Episode 1196 Scott Adams： The Kraken and Bigfoot Still Missing. The Bad Guys Are Hunting Me and Election Predictions
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
144.44391
Summary
In this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, host Scott Adams talks about the latest in the Trump vs. Biden debate, and why he thinks Trump should concede the election to Joe Biden. He also talks about why he doesn t think there's any chance that Trump wakes up as another person.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey everybody, come on in. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. Probably the highlight of your
00:00:19.880
whole week, if not your year. It's been a crappy year, so it doesn't take much to be the highlight.
00:00:25.420
And all you need to make it better is a cup or mug or glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein,
00:00:31.220
a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
00:00:38.460
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes
00:00:45.400
everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens when? Now.
00:00:55.420
Oh. Yeah, that's good stuff. I feel the republic getting stronger with each sip.
00:01:07.300
Shall we talk about the things, all the things that are happening? Sure. Let us, can we agree as a
00:01:15.140
country on one thing? Just one thing. We disagree on so many things, but can we agree on this one thing?
00:01:23.220
Trump is Trump. Trump is not sometimes Bernie Sanders. Trump is not occasionally Joe Biden.
00:01:35.020
Trump wakes up as Trump and he's Trump all day long. And so all the people who are saying,
00:01:41.620
I think he should concede while there is still a technical way he could prevail.
00:01:47.220
Did you not hear the first part where I said he's Trump? What the hell good would he have been as a
00:01:54.900
president if he would quit? He's the ultimate come from behind guy. He's been bankrupt. He's been
00:02:04.260
bankrupt and came back. He was down in the polls in 2016 and came back. He
00:02:13.940
will probably get crushed business-wise. The Trump business probably is going to take a huge hit.
00:02:22.420
But I'll bet he'll find a way to make that bigger. Maybe form a media empire or something.
00:02:27.460
But we should stop pretending there's any chance that Trump will wake up as Trump, change into some other
00:02:36.660
person during the day, concede while he still has any chance left, and then call it a day. That's not
00:02:46.900
going to happen. And you wouldn't really want it to happen, would you? Because what made Trump
00:02:53.460
succeed at the things that I would say he didn't succeed at is this sort of thing. It's the fact
00:03:01.060
that he finds the impossible to be merely inconvenient. I've told you that before, that
00:03:12.740
the most defining characteristic of Trump as a president is that he's no good at the easy stuff,
00:03:19.940
but he keeps doing the impossible stuff. Like we just saw that Netanyahu's meeting with
00:03:26.340
the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. It looks like maybe there's something good going there that'll
00:03:31.140
be a continuation of the Middle East stuff. That looked impossible. Shaking hands with Kim Jong-un,
00:03:39.140
it looked impossible until he did it. You know, getting those vaccines available as quickly as
00:03:50.340
possible, it looked impossible, right? I mean, I could make you a list of the things that looked
00:03:56.260
impossible that Trump actually did. Even, I would argue, even the trade war with China looked like it was
00:04:05.460
impossible to win. And in the end, I think if Biden takes over, we won't win on that. But it looked like
00:04:13.060
Trump had at least proven that it was way worse for China than it was for us. I think the experts agree
00:04:19.780
on that now, right? The economists say, oh yeah, it didn't hurt us that much, but it hurt China a lot
00:04:25.940
more, which was the whole point. So I feel as if Trump in a situation which looks to other people
00:04:36.020
to be impossible is one we've seen him in quite a bit. And we've watched him succeed from a point
00:04:44.340
that seemed impossible. Now, when I say he's bad at the easy stuff, I mean, just not causing trouble.
00:04:50.340
You know, you know, just wear masks, you know, the easy stuff. He doesn't do the easy stuff.
00:04:59.140
All right. Let me give you a little view of the world that maybe you don't have. And it will help
00:05:07.220
you for my credibility. For those of you who remember, back in 2016, when I said to you, I think
00:05:15.020
there's a specific persuader that's helping Hillary Clinton, and I named him eventually. I called him
00:05:21.900
Godzilla until I was confident, and then I named him Robert Cialdini. Now, he has not admitted that he
00:05:30.940
helped consult Hillary, but he's also not denied it when he was asked directly. And that's the sort of
00:05:38.460
thing where if you didn't do it, it's kind of easy to deny, right? Did you did you consult for Hillary
00:05:46.060
Clinton? Nope. I mean, you would obviously say no, because you would never say yes, or maybe
00:05:55.100
about consulting for a presidential candidate, because people would know if you did. It would be,
00:06:00.940
you know, embarrassing professionally. So I'm going to assume that I'm right about that and that I
00:06:07.180
that I picked him out of a crowd of seven billion people as the voice that must be pushing some of
00:06:15.180
the persuasion. I still think that's the case. Now, as we're watching this Sidney Powell situation play
00:06:24.780
out, let me tell you a view of the world that may not be the one you had when you woke up.
00:06:31.980
And it goes like this. I've made reference to this before, that there's a blazing war happening
00:06:40.140
that you don't see. There's the stuff that's in the public, the stuff that's in the news. But below
00:06:48.140
that surface, there is just a raging permanent war. And various people are involved, you know,
00:06:56.460
spooky people and, you know, operatives and the dirty tricksters, etc. But a big part of that is
00:07:03.420
the persuaders, the people who have almost wizard-like talents of persuasion. And they come in two flavors,
00:07:12.780
I would say. There's the ones who persuade positively, as in this candidate will do great,
00:07:19.340
that would be like positive persuasion. But then there's also the disinformation people.
00:07:24.380
Now, that's the part you're less aware of. And you might say to yourself, I don't think there's any
00:07:31.260
disinformation going on. But let me tell you, it's a small world. And the people who deal in this kind
00:07:41.740
of content, they find each other. All right? So do you believe that? Do you believe that the people who
00:07:49.660
have this weird and unique skill that they can move an entire country, they find each other?
00:07:56.620
Because in many cases, they may have been trained in the same places. They're watching each other.
00:08:01.900
They, it's a small world, and they know each other. I'm going to make a another prediction.
00:08:09.180
There's probably fewer than 20 people in the country who have the training and skill to pull off the
00:08:19.340
Venezuelan election machine disinformation. Now, I'm going to say that I could be wrong,
00:08:27.980
right? But it looks to me exactly like professional disinformation. Meaning it's not just something that
00:08:35.260
somebody came up with. It's the work of real professionals. And there are only
00:08:43.020
maybe a dozen, maybe two dozen. I'm not saying that it's an intelligence agency.
00:08:51.740
It could be. You can't rule that out. But it could be just the Democrats. Because you can hire these
00:08:57.020
people. They're, they're people who have a skill, you can hire them. You don't have to be, you know,
00:09:04.140
an intelligence agency. They're for hire. So given that this has every look of a disinformation campaign,
00:09:13.900
and let's compare it to the persuasion that's going on from the Trump campaign. So now I'm going to take
00:09:20.380
you from the surface of the news. You're going underground with me now. All right. So we're deep
00:09:27.260
underground with the real war, not the fake one. That's all just fake news up above. Now you're down
00:09:33.420
in the real one. And the real one shows the Trump campaign using persuasion, in which I've described
00:09:40.940
before the laundry list. In other words, they're saying, there's a whole bunch of stuff wrong with this
00:09:46.860
election. You don't like that one? Well, how about this one? Not that one? How about this one? How
00:09:52.140
about this one? Now, the beauty of the laundry list is that although it would not hold up in court,
00:09:59.740
in other words, every claim you make should be strong, and you should really get rid of the weak
00:10:04.540
claims before you walk into a courtroom. That's just going to make the judge angry. I learned that from
00:10:10.940
Robert Barnes. But in terms of public opinion, the laundry list works really well. It's very,
00:10:19.580
it's sort of a dirty trick, because the point of it is, they're not all equally strong things on the
00:10:25.180
list. But if you see enough stuff, you're going to say, with all that smoke, there's got to be some
00:10:31.660
fire there. I mean, you know, the sky is full of smoke, got to be a fire. But that's why it's
00:10:38.300
persuasion. The point is to make it look like there's a fire, even if there isn't. Now, in my
00:10:45.900
opinion, there is a fire. But they need some time to prove it. But in the short run, you do the laundry
00:10:52.780
list, you get the public on your side. And then here's the key part. Alan Dershowitz talked about
00:10:59.820
this. Now, skipping some of the constitutional technicalities, and I'll skip over a couple of
00:11:06.860
steps. But there's a step coming in which, if I understand this correctly, the House has to say
00:11:14.080
the election was clean and certified. And I believe the House with, I think, I heard, you know, one
00:11:24.200
senator and one congressperson can hold up the process and say, wait, the election doesn't look
00:11:29.840
fair to us. So maybe we can ignore it and, and just go ahead with the vote and pick President
00:11:37.060
Trump, because he would get selected if the House does the selecting. Now, or at least, there are more
00:11:45.100
Republicans, that doesn't guarantee it. But there are more Republicans. So they could, if they wanted
00:11:49.120
to, just vote in the president if they thought that was the right thing to do. And they legitimately
00:11:54.080
thought the election was stolen. They'd have to actually believe that, or say they believe it.
00:11:59.920
Now, the laundry list doesn't just work on you and me. It doesn't just work on the general public.
00:12:09.140
It also works on Congress, because Congress is a bunch of human beings. So a bunch of human beings
00:12:17.420
in Congress aren't going to be that much different from a bunch of human beings anywhere. And we're
00:12:22.900
all susceptible to the laundry list. The laundry list is really strong. So that's the path that the
00:12:32.480
president has, which is keep the laundry list going, and hope that there's enough smoke there,
00:12:40.820
that people will say, oh, yeah, there had to be a fire. And even if we don't have rock solid proof
00:12:46.200
yet, maybe you get Congress convinced. Maybe they're convinced. So that would be a path.
00:12:55.780
Now, compare that, which is pretty strong, by the way. You know, in terms of a persuasion play,
00:13:02.520
it's not bad. Now, if I had to predict, I would predict that Biden will take the job. So my prediction
00:13:10.920
is that the system will install Biden. But the Trump campaign is doing everything they can to
00:13:18.500
make a difference there. Now, compare that to the disinformation campaign and watch how well this is
00:13:26.940
done. So today I had people coming after me on Twitter to say some version of ha ha ha and dunk on me.
00:13:37.340
And what do you say now about this Sidney Powell thing? Because the Trump administration and the
00:13:45.240
campaign issued a statement saying that she did not work for the administration, did not work for
00:13:51.800
Trump. So, and I guess she agrees with that because she was not being paid by them. She's sort of
00:13:57.960
independent, but related. And so that made her story about the Venezuelan whistleblower and the
00:14:07.540
machines, et cetera, that made that look even less credible than it was before.
00:14:16.280
So people came to me on Twitter and said, ha ha ha, Scott, you said that there was going to be good
00:14:21.800
information coming. And it looks like even the Trump administration isn't buying this
00:14:26.920
Venezuelan whistleblower thing. So aren't you so wrong? Except I'm the one who said it wasn't true.
00:14:37.340
So now I'm getting dunked on for being right that the Venezuelan whistleblower thing was not credible
00:14:45.340
and looked like disinformation. So the people who are dunking on me agree with me. But this is how good
00:14:53.460
disinformation works. Because the point of disinformation is to spoil the rest of the
00:14:59.240
information. It's not supposed to just live alone. It's supposed to be a spoiler so that everything else
00:15:06.100
you've heard, you go, ah, that's probably not true either. If this part wasn't true, that part's not true.
00:15:12.540
So here's what the disinformation did. It took Sidney Powell right off the field.
00:15:21.580
Now, maybe she's still got some game left. She might have some plays left. But at the moment,
00:15:27.760
it really, really worked, persuasion-wise. It took Powell off the field. It divided the Trump supporters,
00:15:36.700
certainly within the inner circle, you have to assume some of them were buying into
00:15:42.400
the Venezuelan story. Some were not, I assume. I don't have any inside knowledge. So it split the
00:15:50.520
team. It got rid of one of their stronger players. And it took me out. It took me out. Because forever
00:15:59.720
now, the fake news will record that I supported the Venezuelan whistleblower story, when in fact,
00:16:08.800
the clear public reality repeated a number of times is I said exactly the opposite, that I didn't believe
00:16:16.080
it. That's the one you shouldn't believe. So that's how good the disinformation is. That I was not even
00:16:23.700
part of being wrong at any point, at least in terms of that specific thing. And yet, it took me out.
00:16:31.080
Because I will never be able to be credible on this topic again, because I will be blamed for
00:16:37.060
something that I wasn't even part of. That's how good it is. Somebody says, you're lying now.
00:16:43.720
Now, let me get back to, and I think I know why you're saying that. Normally, I would block you
00:16:50.340
for just saying something like, you're lying now, because that's like mind reading or something.
00:16:54.560
But I think you're referring to, I did say when Sidney Powell was originally coming up with her
00:17:01.500
claims, I did say that that that's going to be something. Now, I'm going to give you some nuance
00:17:08.520
here that at least a third of you won't be able to handle, because in a big crowd, a third of the
00:17:14.880
people can't handle nuance. It goes like this. It can be true at the same time that the Venezuelan
00:17:22.060
whistleblower is disinformation, while it is also true that any software-based election system
00:17:29.640
will eventually be compromised. Now, I'm just saying that's the nature of the system,
00:17:37.760
is that it is a compromisable system, which there is a gigantic motive to compromise. So if it hasn't
00:17:45.960
already been compromised, you can guarantee it will be compromised eventually, because it's built
00:17:51.340
for that. I mean, it's not built to prevent it, meaning that the system itself is not sufficiently
00:17:59.240
secure that you could ever guarantee that at least an insider didn't do something, right? You might be
00:18:06.600
able to keep somebody from getting into it from the internet directly, but there's nothing you can do
00:18:11.860
to stop an insider from getting at it, and there's nothing that would stop an intelligence agency from
00:18:17.920
turning an insider. I mean, that's pretty ordinary business, right? So it can be true that you don't
00:18:25.620
believe the disinformation about the Venezuelan whistleblower, while at the same time, I have a high
00:18:32.120
confidence that the system was hacked, or will be hacked, if it hasn't been already. Now, here's something
00:18:43.300
that the head, it was the CEO of Dominion Voting System said, quote, this is a nonpartisan American
00:18:55.680
company. It is not physically possible for our machines to switch votes from one candidate to the
00:19:02.600
other. This is a CEO of a voting system who has a software-based product who says, quote,
00:19:11.980
it's not physically possible for our machines to switch votes. Okay, he's lying, or really stupid,
00:19:22.460
because it's software, right? And haven't you seen plenty of, you know, YouTube specials where people
00:19:32.320
were hacking the machines right in front of you? Yeah, it's the most ridiculously, ridiculously
00:19:40.800
non-believable thing in the world that they're not hackable. Of course they're hackable. Come on,
00:19:48.800
everything's hackable. Do you think Google is hackable? Yes. Do you think Twitter is hackable?
00:19:54.780
It happened. It happened. Do you think Facebook is hackable? Yes. Do you think that Google, Facebook,
00:20:03.240
and Twitter have the highest level of technical people compared to this voting company? Yeah. Yeah.
00:20:13.760
The very best, most protected systems in, you know, the commercial world get penetrated regularly.
00:20:21.240
It's not even, it's not even a question. So of course, our electronic voting system is either already
00:20:30.660
compromised, or will be, or will be, because it's not like people are going to stop trying. And if you
00:20:37.660
have a situation where people are going to stop trying, they can fail 99 times out of 100 and still
00:20:42.860
succeed, because they keep trying. All right. So I would say that the disinformation people who, by the
00:20:51.300
way, just to make this extra fun, I, I'm reasonably sure that that within that small group of people
00:20:59.280
who actually pulled this off, this Venezuelan whistleblower thing, I think they're watching this
00:21:06.540
right now. So if any of you are watching this, we'll pull this off. Really good job. Good job.
00:21:17.760
Now, did the laundry list work? Going back to the Republican persuasion play. Here's the data.
00:21:26.080
The data is that 30% of Democrats believe the election was stolen from Trump. 30% of Democrats
00:21:34.760
think the election was stolen. So how good is Trump's persuasion? It's really good. That's really
00:21:43.460
good. And of course, 75% of Republicans believe it is likely the election was stolen. So I would say
00:21:50.780
both the campaign, Trump campaign, as well as whoever it is, the dark forces working for the Biden
00:22:00.100
campaign. This is good stuff. This is really top level persuasion brilliance.
00:22:10.860
Let's talk about something that's a little more fun. So I told you people are coming after me now
00:22:15.620
because they, they think I was buying into the crazy parts of the Venezuelan story. So a guy named
00:22:22.720
Peter Wang came after me on Twitter and he said, this is a, this will give you an idea of the quality of my
00:22:33.400
trolls. They're, they're smart and stupid at the same time. And Peter Wang says, 2020 season finale
00:22:42.200
is showing us the existence of epistemic closure so tight that even intelligent people will stick their
00:22:51.040
heads into themselves in awkward ways. So as to turn into human Klein bottles of stupidity, not a good
00:22:58.520
look for Scott. Not a good look for me. Yes. If you tweet and your tweet has the words epistemic
00:23:10.020
closures and Klein bottles in it, you're not a good tweeter. You're not a good tweeter.
00:23:16.680
And one of the things that you should never do is start an insult contest with a cartoonist in
00:23:25.160
public. All right. Now, if you were dumb enough to start an insult contest with a professional
00:23:32.080
humorist in private, well, nobody would know how stupid you are. That might work out for you,
00:23:38.220
but you don't want to do it in public because I have a little more practice at this.
00:23:46.180
And so noticing that Peter Wang has a first name and the last name that are a little bit phallic,
00:23:55.140
a little bit phallic, Peter and Wang. I tweeted back this response. I said, look, Dick Dick,
00:24:03.880
you don't disagree with anything in that thread. Stop pretending you do. So that's the other thing
00:24:09.300
my critics do is they, they go after me personally, but they will never tell you what they disagree
00:24:15.360
with. And the reason is they don't, they don't disagree. So I asked him to tell me what in my
00:24:22.100
tweet thread, it was the thread that he's complaining about in which I have shown my stupidity.
00:24:27.240
I said, there's nothing in there you disagree with. Did he, did he come back and say, oh yeah,
00:24:33.920
here's the part I disagree with? No, he came back and insulted me again because there was nothing he
00:24:42.120
disagreed with in the tweet. He just wanted to be a, a dick dick. So that's the quality of my critics.
00:24:50.940
Here's another critic I got. So apparently, uh, I'm on China's radar. Now, if you don't know this,
00:24:58.860
uh, there, there are media entities that pretend to be, you know, independent media in China that are
00:25:07.000
really just, uh, organs of the, the communist, uh, government, right? So I get a, I get a clap back
00:25:16.560
from, uh, this Chinese individual, Chen Weihua, I think. And when he tweets at me, Twitter, uh, puts a
00:25:26.260
warning on his tweet and complain as you will about Twitter with their little warnings. This one, I
00:25:34.700
appreciate it because Twitter is the one that made sure I knew I would have known this anyway, but
00:25:40.640
Twitter made sure I knew that this tweet came some, came from somebody associated with the Chinese
00:25:46.120
government. So they, they actually added that label on the tweet. Good job, Twitter. Um, you know,
00:25:52.680
I would have known, but I don't know if anybody would have, everybody would have known. So that was a
00:25:57.020
good label. I appreciated that one. Um, so this is what Chen says about me. Now, keep in mind,
00:26:04.520
if he's saying it, probably he's doing it as an organ of the government. It doesn't mean he got a
00:26:11.900
specific instruction to send this tweet, but rather he's, he's operating, you know, within that umbrella
00:26:18.740
for the benefit of the, the government. And he tweets this at me. He says, can't believe so many
00:26:25.500
in the U S like to flirt instead of learning from China. I don't know what that means. Like to flirt
00:26:32.240
instead of learning from China and other East Asian nations and regions. Politicizing the virus
00:26:38.440
is what made the situation in the U S so bad, like a failed state. So, so here's an official
00:26:46.700
Chinese guy who was clapping back at me. And it was in response to one of my tweets that he wrote that.
00:26:54.780
So I tweeted back to him and I said, so how does China beat the virus? I'm all ears.
00:27:00.800
Now here's the advantage that I have in this conversation. I can say anything I want,
00:27:08.480
you know, so long as it's within Twitter's guidelines, but if you're sort of representing
00:27:14.000
the Chinese government, there's some topics you probably don't want to get into in public.
00:27:20.440
So, so watch me set the trap. Okay. So I asked, so how China beat the virus? Cause I wanted to see
00:27:29.220
him deal with this question. Here's how he answered. He goes, the rigorous contact tracing,
00:27:34.300
isolation, and quarantine, which is key in China and East Asia is virtually non-existent in the U S and
00:27:40.880
Europe. It takes huge efforts, not to mention the masks and social distancing all well observed.
00:27:47.740
Now, do you believe that? Do you believe that the reason that China is doing so well
00:27:53.300
is that they had rigorous contact tracing, isolation and quarantine and, uh, masks and social distancing?
00:28:03.320
Good. Do you think that explains the whole situation? And then he went on to say that, uh,
00:28:11.380
South Korea doing great. Same thing. Contact tracing, same thing as China, wear the masks,
00:28:18.300
lots of compliance. And then he pointed to Indonesia, I believe. Indonesia, very similar,
00:28:26.440
right? Lots of, uh, masks and, uh, probably did some contact tracing. Very similar. So he's making
00:28:33.280
a good case, right? He's made his case that the people who acted like China got the same result.
00:28:40.240
So it must be the way China is acting because people who imitated it also got good results.
00:28:46.260
Except, except, do you know who else got a good result? Japan. And do you know what Japan did
00:28:58.740
that is so similar to what China did to get a good result? China got a good result. Japan got a good
00:29:05.700
result. How did Japan do it? Nobody knows, but they didn't do this yet. They didn't do the,
00:29:14.480
the, the severe lockdown, the severe masking. You know, they just didn't do it. I don't think they
00:29:20.840
did the contact tracing either. So you've got another Asian country that didn't do any of that
00:29:27.180
stuff, or they didn't do them at the same rate or degree. They were, I think they were closer to
00:29:32.360
maybe the European model. So I, you know, of course, pointed that out as well, and also pointed out that
00:29:38.760
South Korea and Indonesia, and anything that's an island tends to do better. Now, I think the island
00:29:45.700
part matters because it's easier to close out, you know, outside infections. I'm not positive about
00:29:52.360
that, but there's certainly a correlation, if not a causation. And so here's the part that got fun.
00:30:00.540
Um, um, I asked him how all these South, these Asian countries did so well. And I tweeted this,
00:30:08.180
I said, other than a weaponized virus. And then parenthetically, I put for which there is no
00:30:14.000
proof. There is no proof. How to explain how China did well in all Asia. This is before I talked about
00:30:21.740
Japan, uh, no matter the method. So why is it that, oh, this is actually after Japan. So, so I said,
00:30:30.080
why is it that, uh, these Asian companies, countries are all doing well, yet they're using different
00:30:38.080
methods. In other words, Japan isn't doing what China did and they're doing well. So how do you explain
00:30:45.800
it? Now here's the persuasion part that was entertaining to me. The last thing that somebody
00:30:53.120
representing or speaking under the umbrella of official Chinese government wants to hear in public
00:31:00.280
is that, uh, the only other explanation I can think of is a weaponized virus, which by the way,
00:31:08.360
there is no proof of, let me say that again. There is no proof of any kind of a weaponized
00:31:15.800
coronavirus. No proof. Um, but what's the other explanation? So the other explanations that people
00:31:27.100
weighed in with is that the, these same countries had experience with prior coronavirus or prior other
00:31:35.400
infections that gave them immunity. Do you buy that? Is that enough? Do you think that China got down to
00:31:42.700
basically no coronavirus problems because of their prior infections? I don't, I, I'm not going to say
00:31:53.020
that this is a weaponized virus. I'm going to say that all of the other explanations don't handle the
00:32:01.060
observation. Okay. Now I think it would be crazy for any country to intentionally let out a virus that
00:32:09.280
could cause this much trouble, especially if it did kill some, some people in your own country.
00:32:14.300
I don't see anybody doing that. I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but I don't see it. It is,
00:32:22.020
however, the only explanation that fits the observation that the country is in a certain part with a certain
00:32:29.400
genetic commonality. Genetic commonality. Don't be, they don't be, they're not suffering as much no
00:32:39.340
matter what technique they use to fight the virus. So I don't think, uh, Chen wanted me to talk about
00:32:45.460
weaponized viruses, even though there's no proof, no proof that such a thing happened. Um,
00:32:54.440
yeah. All right. So, you know, I don't know about you, but one of the things I'm looking forward to
00:33:02.940
is not being in the kill box. You know, if you're a prominent Trump supporter, you're just always
00:33:11.620
attacked all day long. It's just nothing but attacks all day long. And I got to say that,
00:33:17.260
although my first choice would be a second term of Trump, I, I think I could be pretty happy
00:33:25.160
not being the, you know, having a target on my back all day long. I don't mind that at all. Um,
00:33:33.440
and I was listening to, uh, Biden talk yesterday and some recorded thing. It was on Smirkanish's,
00:33:40.400
um, serious show. And by the way, let me give a shout out to Smirkanish. Uh, you know him from CNN.
00:33:49.720
He is the most, uh, fair and balanced opinion person on CNN by far. I don't know if you've noticed
00:33:59.600
that, but Smirkanish, when he talks about, even when he's criticizing the president, he will talk about
00:34:06.260
it with objective statements that you recognize as true. It's like, oh yeah, that did happen. They
00:34:12.500
did do that. But when other people talk about it, they, they talk about mind reading and flailing
00:34:18.200
around and all kinds of crazy stuff. He doesn't do that. Smirkanish, um, you know, I feel like I can
00:34:24.480
detect his opinion, which that's no surprise. You can kind of detect everybody's opinion on,
00:34:30.960
on Trump, but he does a really professional job. Uh, I, I take my hat off to him and I was listening
00:34:37.620
to him yesterday and he was doing that again, being very professional about this. And even he
00:34:42.460
was saying that Biden sounds, uh, weak and low energy and he just sounds so like there's nothing
00:34:52.080
in him. And he was answering questions that it was like, uh, yeah, yeah, we, we should do this
00:34:57.960
and we'll do this. And I thought, oh my God, I'm going to fall asleep before he finishes that
00:35:02.200
sentence. And then this morning I heard a brief clip of Trump talking, whatever, whatever he
00:35:08.520
announcement he made yesterday. And then you hear Trump's projection and the energy and the
00:35:14.380
power he puts into just talking, you know, just talking about an ordinary topic. And it just like
00:35:20.080
fills the room. I mean, the, the star power, you don't really understand how big Trump's star
00:35:27.020
power power is until you see Biden doing the job of president. It's going to be jarring. It really
00:35:33.880
will be when you see how, how little energy he produces. He's like a 15 watt bulb. All right.
00:35:42.900
Um, here's an interesting thought. The, that disinformation campaign I was talking about,
00:35:49.540
allegedly about the Venezuelan whistleblower could backfire because if it convinces,
00:35:57.020
anybody in the Republican, uh, part of, uh, Congress to, uh, to say no to the, uh, election
00:36:06.220
integrity, it backfired. I don't know how many people are going to believe that story, but
00:36:12.380
could backfire. You never know. Um, Joe Biden's picking his, uh, cabinet. And of course, because
00:36:22.160
it's the simulation, and I told you that the simulation would be winking at us more often,
00:36:26.960
the guy that would be really key to negotiating with our adversaries, the guy who would be the
00:36:34.300
secretary of state under Biden, his last name is Blinken. It's exactly the word that you don't want
00:36:43.020
to have in your name if you're negotiating. Well, he blinked first. My guy's blinking. He's blinking
00:36:51.680
hard. That's just a weird simulation thing. All right. Here's a question for you. Um, Trump is
00:37:00.320
asking for a machine recount in Georgia. They already did the hand recount. Now I can't imagine
00:37:05.560
that the machine recount is going to do anything because they can't do a signature check. As I
00:37:11.060
understand it, the, the ability to do a signature check ends on election day because they separate
00:37:17.300
the envelopes and signatures from the votes. That's my understanding. So is it even possible
00:37:24.420
to audit? I don't really understand how the Trump campaign could possibly prove that votes were
00:37:35.200
illegal if they can't audit the signatures. And that doesn't sound like that's even a thing that
00:37:41.180
can be done. So unless you had, uh, eyewitnesses and even if you had eyewitnesses, you know, imagine,
00:37:48.860
imagine the Supreme court is hearing this story and all you have is eyewitnesses and you've got an
00:37:54.720
eyewitness that says, I was in this precinct and my boss said, uh, do this or that with this little
00:38:01.120
pile of blank ballots. I think the Supreme court is going to say something like this. How tall was
00:38:09.180
that pile of ballots? And they're going to say, oh, it's about an inch tall. That's not enough to
00:38:14.140
change the election. We're done here. And that's it. So the anecdotal stuff can support, um, let's say
00:38:23.480
data or some kind of documentary evidence, but you would need something in cumulative that adds up to
00:38:32.120
enough votes that it could have changed the election. And the problem that Rudy and the lawyers have
00:38:37.680
is that even if they've got 200 completely valid testimonies, probably if you added all of them up,
00:38:45.540
it wouldn't be enough votes. Even if every one of them was true and, and the judge believed every one
00:38:53.000
of them. So the, the question about why, um, why it's taking so long for the, the good, the good
00:39:01.040
argument, I guess they've only used bad arguments so far, but the good argument is going to be both
00:39:08.160
witnesses and then the, the data and maybe the documentation that coincides with those witnesses.
00:39:15.820
And that takes a little more time to put together. So people who are smarter than I am about
00:39:22.920
the law have come to dunk on me on Twitter and say, Scott, Scott, Scott, if they had good
00:39:30.900
information, they would have led with the good information. And since they didn't, let me tell
00:39:38.080
you as a lawyer, this is what people are saying to me as a lawyer, let me tell you that proves
00:39:44.460
pretty much that there is no good evidence because you start with the good evidence. Indeed,
00:39:51.680
have I not said the same thing? I've said the same thing. I think it's in my book that if you have
00:39:57.880
good evidence, you're going to lead with it. Anybody who starts out with bad evidence, well,
00:40:04.500
you can just say, all right, we're done here. If you started with bad evidence, that doesn't,
00:40:08.860
that means you don't have any good evidence, right? Makes sense. You would always start with the good
00:40:14.140
evidence. So why didn't they? Well, how about you live in the real world? How about a normal good
00:40:21.280
lawsuit takes a year to put together? How about you don't know which of those statements from those
00:40:27.340
sworn testimonies are real? You got to sort of look into them because what you don't want to do is go
00:40:33.020
into court with your strongest case that also has some weak parts accidentally attached to it because
00:40:40.220
it'll make the whole thing fall apart. So you don't want to go into with your evidence until it's
00:40:47.680
really tight. And I imagine that takes a while. So does that mean that there is evidence? Well,
00:40:55.160
the evidence that will be by far the strongest will be the fake ballots and the ballots thrown away and
00:41:01.640
the ballots may have been run through the machine twice, although that seems like that's something they
00:41:06.620
could catch with the recounts. I think it's going to be that. It's going to be ordinary stuff. We're
00:41:12.320
just ballot mischief. And somebody says, you don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out. I don't
00:41:19.640
know if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me there. All right. So I don't know that any of
00:41:25.700
the challenges that the Trump team is doing, I don't think they can get an audit of the kind that they
00:41:35.740
need. I'm looking for a fact check on that. But if you can't check that the ballots really came from
00:41:44.100
a real person, and I think you can't check that once the signatures are removed. So that's the part
00:41:50.060
I'm a little foggy on. So fact check me on this. Is there any way to audit this election? Because I
00:41:56.760
think there's not. Can somebody fact check me on that? And so I think that what will happen
00:42:02.360
is that this will go the way of Kennedy versus Nixon, which is Kennedy took office. But historians
00:42:11.600
could later look at the facts and say, it looks like the election was stolen and that Nixon actually
00:42:20.360
won. So I think that's what we're going to end up with, that sort of thing. And you would probably
00:42:25.280
have to do that with the data analysis to show that things are impossible. Now, by the way, there is
00:42:33.600
a claim hanging out there that I've been waiting for the debunk. And I haven't heard it. So I'm going
00:42:40.600
to ask you, have you seen a debunk of the following claim? That there are a number of precincts which had
00:42:50.860
far more votes than voters. Is that a real thing? Because I feel as if that should have been debunked
00:43:01.960
on the first day. Because I would think that we know how many voters, we know how many voted. So if
00:43:09.180
that claim, which I keep hearing, I kept expecting that would be the first one to be debunked. Have you
00:43:16.080
seen that one debunked yet? Somebody says that the election can be audited, not with signatures,
00:43:24.520
but other aspects. Well, other aspects may not be enough. All right. So that's enough on that.
00:43:37.240
There are going to be some interesting pardons. If this is Trump's last few months in office,
00:43:43.420
do you think you should pardon Snowden and Assange? I say yes. Because I think those two know things
00:43:53.780
that we should know. So yes, I think Trump should pardon Assange and Snowden, if only because it will
00:44:01.760
make the intelligence agencies really, really mad. You know, the Brennans, et cetera, are really,
00:44:08.860
really going to hate that. And I think he might do it just for a final poke in the eye. So if I had to
00:44:17.040
put a bet on it, it's looking pretty good for pardons. Even if he doesn't want to, I think he
00:44:24.020
might still do it, even if it's not something he personally wants. Reuters did a tweet today. And
00:44:30.420
they, it's funny watching these news businesses completely give up on being objective news. So this
00:44:37.580
is what Reuters says. They say, uh, Trump's campaign distance itself from lawyer Sidney Powell,
00:44:44.220
who has aided the president's flailing effort to contest the results. It's a flailing effort.
00:44:51.400
Flailing is kind of an opinion word. Here is how they could have said it without the opinion.
00:44:58.460
Uh, distance herself from Trump's effort, which has so far failed, uh, 26 and a 27 lawsuits or
00:45:07.360
something like that. You could simply describe it. You don't have to call it flailing,
00:45:12.460
right? You don't have to call it flailing. Um, I would love to see Trump get, uh, put Pence in charge
00:45:26.220
on the last day and have Pence. Uh, I don't know the legality of this, but could he pardon Trump for
00:45:33.960
everything that happened prior to and during his presidency? Is that a thing? Can, can a president
00:45:42.020
issue a pardon that says, I don't even know what you, you might be charged with in the future, but
00:45:47.740
everything from this date backwards, you're pardoned. Is that a thing? I don't know if you can do that or
00:45:55.740
do you need to be pardoning with specificity? All right. Uh, I'm seeing some yeses, but I don't know
00:46:04.160
if you're answering the right question. Uh, I'd love to see that because I'd like to see, I would like
00:46:09.600
to see Trump be completely free of those risks should he leave office. I'd like that. I think it's
00:46:17.400
good for the country. I would say that about any president, by the way. Um, there's a really
00:46:23.820
interesting, uh, opinion piece by Shelby Steele in the wall street journal Fox news has a excerpt from
00:46:31.600
it. And let me just read you this one sentence from it. Now, Shelby Steele is a black man in America,
00:46:39.820
which is important to the story. Someday we'll, we'll never have to say that again, but here's what
00:46:45.600
he wrote. He said, uh, it's part of a larger article, but he goes, yet there's an elephant in the room.
00:46:51.640
It is simply that we blacks aren't much victimized anymore. Today, we are free to build a life that
00:46:58.540
won't be stunted by racial persecution. Today, we are far more likely to encounter racial preferences
00:47:04.740
than racial discrimination. Moreover, we live in a society that generally shows us goodwill,
00:47:11.840
a society that has isolated racism as its most unforgivable sin. It was that sentence
00:47:20.600
that just lit up my, my brain. This is such a good sentence. Like just as a writer, you know,
00:47:29.240
if you're a writer and you see a good sentence, you just go, Oh, wow, this is pretty good. I have
00:47:34.640
to read this again. Moreover, we live in a society that generally shows us goodwill, a society that
00:47:41.040
has isolated racism as its most unforgivable sin. That is just such a good sentence. But here's what,
00:47:49.700
um, caught my attention also about this. So his statement is wildly provocative, right? So I'm,
00:47:57.460
I'm giving you his opinion, not my own, which is part of the story. I can, I can tell you what his
00:48:04.900
opinion is, but I can't give you my own because, uh, you know, I get canceled. But he's saying that,
00:48:10.740
uh, there are more, more likely to, to encounter racial preferences for being black. In other words,
00:48:18.500
let's say getting into college or getting hired by a fortune 500 company that wants their diversity to
00:48:25.040
be improved. And I would like to reintroduce my idea that, uh, to get past, uh, racism as best we can,
00:48:36.380
you know, some things can't be a hundred percent solved, but to get past it as best we can,
00:48:42.140
we should reframe our experience away from racism, no racism, fair or no fair, and, and have strategic
00:48:51.560
parity, strategic equality. And what I mean by that is my path to success might be different than your
00:49:00.180
path, but we both have a perfectly good path and there's no, there's no, one is not worse than the
00:49:06.300
other. So if I were black, I'd say, Oh, I will build a strategy that works for me being black. So I
00:49:14.860
would, um, study hard in school, probably get a scholarship to a good college, uh, and then get a
00:49:22.500
job at a major corporation that's looking for people like me. And that would be my path. It's very,
00:49:28.720
um, very clear path and a very good one. Like that can get you to the top of a big corporation,
00:49:36.180
very high pay. It's an excellent path and it's really available to a hundred percent of people
00:49:42.480
who can do well in school at the very least. So does every black person have the same opportunities
00:49:50.040
that I specifically have? Maybe not. There might be some small company that says, ah, you know,
00:49:57.120
they're racist, you know, or something like that. So we don't have the same path, but strategically
00:50:03.420
they're very similar. And I think that's the frame we should keep in our mind is we don't have to walk
00:50:09.680
down the same path. We just want to get to the same place. If my path goes left, yours goes right,
00:50:16.300
we both get there. I'm not going to complain that you've got a path I don't have. I'm going to say,
00:50:21.200
I got a path. You got a path. It's a tie. And then here's the final irony of this Shelby Steele piece.
00:50:31.280
Uh, he's a really good writer. Um, is that I couldn't have written it.
00:50:36.660
So his point is that he's more likely to encounter racial preferences than discrimination. And his,
00:50:46.620
his article is an example of that because what he wrote, I couldn't have written without getting
00:50:54.480
canceled. Now, of course I couldn't have written it also because I don't have, you know, that
00:50:58.460
experience and blah, blah, blah. But so I wouldn't be credible saying it, but I also couldn't even make
00:51:04.660
the point. I can talk about him making the point, but I can't make that point without getting canceled.
00:51:12.620
So his, his point is well made. There are some advantages, also disadvantages. Uh, uh, unlike
00:51:21.480
many of you, I do believe the systemic racism is real. What you do about it. I think I stand alone in
00:51:31.140
terms of what to do about it, but it's definitely real. All right. And that is all I have for today.
00:51:51.260
so, so somebody in the comments says, poor Scott, he falls for a critical race theory.
00:51:57.980
Did I say that? Did you hear me say that? So the, this is my continual experience is that, uh,
00:52:06.820
people will imagine I have an opinion that I don't have. I have the opposite of that opinion
00:52:14.420
So even, even now while we're sitting here, I'm being blamed
00:52:17.780
for supporting something called critical race theory,
00:52:21.380
which I am definitely opposed to, but here I am being blamed for it right in real time.
00:52:27.340
I'm being blamed for the opposite of my actual opinion.
00:52:31.820
So thanks for that. All right. That's all for now.
00:52:38.280
All right. You YouTubers got any more, uh, mind reading and bad, bad takes on my opinion.
00:52:46.780
Pardon Joe Biden and Hunter. That would be hilarious.
00:52:53.280
Somebody says critical race theory foundation. Uh, so somebody here is saying that, uh,
00:52:59.800
systemic racism and critical race theory are basically connected. Not in my opinion.
00:53:05.300
So when I say that there is, uh, the systemic racism is real,
00:53:10.580
I mean it in this specific sense that, uh, black people in general started from a lower base
00:53:19.240
and that that has a ripple through time. That's all. Is there anybody who doesn't agree with that?
00:53:26.400
Do you, do you think that if, uh, if any group, it doesn't matter who it is, if any group started
00:53:32.680
with literally nothing starting from slavery and you fast forward 150 years, would you expect
00:53:39.300
everybody to be doing the same? It's just sort of common sense. Now the other stuff, you know,
00:53:45.540
the, the details of it, I don't buy into that stuff, but certainly if you start from behind,
00:53:51.600
there is a greater likelihood you're going to stay there. That's all. I think it's just common sense.
00:53:58.420
Um, what are your thoughts on election oversight by comments are going by too quickly. I think we have
00:54:05.140
to rethink the whole election process and I'll tell you how I would do it. Cameras are really cheap.
00:54:13.480
I would say that you can't do any ballot handling unless you're in a room that has, uh, ceiling cameras
00:54:20.980
every five feet enough so you can actually read a ballot. I feel as if you shouldn't be able to have
00:54:27.860
a ballot in your hand unless there's a camera directly above you. Everywhere. Now it can't be that
00:54:35.600
expensive to have cameras, right? I mean, there are a lot of small places that maybe can't afford it,
00:54:40.940
but you don't have to do all the small ones. You could just do the big metropolitan ones because
00:54:46.300
that's where all the volume is. So I'd say camera the heck out of it. That would be one thing.
00:54:53.320
Uh, yeah, I, I know I can scroll the comments to pause them. I'm being lazy.
00:55:05.340
All right. That's all I got for now. And I will talk to you.