessarily be paying for that. That would be a public service. But who would

00:19:15.300 you pay? You'd probably pay somebody called a therapist. Yeah, it's your way ahead of me. What

00:19:23.400 are the odds that the people who are the victims of sexual assault are almost have to, because it

00:19:31.180 would mess with your mind, would have to see a professional whose name is a therapist, which is

00:19:36.440 literally the words the rapist put together. I mean, you can't even laugh at that, because the topic is

00:19:46.140 ugly, right? You can't make fun of sexual assault. But what are the odds that the one job that deals

00:19:54.940 with people who are, and fairly frequently, right? I would imagine if you're a therapist, probably,

00:20:01.640 I don't know, 40 to 60% of your business is people who are victims of sexual assault, and that has a

00:20:08.780 big deal, has a lot to do with why they're feeling the way they feel. That's just creepy and crazy, and

00:20:15.340 they need to change their name, honestly. Because I don't think if I had been a victim of that particular

00:20:21.740 crime, that I could ever see the word therapist and feel okay with it. I would always see, always see

00:20:29.680 the part that comes after the, always. I mean, literally, you should just change the name of

00:20:36.340 your business. You should be a something, not a therapist. All right, are you ready for your red

00:20:43.380 pill of the moment? Here it comes. The moment you've been waiting for. The reason that you joined me here

00:20:49.180 on Coffee with Scott Adams. The thought that you did not have on your own until you heard it from me,

00:20:56.120 and it goes like this. Remember, I always tell you to look for what's happening, but if you want to

00:21:01.900 understand the situation also, look for what's not happening, which is called the dog that isn't

00:21:09.620 barking, from Sherlock Holmes reference. So if there's a dog that should have been barking, because the

00:21:15.880 allegation is that there was an intruder in the backyard, and that dog doesn't bark, you have to ask

00:21:23.180 yourself, why is there a lack of facts here? And here is the dog that's not barking about this

00:21:30.600 election. And it comes in the form of top statistical experts who are Democrats, who are looking at the

00:21:38.900 statistical arguments coming out of the weaponized autism on the right, and they're making quite a few

00:21:47.360 claims about statistical irregularities that could not happen naturally. What is the most logical,

00:21:55.860 ordinary thing you would expect to happen, given that the left is completely unified in saying that

00:22:03.220 none of that mischief happened, or if it did, it was trivial. So isn't the most logical thing that CNN

00:22:13.760 would do, given that this claim of impropriety is so big, and it seems to be at least at this point

00:22:21.180 based primarily on statistical observation, plus there are a bunch of witnesses who have signed

00:22:28.300 affidavits, but we'll get to them next. But there's a statistical thing. So wouldn't you expect

00:22:36.200 that the top statistical minds who are anti-Trump would be all over CNN and all over MSNBC, and they

00:22:45.200 would say, you know, this Benford analysis, that's not really a thing, right? Or they'd say, you know,

00:22:53.620 this Benford analysis, it is a thing, but they use the wrong data, or maybe the data isn't reliable,

00:23:01.920 or something. Wouldn't you expect that since the biggest issue in the world is, hey, these statistics

00:23:10.360 show there was a gigantic fraud big enough to change the election, don't you need to get your experts in

00:23:17.060 there to talk against that? You do, don't you? And it's kind of missing, isn't it? Now, did you notice it was

00:23:26.260 missing until I just brought it up? So here's your check on yourself. If you didn't notice this until

00:23:35.880 I brought it up, there's a mental, let's say, method that you're lacking. And the mental method you're

00:23:45.120 lacking is you should every now and then, almost like there's a timer set in your brain, say, wait a

00:23:51.420 minute. Is there anything missing here that you would naturally see here if you knew what should

00:23:57.300 be here? Is there anything missing? That should be part of your mental habit to just always, because

00:24:03.780 you won't be, and here's the hard part, you won't be triggered to look for something that isn't there

00:24:10.440 because that's the point. There's nothing to trigger you. It's simply a lack of something. So there's

00:24:17.840 nothing to remind you to look for the nothing, because there's no trigger for nothing. So you

00:24:24.140 got to, you got to really force yourself. All right, all right. Is there something that should be

00:24:28.440 happening that's missing? And then you can maybe find it. Now, full disclosure, I didn't think of that

00:24:37.420 thought until I saw somebody else say it on Twitter today. So I stole the thought. And I'm the one who

00:24:44.960 teaches you that you should do this. And even I didn't do it. And as soon as I saw that from

00:24:51.360 somebody, I wish I'd gotten the name, but I would give credit to who inspired this thought, but I

00:24:59.840 didn't write it down. So I'm a bad person. Well, you know who you are. If you're watching this

00:25:05.020 live stream, I saw your tweet and I got it from you. So you can claim credit.

00:25:09.100 But keep watching for that. Every day that goes by, the CNN and the other media do not have a

00:25:18.940 statistical expert debunking it. It means something. It does mean something. It's not confirmation,

00:25:26.280 but it certainly pushes you in that direction. I'm going to brag a little bit about my tweet on this

00:25:33.460 very topic because I liked the way I worded it. So I'll share it with you. It's the same point. I

00:25:39.460 just worded it differently. I said in my tweet, do you hear that dog that isn't barking? It's the top

00:25:44.700 statistical experts on the left who are looking at election rigging allegations and coming to a slow

00:25:51.720 boil in their own flop sweat. So I was pretty proud of that sentence.

00:25:57.200 Um, I think we should, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of, uh, questions and skepticism about a

00:26:06.480 software product, or I don't know if it's a company name or the software name called Dominion.

00:26:12.660 Apparently this software company, uh, controls the, uh, the technology for a number of different

00:26:20.100 states and locales. And a lot of questions have been asked about this Dominion software. And I thought,

00:26:26.680 you know, if we can't solve this with the technical people, we should have some kind of a national

00:26:33.220 vote to see if we should keep the Dominion software to, oh wait, that won't work. Okay. Nevermind.

00:26:42.440 I guess we don't have a way to do a national vote about whether our national voting software is

00:26:47.780 credible because who, who would believe the output of a national vote about our software that controls

00:26:56.280 the national vote. All right. Expect this play coming up. This will be what, uh, I use CNN as my

00:27:05.580 stand in for, you know, the, the fake news on the left. So it's not just CNN, but you're going to see

00:27:11.280 what I call the wrong debunk play. So you've got all these claims about, uh, specific allegations that

00:27:18.360 the election was not fair. Uh, do you think that CNN will pick the strongest points? This is what I

00:27:27.420 always recommend. If somebody gives you a laundry list of reasons, just ask for the strongest point

00:27:32.580 and debunk that one. And then if you debunk the strongest point, just say, eh, the rest of your

00:27:38.940 stuff is worse than that one. I already debunked that one and walk away. But here's another play that

00:27:45.520 you can do with the laundry list. So the Republicans have offered a laundry list of alleged, uh, mischief

00:27:51.980 with this election. Here's, so let's say, I'm just making up this number by the way, but let's say the

00:27:58.020 GOP says we have 25 statistical arguments for why the vote was rigged. It'll be some number. I made up 25.

00:28:06.120 What will the Democrats say to that? You can predict this with complete certainty.

00:28:11.860 They will, uh, misinterpret some of the claims and they will debunk their own misinterpretation of

00:28:19.560 the claims. And then they will ignore the other claims, the good ones. So they'll pick ones that

00:28:26.280 are either the weakest ones to debunk or they'll misinterpret a strong one and debunk their

00:28:32.400 misinterpretation. But they'll do about three of them if there are 24. And then CNN will report

00:28:39.600 what will, what will be the words that CNN would report under the example I just gave? 25 statistical

00:28:48.220 claims with backing from the Republicans. And then the Democrats misinterpret three of them and debunk

00:28:56.380 their own misinterpretation of just three of them. And the 25, this is the hypothetical here. This is not

00:29:02.440 news. This is hypothetical. What would CNN report under that scenario? Baseless.

00:29:09.600 Exactly. I'm seeing it in the comments. You're all there first. They would say it's been debunked.

00:29:15.980 It's baseless and no evidence has been offered. And it's a, and it's a baseless conspiracy theory.

00:29:24.160 You know, that's coming a hundred percent chance. You can see the play coming. And the reason that you

00:29:30.700 can see it coming and it doesn't matter is that it will work. It will work. Now that doesn't mean it'll be

00:29:37.400 the final word, but it will be persuasive. It will convince, uh, Democrats. Um, DeRay McKesson,

00:29:46.260 who's, uh, a Black Lives Matter activist, he won a Supreme Court ruling. Apparently he was being sued

00:29:55.100 but for being an organizer of a protest in which some other person who is not DeRay threw a, I don't know,

00:30:02.860 a brick or a rock or something at a police officer and caused brain damage, loss of teeth and a head

00:30:08.960 injury. So, you know, a major life, um, problem there forever for that police officer. Pretty tragic.

00:30:18.380 But I guess the Supreme Court ruled that as the organizer, you are not responsible for the actions

00:30:24.500 of individuals who get organized. And I think it probably has to be that way. I don't see any way

00:30:30.760 that you can hold the, a free speech organizer responsible for what the individuals do. So I

00:30:38.060 get that it has to be that way. So I would agree with the Supreme Court. I think they got the ruling

00:30:42.280 right. But I feel as if, if you organize something in which you know there will be violence, but you don't

00:30:50.960 know the specific violence and you're not the one that threw the rock. At some point, we need to be

00:30:57.260 smarter about this. Because organizing events that guarantee somebody is going to get hurt,

00:31:04.200 I don't know, maybe we can do better. I don't know. I don't have an idea, but I feel like we

00:31:07.940 could do better. Now, one of the things that's weird about this situation we're seeing with the

00:31:12.400 election is that you don't, you don't often have a situation where you're being brainwashed

00:31:19.660 and you know it while it's happening. Sometimes you can look back and say, wait a minute,

00:31:26.380 I did the, I did the Pledge of Allegiance every day when I was a kid without even questioning it.

00:31:32.180 Hey, I was being brainwashed. So often you can see it in, in the history, but you don't often feel it

00:31:40.520 while it's happening to you in the moment. And that's what we're feeling right now. We're feeling

00:31:45.520 in the moment that, oh, somebody, I think somebody is correcting me in the comments that the DeRay

00:31:52.360 McKesson thing might have been a civil action, if that makes a difference to the story. It might.

00:32:00.160 But anyway, back to brainwashing. We are being, the country is being brainwashed right now. And I don't

00:32:06.040 use that word figuratively. The, the, everything from, uh, intelligence professionals, not necessarily

00:32:13.500 actively working, but the news business and Democrats are working together. It's very obvious

00:32:18.980 now. I think I can say that with, with certainty. Yeah. As opposed to an allegation that they do work

00:32:24.940 together. They coordinate whether or not they have meetings to coordinate. They obviously coordinate

00:32:30.320 messaging, et cetera, and that they are brainwashing the public to accept this, uh, this outcome. Now,

00:32:38.200 when I say brainwashing, um, they are not really dealing with the facts of whether it was fraudulent

00:32:47.960 or not, or how much it was fraudulent, but they're literally telling people that they're bad people for

00:32:53.080 being skeptical of the outcome, that you're actually a bad person. If you don't believe the outcome

00:32:59.520 and you spread rumors that you don't believe it, uh, and that worse, that you will be held to account

00:33:06.600 for doubting it. Now my, I just got a message that my battery on my device is down to 10%. I'm going to

00:33:13.740 try to rush to the end here. If it cuts off, uh, it would only cut off on YouTube first. Uh, you'll know

00:33:20.500 what happened. I won't be back because I'm almost done. Penn Jillette, uh, penned, uh, article. I love Penn

00:33:26.760 Jillette, by the way. I got to hang out with him once in Vegas after a show. Great guy. I love Penn

00:33:32.740 Jillette and also a, a great patriot. I would say he adds a lot to the country. So he made a case,

00:33:40.480 um, that, uh, he, he wasn't so much pro Joe Biden as he was, you know, he wanted a, you know, a better

00:33:47.740 world, I guess. Um, and he wants one thing for Joe Biden to do. And I would say this is a very, um,

00:33:56.860 kind, productive, good thing to ask for. And he's asking for, uh, the Joe Biden to, uh, help,

00:34:05.900 help them love all the Trump supporters. So Penn Jillette is anti-Trump, but he's asking as the

00:34:12.800 number one priority to get for Joe Biden to help Democrats love Trump supporters, despite whatever

00:34:20.580 they think about them. I'm not there. You know, I love Penn Jillette. I like that. I like the, uh,

00:34:30.100 the thought, the emotion, the philosophy behind what he's asking for, but he has a blind spot

00:34:35.620 and the blind spot goes like this. Joe Biden called Trump supporters by implication racists

00:34:45.260 for the last year because he led his campaign with that stupid fine people hoax, which makes anybody

00:34:52.640 who backs somebody who had said, if Trump had backed the neo-Nazis, if you were to back Trump

00:34:59.400 after he, it's fake news, but after they say he backed the neo-Nazis, well, you would be kind of a

00:35:05.440 racist or a neo-Nazi. And I don't think the Democrats quite understand what happened. I don't

00:35:12.740 think they understand what happened to Republicans and what happened to Trump supporters, be they

00:35:18.780 Republican or not. I don't think they know that you don't get over that. That's not in the category

00:35:26.220 of things you get over. Let me give you an example of something you get over. Hey, you're stupid.

00:35:32.440 I can get over that. You made a dumb choice. I can get over that. You, you choose all the wrong

00:35:41.440 policies, you dumb, ignorant guy. I can get over that. But after a year of the, the standard bearer

00:35:50.500 for your party, calling me a racist effectively by saying the fine people hoax, that's not,

00:35:58.500 that's not like those other things. That is unforgivable, period. It is unforgivable.

00:36:07.300 Joe Biden, you're not a nice person. You're one of the worst people that I've ever seen in the public

00:36:12.280 arena. Because I feel like you knew that wasn't true. And if you didn't know it wasn't true, you're

00:36:18.700 really incompetent. Because it's pretty easy to know that wasn't true. So I, I'm just going to speak for

00:36:27.260 myself, I don't plan to get over it. I don't plan to accept any of their love, if they are so kind as

00:36:35.380 to forgive me for, for my actions. I believe, yeah, and it was racist. So I think Joe Biden is a horrible

00:36:45.580 person. And I mean that sincerely. I mean that as a human being, forget about the politics, forget about

00:36:52.080 Democrats versus Republicans. As a human being, he's really a deeply horrible person. And I mean that

00:36:59.000 sincerely. And that's not going to change. I am not ever going to forgive this last year. Now, if there

00:37:07.100 are people who say the same thing about Trump, and he did this or that, you know, you're, you're welcome

00:37:13.200 to your opinion. But don't even, don't even ask me to not think that Joe Biden is a horrible human

00:37:19.560 being, even if he turns out to be a good president. You know, anything's possible. Could

00:37:24.660 be that the Republican Senate keeps him in the middle, something good happens there. You never

00:37:29.580 know. But as a human, he is despicable. Just a horrible, horrible person. Really one of the worst,

00:37:37.340 I'm going to be honest, one of the worst people of all time. It's, you know, he's not even just in the

00:37:45.420 slightly annoying category. He's one of the worst people of all time with what he did in this past

00:37:51.680 year. It's fresh. You know, and by the way, have you ever heard me complain about his 1990 whatever

00:37:59.060 for crime bill? Have you ever heard me complain about that? I don't. Because I give everybody a

00:38:05.240 pass for what they did 20 years ago. And maybe it made sense 20 years ago. I just not, it wasn't part

00:38:12.140 of anything I thought was impossible or important. And he's also said it was a mistake. So I'm very

00:38:19.700 forgiving for somebody who said I made a mistake 20 years ago, and I wish I hadn't. Totally forgiving

00:38:26.060 for that. But this is fresh. He's still saying it today. I mean, if you asked him, he'd repeat it

00:38:33.180 again today. That person is a horrible, horrible person. Let's see. What would be your theory if you

00:38:45.100 were a Democrat for why there seems to be massive allegations of fraud this year, but we have not had

00:38:52.960 these massive allegations of frauds in presidential elections recently, right? So why would it just be

00:39:00.140 this year? If you're a Democrat, how do you explain it? Well, I think the way they're explaining it is

00:39:04.880 that the Republicans are just making it up. Right? The only way they can explain what they're observing

00:39:12.680 is to imagine that the Republicans are just making it up, and that it didn't really happen, or if it

00:39:19.220 happened, it was some low-grade stuff, not enough to change any outcome. So that's probably the Democrat

00:39:25.760 view. Now, as I've told you, the biggest mistake that people make in their thinking about other

00:39:31.340 people is to imagine that people think like you do, because we don't. People are thinking very

00:39:38.240 differently. Let me tell you what I think explains our observation that the Republicans are claiming

00:39:45.580 massive fraud this time, but it doesn't seem to have been something that people complained about in

00:39:51.720 the past. Here it goes. We've never had an election with this much fraud. Now, you would say to yourself,

00:39:59.580 but Scott, Scott, Scott, people care about every election. Why wouldn't there have been as much

00:40:04.980 fraud last time? I mean, people cared about Hillary, clearly. And here's my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that

00:40:15.140 there is pretty bad fraud in every election, and that we just don't care, because we can't tell if it

00:40:23.180 changed the election. We have some sense that both parties are doing it, at least at the local level,

00:40:29.500 right? If there's anybody on here who says only Democrats play with elections at the local level,

00:40:35.480 you need to maybe look into that a little bit, because my guess is that at the local level always

00:40:45.200 has been some amount of fraud. But we kind of got used to it. It became like our baseline. It's like,

00:40:51.780 yeah, it might have determined the election. For example, they would say some historians would say

00:40:57.420 that Kennedy's election probably turned on fraud. I think you would see the same claim for at least a few

00:41:04.600 other elections in the past, probably some Senate elections, etc. But what is different about this

00:41:11.440 time is that the media had decided that Trump was Hitler, and so the motivation for fraud was through

00:41:18.960 the roof, right? But again, I tell you, even if you thought he was Hitler, probably every election,

00:41:27.920 the side wanted their side to win and wanted it badly. So even if they thought he was Hitler,

00:41:32.640 the people who actually could rig an election, they probably had all the motivation they needed

00:41:38.220 every other year or two, right? You don't need to stop Hitler. If you just want your person to win,

00:41:44.680 that's probably enough to cheat. But why would there be so much more cheating, hypothetically,

00:41:50.840 if that happened? Why would there be so much more this year? Is it just because Trump is extra bad?

00:41:57.080 Here's my hypothesis. This is the first year that the cheaters could be sure that the press would cover

00:42:05.760 for them. You feel that? In any prior year, you couldn't be sure that the press would cover your

00:42:15.160 tracks. Because even CNN in a prior election and years going by, I feel like they would have covered

00:42:21.900 the story. They would have said, here's a story. We don't know if it's true, but there's this big

00:42:26.800 allegations of mischief. We're going to put some of our reporters on it too, and they'll dig in a

00:42:33.240 little bit too. So we'll not only report the story, but we'll dig into it. Because it's a pretty

00:42:40.180 important thing. But if you were going to cheat in this election, you could know with complete

00:42:46.120 confidence that even if you were detected, which looks exactly like what happened, the press would

00:42:53.460 tell the country it didn't happen, and you could just walk. And likewise, there probably are lots of

00:43:01.840 local law enforcement type people who are enough pro-Biden or anti-Trump to simply look the other way.

00:43:10.060 So I don't think there's ever been an election where you had this much motivation, but again, I don't

00:43:15.140 think it was the motivation that was the key variable. I think the key variable is knowing that this is

00:43:20.920 the first year there's no chance of going to jail, that you can just do whatever you want, and the press

00:43:27.700 will cover your tracks. So that's my explanation of observation. Doesn't mean it's right, but it explains

00:43:34.900 our observation. And then I have this question for you. If you have a situation where the press, that seems

00:43:43.300 to be the dominant press, is on the same team as one of the political parties, and that's clearly the

00:43:50.580 case, the press is on the side of the Democrats, why do you need press anymore? What would be the

00:43:57.860 purpose of the press in a situation where they're siding with one of the teams? There's no point.

00:44:05.540 The press has actually become irrelevant, because they took a side. The moment they take a side,

00:44:13.540 they don't have any point. There's just no point to having a press. All right, that's all for now.

00:44:21.040 I'll talk to you tomorrow.

00:44:22.800 Okay, YouTubers, I've turned off Periscope. I probably have two percent battery left on this

00:44:31.220 device. And yeah, the press is brainwashing. That is correct. You know, as a student of persuasion,

00:44:38.400 there is, I am fascinated by watching this major national psyop. And I also said, I don't remember

00:44:47.380 if I said this in a tweet or said it yesterday in Periscope, but you can see the network of

00:44:53.280 operatives by which ones are doing what. So if you see Jake Tapper telling the same story that, say,

00:45:01.700 John Brennan would want you to hear, you might imagine that they may not be directly connected,

00:45:08.880 but they're operating with the same set of operation manuals, if you will. So

00:45:14.360 that's all we got. Yeah, Sidney Powell is being very interesting right now, because she's making

00:45:23.360 the most aggressive claims about the election being rigged. Now, one of the reasons that I think

00:45:30.560 that the Republicans are able to go full on claims of rigging the election is I think that Trump can

00:45:41.200 simply do things that regular Republicans can't. Because I think if you're a regular Republican,

00:45:47.220 you don't want the election to be looked at too closely. Because you know there's going to be

00:45:51.840 some Republican mischief in that bunch too. And maybe you're just like, ah, they cheated better

00:45:56.900 than we did this year. We'll get them next year. So I got a feeling that you'd have to be Trump

00:46:02.380 to even open up the question of whether this election was rigged. Because I got a feeling they're

00:46:08.720 mostly rigged, and maybe always have been. It's just nobody wanted to look into them.

00:46:13.520 All right, that's all for now. Talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 10, 2020

Episode 1183 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About the Massive Brainwashing Operation Going on Now

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript