Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1197 Scott Adams： Odds of Rigging an Election and Getting Away With it？ Whiteboard Time!

00:00:00.000 Hey, come on in. It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. And today, there will be a

00:00:18.620 whiteboard. Yeah. Just when you thought today couldn't get it any better, and then you found

00:00:25.120 out that Coffee with Scott Adams features a whiteboard, and you said to yourself, oh, that's

00:00:31.280 as good as it can get. Wait, wait, wait. It's a double-sided whiteboard. Yeah, you didn't see

00:00:39.400 that coming, did you? That's right. And in order to enjoy the double-sided whiteboard, to its full

00:00:46.120 extent, what do you need? Not much. A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a child or a stein, a canteen

00:00:54.000 jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. And you can fill it with your favorite liquid. I am partial

00:01:02.180 to coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing

00:01:08.220 that makes everything better, way better, 75% better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens

00:01:14.660 now. I feel science becoming more accurate. I feel data starting to be credible. And that's

00:01:30.840 just one sip. Imagine if I finish that entire mug. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. All right. We'll talk

00:01:39.180 about the election and allegations of fraud in a moment, but some fun stories first.

00:01:47.360 We have yet another potential vaccine that could make a big difference. Oxford-AZ, so AstraZeneca,

00:01:56.720 I guess. They've got a vaccine that has a strange story to it. Here's the strange story. It was a

00:02:05.120 big old scientific trial, and it was supposed to be two doses to each person. But they discovered

00:02:14.300 after they had given a bunch of the first doses that the first doses had been, by mistake,

00:02:22.280 half as much as they were supposed to be. So then they said, well, what do we do now? Because we

00:02:28.240 started this trial, we started this trial, and the first doses are all the wrong amount. So they said,

00:02:34.340 well, we can salvage it by at least giving the full dose on the second one, and let's just see what

00:02:41.540 happens. And what happened was, it turns out, according to their initial data, I've got some

00:02:49.060 questions about the accuracy of the data, but their data says that when they got a half dose,

00:02:55.680 followed, I think, a month later by a full dose, that they got to 90% efficiency of the vaccine.

00:03:05.860 But when they did it the way they were supposed to do it, two full doses, it was only 60% as

00:03:13.740 effective. Now, there are a few possible ways to explain this. Number one way, everything about

00:03:22.960 this trial is wrong. Now, was there a point in this whole vaccine situation where you said to

00:03:31.440 yourself, I'm feeling pretty good about science? Because scientists are killing it. You know, this

00:03:40.140 whole warp speed thing. Man, clap, clap, clap for our scientists around the world, not just in the

00:03:47.980 United States, but other countries too. And they're just killing it with this development of the

00:03:53.580 vaccine. So science is something you can depend on. Except wait, what was that thing you said to me,

00:04:00.900 Scott, about science did an entire randomized drug trial of the most important thing in the world

00:04:11.680 that could be tested at this moment, coronavirus vaccine. And in the most important trial,

00:04:19.280 or one of the few for these vaccines, one of the most important trials in the world,

00:04:25.600 maybe in all of civilization. And how many people had to look at that, whatever the directions were,

00:04:35.300 how many people looked at that study before rolling it out to not know that they had somehow

00:04:42.540 accidentally given everybody half a dose? Are you still really confident about your scientific process?

00:04:50.780 Because the trouble is that science as a system is terrific compared to other ways of understanding

00:04:58.440 your reality. But unfortunately, science is populated with people. And while we can all agree that science

00:05:08.100 as a concept is pretty darn awesome, can we also agree that human beings as entities are pretty darn

00:05:17.700 shitty? In fact, I could give you a pretty long list of human beings who are total crap. And unfortunately,

00:05:26.660 when you take a concept like science, which is terrific, really excellent, and you combine it with

00:05:34.480 organic creatures who tend to be pretty shitty on average, you get something that's the average of

00:05:42.080 something awesome, science, and something pretty shitty, people. So that's how you get half a dose.

00:05:49.860 So put that right in your arm, huh? Yeah, let me shoot up with a vaccine that the best scientists in was a

00:06:01.380 Great Britain couldn't figure out the difference between half a dose and a full dose. Yeah, I got a lot

00:06:08.200 of confidence in that one. I think I'll take the American vaccine. That's just me. I think I'll take the

00:06:14.060 American one. Not that it's necessarily better. By the way, I am pro-vaccination, just to be clear.

00:06:22.900 I'm pro-vaccination, but it's always a tentative opinion, meaning I'll change it in a heartbeat

00:06:29.160 if the data changes. So I'm not going to make a personal decision about taking a vaccine,

00:06:37.340 the coronavirus vaccine, any one of the different vaccines. I'm not going to make a personal decision

00:06:43.820 until when? Last minute. If you're making a decision now, instead of waiting for the last

00:06:52.740 minute, you're doing it wrong, because there might be new information. So, you know, I'm not going to

00:07:00.560 wait for people to take in and wait a year to see if they have any health problems. I probably won't do

00:07:05.800 that, but I'm certainly going to wait as long as I can before I make a decision, just in case. I think

00:07:13.620 that I'll probably take it. But here's the other interesting thing about this Oxford-AstraZeneca

00:07:20.300 story. The accident may have discovered something that's really, really important,

00:07:30.100 in the same way that yellow sticky notes were discovered by accident, and I think penicillin

00:07:36.760 was discovered by accident, and a lot of things get discovered by accident. Could it be, and some

00:07:42.760 of the scientists have speculated, that there is something about giving a half dose and sort of

00:07:49.280 maybe priming your body a little bit, you know, it's like putting down a primer coat of paint or

00:07:54.340 something, and then a month later when you give the full dose, what if that makes the vaccination

00:08:00.920 way, way better? Could it be that they accidentally discovered an effect that is monstrously important,

00:08:11.380 which is if you give people a small dose of a drug, let your body acclimate, and then give them a

00:08:17.480 bigger dose, is that something that could work in other situations, or is it something unique to this

00:08:23.160 one vaccination, or is it just bad data? Could be any of those things. But possibly it's a gigantic,

00:08:29.620 possibly a gigantic discovery that we're just seeing the first glimmer of. Maybe. You never know.

00:08:37.540 I like to look on the bright side. Well, the big story, of course, is that Trump has authorized the GSA

00:08:43.020 to fund and assist in the Biden transition. Does that mean that President Trump, in his secret

00:08:49.560 inner thoughts, is really conceding? Well, we don't know his secret inner thoughts. We don't know them

00:08:57.300 at all. But I would say if he is consistent with his past, he keeps his options open. Why wouldn't you?

00:09:08.260 Everything we know about Trump is that he always keeps his options open. So he does have, technically,

00:09:14.640 a path to the presidency. Another term. So the fact that he's doing something in case it goes the way

00:09:23.020 most people think it's going to go, at the same time he's keeping his option open in court, etc.,

00:09:29.060 nothing wrong with that. Completely consistent. And does not tell us his state of mind.

00:09:35.160 In the same way that it made sense to do Operation Warp Speed, by producing a bunch of vaccines before

00:09:43.520 we had tested them, just so we'd have them ready in case they worked, it's the same thing. Good risk

00:09:50.540 management is what Trump did with Warp Speed. He said, let's put a billion dollars into it, or probably

00:09:57.520 multiple billion, to make the vaccines just in case they're safe. We'll find out later, but we can always

00:10:03.820 just throw the vaccines away if we have to. So same reason. They should do the transition just in

00:10:10.240 case it goes the way it looks like it's going to go, and still keep your options open. So apparently

00:10:18.840 there's some data out that 79% of Trump supporters believe the election was fraudulent. 79%.

00:10:29.220 Now, do you remember back in 2016, one of the biggest criticisms that I personally received

00:10:40.400 was, Scott, are you telling me you think that President Trump, or candidate Trump at the time,

00:10:48.820 are you telling me you think Trump is persuasive? Where's the evidence of that? I don't see any

00:10:55.160 evidence he's persuasive. Well, how about convincing 79% of his supporters that an election had been

00:11:02.880 thrown? You can't get much more persuasive than that. Now, keep in mind that persuasion tends to

00:11:10.480 only work on your own team. It's not like the Democrats are persuading the Republicans or vice versa.

00:11:16.440 That's sort of not a thing. It used to be, a little bit. But it's not really a thing at the moment.

00:11:23.200 So watching Trump persuade his own base is really a remarkable thing. Do you think anybody else could

00:11:32.840 have persuaded 79% of their base to think the election was rigged? Maybe. I don't know. But it's

00:11:40.280 still pretty impressive, right? Oh, yes. And then in the comments, somebody's reminding me that 30% of

00:11:47.840 Democrats think the election was fraudulent. 30%. That's about as persuasive as you can get. Or is it?

00:11:57.540 We're going to get to that in a moment. We'll talk about whether it would be reasonable to assume,

00:12:03.080 as these many people have, that the election was fraudulent. In the face of, don't the Democrats

00:12:11.440 tell us every single day? There's no evidence. Where's all the evidence? If you have zero evidence,

00:12:19.700 how could you possibly convince 79% of the people that fraud happened with zero evidence?

00:12:27.020 How does that happen? Well, it could be because there is evidence. And Democrats just say there

00:12:34.460 isn't. You know, I would say the sworn statements from over 200 people that they personally observed

00:12:41.260 irregularities is evidence. So here's a question for you. Just hold this question in the back of your

00:12:51.300 head, because it will get funnier over time. All right? So we'll just put it in there now.

00:12:56.900 Just let it simmer. It's going to get better. And here's the thought. Democrats have said that

00:13:04.860 Trump has done tremendous damage in his first term. And indeed, one of the reasons for them wanting to

00:13:12.620 replace him is to prevent the further tremendous damage that he would do. So how long is it going to

00:13:20.560 take Biden to fix all of that damage? And what was the damage? Can somebody remind me what the damage is

00:13:29.960 that Biden is fixing? Is it the climate? Because there's a big difference in the climate opinion,

00:13:40.620 right? But correct me if I'm wrong. Hasn't the Trump administration lowered our emissions below the

00:13:48.880 Paris Accords if we had stayed in them? So it doesn't look like there's much to fix in terms of

00:13:57.160 the climate, because we were actually doing great. What about the Middle East? Will Biden go in there and

00:14:04.520 fix everything that Trump broke in the Middle East? Well, no, actually, it looks like Trump fixed the

00:14:12.060 Middle East, or at least it's heading in the right direction. Israel's making friends with a number of

00:14:17.680 neighboring countries like never before. Iran seems to be, you know, marginalized, and things seem to be

00:14:25.720 relatively less war-like than normal. So I don't know what he's fixing there. How about the economy?

00:14:33.620 Trump had the economy just humming along until coronavirus, of course. Now, will Biden fix the

00:14:40.820 coronavirus? There's not much he can do for the economy. The economy is going to do what it does.

00:14:46.940 But will Biden come in, and on Inauguration Day, he's going to come in and say,

00:14:54.640 people, people, people, wear your masks. And then people will, this is my understanding of how this

00:15:02.200 is going to work. People who had been under a Trump administration, because he was a little less,

00:15:10.160 let's say, assertive about wearing masks, he agrees with it, but he's not really pushing it.

00:15:15.400 It feels as if when Trump was, let's say, a little tepid, a little lukewarm about masks,

00:15:24.920 that that caused people to wear fewer masks. That's the claim, right? So when Biden becomes

00:15:32.400 president, will you be more likely to wear a mask? So in the comments, tell me, because obviously the

00:15:40.120 Democrats are all wearing masks, is my understanding. I mean, you could fact check that, but my

00:15:46.340 understanding is that since Democrats don't listen to Trump, or they want to do whatever is the

00:15:52.420 opposite he says, you would expect the Democrats are already wearing their masks, right? I mean,

00:16:00.060 sure, maybe sometimes they get caught with that one. But let's say generally they're wearing their

00:16:04.780 masks. Oh, in the comments, you think I'm wrong. You think Democrats are not wearing masks? Well,

00:16:10.280 that doesn't make any sense. How could it be that Democrats are not wearing masks completely?

00:16:18.060 Because they're not listening to Trump, because they're Democrats. Oh, well, anybody who believes

00:16:28.460 that Biden is going to tell the public to wear masks, and then we just will? I don't think you

00:16:35.420 understand how people work. I don't think he's going to fix the mask thing. And how about if he

00:16:42.780 does some kind of a national standard for the states? Are the states going to say, oh, well,

00:16:48.240 that's what we're waiting for. We're waiting for that national standard. I don't think so. I think the

00:16:54.860 states are going to say, uh, we're all different. Every state's different. How about we know what

00:17:01.160 we're supposed to do? We're listening to the same experts. Why don't we do it our way, and you do it

00:17:06.100 your way, and maybe we'll see who did better. I don't know how, I don't know exactly what Biden's

00:17:14.260 going to fix. Do you? Can you give me a list of all the things that Trump broke? What did he break?

00:17:23.320 What did he break that's going to get fixed? Because this is a very basic belief of the

00:17:29.120 Democrats, not only that Trump might do bad things, but that he already broke stuff. Now,

00:17:36.620 let's say you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, the obvious one is the coronavirus. The United States has higher

00:17:43.300 death rate than a lot of places, and therefore Trump broke that. Now, suppose I say, okay,

00:17:51.440 let's take that as a given. If I accepted that that's true, isn't that in the past? Because

00:18:00.920 how do you fix the past? Is Joe Biden going to use his time machine to go back and fix the past?

00:18:08.520 I don't think that's an option. So what is it he's going to do that would be that different than what

00:18:15.540 Trump would have done if he had a second term? I feel like the mask wearing is going to be pretty

00:18:21.960 similar. I feel like the shutdowns are going to be pretty similar. And I feel like the vaccines are

00:18:29.240 going to come out and be delivered pretty similarly. So even if you accepted, oh, we hate what Trump

00:18:37.180 already did in the past. And even if you accept that it was a mistake and caused X number of lives,

00:18:43.780 even if you believe that, how does that translate into the future? Because now we actually understand

00:18:50.800 the situation in a way we didn't before. So now that we understand it better, I would imagine that

00:18:57.040 a Republican and a Democrat would end up acting the same way. When you didn't know what worked and

00:19:02.440 what didn't, which is the early months, then you would expect some people would get it wrong,

00:19:08.380 some people would get it right. But now that we're far more informed, still not quite informed,

00:19:14.480 but more informed, I would expect a Democrat and a Republican to look pretty much the same.

00:19:20.740 You know, they might have a difference in what school. So did Trump break school? No,

00:19:28.780 it looks like the Democrats broke that and the teachers' unions. I think the teachers' unions broke

00:19:34.380 the schools. That wasn't Trump. He tried to break the teachers' unions. All right. So look for that.

00:19:41.280 Just think about where's all this damage that the Democrats are fixing and what are they doing to fix it?

00:19:47.120 Remember, I predicted that if Joe Biden won, Republicans would be hunted. And I was roundly mocked

00:19:58.780 through society for such a ridiculous thing. Well, of course, we've seen people get assaulted just for

00:20:08.000 being Trump supporters. So indeed, they are hunted on the street. And certainly, they will be ferreted out

00:20:13.800 in employment, etc. But here's something that Rachel Maddow said last night, I guess. So Rachel

00:20:21.080 Maddow asked an NAACP legal defense counsel, Sherilyn Ifill, she said, Trump officials are challenging the

00:20:30.020 election. She asked if they should be sent to jail for challenging the election, which is not a crime.

00:20:39.660 And she knows it. So Rachel Maddow is literally in public. This is not a private conversation. And there's no

00:20:53.180 question about whether she said it or not. You know, it's on video. It's public. And she's asking the question in

00:21:01.000 public, if people who broke no laws, because there's no even allegation of a broken law, just questioning the

00:21:08.980 outcome. If they should be jailed. You fucking bitch. You fucking piece of shit. Rachel Maddow. She's

00:21:20.640 asking if Trump supporters should be jailed for not breaking a crime, just doubting the outcome of an

00:21:28.140 election. Think about that. Now, when you were mocking me for saying that Republicans would be hunted,

00:21:34.820 what the fuck is this? What the fuck is this? If this is not a pretty clean signal that Democrats are

00:21:45.120 willing to jail? I mean, that's her word. She used the word jail. I'm not interpreting. The word jail

00:21:53.000 should be sent to jail. So they feel like they did something wrong.

00:21:58.960 Who the fuck calls me at this time of day? Jesus Christ.

00:22:11.480 Sorry, didn't mean to take your Lord's name in vain there. Slipped out. But this is shocking. So Rachel

00:22:21.040 Maddow should lose her job for that. Don't you think? I mean, it's not going to happen. But don't you

00:22:26.660 think she should lose her job for suggesting that Republicans should be jailed just to make them feel

00:22:34.000 differently? She said that. I'm not making that up. She said they should be, do you think they should

00:22:42.520 go to jail so that they feel like they did something wrong in order to stop Trumpism from becoming the

00:22:50.120 norm? She actually said that. Amazing. I hope that Trump does some kind of a clever pardon before he

00:23:00.400 leaves office. You know, something like stepping down on the last day of his term and having Pence

00:23:06.600 pardon him for everything he's ever done. I hope that happens. Now, normally, I would say, I sure hope

00:23:13.720 that anybody who committed a crime gets caught. I mean, typically, I would like people to get caught

00:23:20.040 for doing crimes. But what exactly is Trump's crime? Can you think of one? I have not heard a crime even

00:23:28.720 alleged, have you? Apparently, there are all these lawsuits in the Southern District of New York, and

00:23:34.220 they're looking through his financials and stuff. But do me a fact check on this. Has anybody alleged

00:23:41.360 a crime? And why haven't we heard it? What's what is the specific crime? Because otherwise, it looks

00:23:49.140 like they're just looking for a crime. Are you okay with that? Are you okay that a politician can be

00:23:56.900 examined just to see if there's a crime without any evidence that there was a crime? Are you okay with

00:24:02.700 that? I'm not okay with that. And as a principle, I would I would prefer that if you imagine that Trump

00:24:11.420 broke some law, I would I would prefer that he get away with it, rather than have a norm that you can just

00:24:19.500 go looking for crimes, if there's no evidence of a crime. So which looks like what's happening. Now, if it turns out

00:24:26.520 there's all this evidence of a crime that I don't know about, then I will revise my opinion. But based

00:24:32.500 on what we don't know, it looks like they're after him for political reasons. And I think that should

00:24:38.160 be shut down. So if Trump and Pence used a political trick, you know, to sort of pardon him for everything

00:24:45.940 that happened up to that point in life, I think that would be appropriate. Because there's a trick being

00:24:53.460 used against him. So if you use a trick to counter another trick, I'm okay with that 100%. And I very

00:25:03.440 much hope that it happens. And again, I don't care if there's a real crime or not. Because whether or

00:25:08.800 not there's a real crime is a much lower priority than we shouldn't be doing this. We shouldn't be

00:25:16.060 doing this. Because, you know, if if I could go to your house and tear it apart and look through all

00:25:21.640 your financials, could I find any crimes? I'd probably find something. That's why we don't do

00:25:28.720 that. So I guess Joe Biden has picked Jake Sullivan to serve as National Security Advisor. And Joel

00:25:39.660 Pollack points out that Sullivan would be taking the job that Mike Flynn had briefly. And that Sullivan

00:25:48.880 had falsely accused Flynn of Russia collusion. So the guy who would take Flynn's job is somebody

00:25:56.540 who falsely accused Flynn of a crime of Russia collusion, not even just a normal crime, but like

00:26:03.440 the crime of all crimes. All right, you got Bill de Blasio closing public schools because

00:26:10.960 the city is at 3% positivity for coronavirus. But the schools themselves are only at 0.28.

00:26:21.960 So we should follow the science, right? Here's, I could say this a million times, and most people won't

00:26:30.660 be able to hear it. There are some ideas that we just can't hear. It's an unusual phenomenon. I'll give

00:26:39.000 you one. Some of you will be able to hear what I say next. Some of you just can't hear it. Like,

00:26:46.660 it'll be like noise, like Charlie Brown's teacher. And so this will be an experiment. And it goes like

00:26:56.300 this. We all know we should trust science, and we should trust the experts. But they interpret

00:27:02.580 things differently. The experts and the scientists look at the same data, and they interpret it

00:27:08.620 differently. So how can you trust them? Trusting science is a good idea. Trusting scientists is the

00:27:19.920 dumbest fucking idea in the world. Because they're people. And people can't be trusted. People can be

00:27:26.580 right. And people can be wrong. But you can't trust them. You can't trust them. You can trust them if

00:27:35.420 you've got lots of visibility, and, you know, there are controls, and somebody is double checking. But

00:27:41.880 that's not really trusting, is it? That's more like making sure that all of the opportunity for cheating

00:27:46.900 is to do. And mischief has been removed. But trust science. But I don't have access to science. Do

00:27:55.300 you? Reach into your pocket and grab me a handful of science. Do you have any? Because I don't have

00:28:02.520 any. Look at my shelves. I got some books on my shelves, but I don't have any science. I don't have

00:28:10.060 science. I can't get my hands around it. Don't have access to it. I'll tell you what I do have.

00:28:18.880 People telling me their opinions. That's what I have. I don't have any fucking science. I got people

00:28:26.000 telling me their opinions about science. I don't trust people. Are you kidding me?

00:28:32.200 I don't trust people at all in that way. Or as somebody wise said, I forget who, somebody said

00:28:43.400 recently, the one thing you can trust is that people will act like people. You can definitely

00:28:50.620 trust that. You can trust that. All right. Hypothetically, here's a question I asked,

00:29:01.840 and I got some answers that I think are pretty good. Hypothetically, what would happen if the

00:29:07.420 process goes forward and it goes all the way through the electoral college process? Biden gets confirmed,

00:29:14.080 goes to the House. I don't know the exact process, but I guess the House says that they confirm it or

00:29:22.560 they validate it or whatever. Let's say it goes all the way through the system and Biden is ready to be

00:29:28.960 inaugurated or even he gets inaugurated. My understanding is that the actual inauguration

00:29:34.480 is unnecessary. It's more of a ceremony. But let's say he goes through the process that he's absolutely

00:29:40.420 the president of the United States. Our constitution is active. The Supreme Court is spoken. If they get

00:29:47.760 involved, it's just done. And then, hypothetically, just asking the question, and then after that,

00:29:57.080 proof comes out that the election was rigged and rigged sufficiently that it changed the outcome.

00:30:04.660 What would happen? Because haven't all the experts been telling us it's too late?

00:30:14.940 Correct me if I'm wrong. Hasn't every expert said, you know, once it gets to this point,

00:30:22.180 well, then it's just too late. It's over. Is it? Is it? I'm not so sure. Because let's say it were

00:30:33.220 proven in court that the election was wrong. Let's say it went to the Supreme Court. And they said,

00:30:40.860 all right, here it is. It's proof. And let's say the Supreme Court looks at the proof and they go,

00:30:44.280 oh, okay, that's proof. Yeah, that actually is proof. And let's say, hypothetically, they were convinced.

00:30:53.000 What do they do? Now, somebody said impeachment. Maybe. I don't know. I have no idea. I have no idea.

00:31:02.820 And I'm not sure our system quite knows. But if you tell me that producing that proof after Biden gets

00:31:12.380 officially in office, if you're telling me that doesn't matter, I'm not so sure. I think it might

00:31:19.460 matter. It might matter. Maybe we'll find out. So Trump tweeted that in Wisconsin, so he's quoting

00:31:32.320 Victoria Tenzing, who's also an attorney. And he's quoting her saying, in Wisconsin, somebody has to be

00:31:39.060 indefinitely confined in order to vote absentee. So I guess this claim is you'd have to be, I don't know,

00:31:47.260 shut in or something. And in the past, there were 20,000 people in Wisconsin. This past election,

00:31:54.900 there were 120,000. And Republicans were locked down to the vote counting process. So the president

00:32:01.600 tweeted that. And I looked at that. And I thought, that's a pretty easy claim to check. Right? I mean,

00:32:11.580 these are facts which are in the public record. So I thought, is that true? So I just tweeted down

00:32:19.060 and said, is this true? And it took about five seconds for somebody to send me a link to the

00:32:25.500 Wisconsin page that shows that this is not true. It's not even slightly true. It's not even in the

00:32:35.700 zip code of true. It's not in the galaxy of true. It's nowhere near true. There's nothing about it

00:32:43.400 that's true. So which of the experts we're listening to is Victoria Tenzing. She's an attorney,

00:32:54.680 high-end attorney. And she obviously has all of the skills and expertise to look into a, let's say,

00:33:02.880 a legal election situation and then interpret it for you. Because that's what an attorney does.

00:33:10.060 They'll look at the law and then tell you what they saw. So she's an expert. Is she right? It doesn't

00:33:19.120 look like it. So anybody who tells me to listen to the experts, what planet are you on? What planet are

00:33:28.420 you on? That listening to experts has worked out really well for you when they disagree?

00:33:37.100 I promised you, I don't know, a couple weeks ago, that your understanding of reality was about to

00:33:42.940 change because of this election situation. I would argue that it has, but I saw some critics pushing

00:33:49.800 back saying it hadn't because it looks like Biden's going to take the job. But let me fill this idea

00:33:58.660 out a little bit, all right? Do you think the will of the people was important to the election outcome?

00:34:07.600 In other words, do you think that we just experienced something like democracy?

00:34:11.740 Do you think that people looked at the information, made decisions, voted? We counted the votes.

00:34:21.280 We picked a winner. Is that what happened? Because here's what I saw. I saw, first of all,

00:34:29.600 that social media has been brainwashing the public for years. So I saw a social media brainwashing

00:34:37.840 that's very, very effective because they're good at it. So where does brainwashing come in from social

00:34:45.780 media with your free specific example that's just mind-boggling? Mind-boggling. So last night on the

00:34:54.100 show The Five on Fox News, Richard Fowler was sitting in for the person representing the left,

00:35:04.160 sitting in for Juan Williams, I believe. And he claimed on television, in public, that he personally

00:35:14.060 believed that the President of the United States had once recommended drinking bleach.

00:35:22.160 He thinks that happened. Now, the other members of The Five literally yelled at him when he said that,

00:35:30.540 you know, in unison, that didn't happen because it didn't happen. The President never used the word

00:35:36.820 bleach, never used the word drinking. He talked about injecting disinfectants in the concept of light

00:35:43.580 as a disinfectant. You can put it on a ventilator or stick it in the lungs. And there was a trial that

00:35:50.380 was being, you know, ready to look in to see if that could work. So the President said he was just

00:35:57.180 joking, which I don't buy that one. But in either case, it is easy to confirm he definitely didn't

00:36:04.940 say drink bleach. And Richard Fowler, and I'm sure he was not lying. He looked completely honest when he

00:36:13.180 was saying this. And I believe it because I don't think he's, you know, I don't think he would lie

00:36:17.540 about it. He believed he actually saw it. He didn't believe he heard about it. He believed he witnessed it.

00:36:28.780 Think about this. Now, Richard Fowler is not just a voter. This is somebody whose job is talking about

00:36:36.620 presidential politics every day. He's a professional. Richard Fowler would be, I would guess,

00:36:44.460 my cat's doing a walk by here. I would guess that Richard Fowler would be in the top 1% of well-informed

00:36:53.960 people in this country. Would you agree with me? Somebody who does it for a job, and they're so good

00:37:00.400 at it that they're on TV, they're on radio shows, podcasts, whatever. Richard Fowler is a high-end,

00:37:06.980 super well-informed political person. He thought he witnessed the president telling the country to

00:37:16.080 drink bleach or suggesting. And it never happened. But the fake news said it happened so many times

00:37:23.880 that he has a false memory of it. I mean, to watch this happen is amazing to see it happen in real

00:37:31.300 time. So you got your fake news. You got the changes in the mail-in ballots. Probably that alone

00:37:37.720 changed the election. If we know that Republicans like to vote in person, we know that Democrats

00:37:43.320 and low-motivated people might send in a ballot. We know there's more possibility of mischief.

00:37:51.980 So probably the thing that affected the election was whatever social media brainwashed you for,

00:38:00.800 whatever the fake news created as your reality, the mail-in ballots, which is a process change,

00:38:09.040 which probably changed the outcome. Just the fact that there was a coronavirus and they had to do

00:38:14.480 mail-in ballots probably could change the outcome. And then what about the fraud? We'll talk about that

00:38:19.720 in a minute. So how much of what I just mentioned... That's my cat talking to you. How much of what I

00:38:32.220 just mentioned is the people's will? None of it. It's the opposite of the people's will. Nothing like

00:38:39.100 democracy happened. There was nothing like democracy that just happened in the United States. But we

00:38:47.020 probably will get over it. We probably will get past it within a civil war, which is a credit to the

00:38:55.280 country, I think. Now, I don't recommend this. And let me emphasize this. The next thing I'm going to

00:39:03.520 say, I do not recommend. Do not recommend it. But if it happened, it'd be funny, which is Republicans

00:39:11.520 rigging the Senate race in Georgia, using the same tricks that they believe the Democrats used, that the

00:39:19.240 Democrats say are impossible. It would just be hilarious. Because if the Republicans used their same

00:39:27.720 techniques, and the Democrats knew it, what would they do? Because they couldn't really call them out for the

00:39:38.420 technique. Because their entire argument is that these techniques can't work. Not that they didn't work, that they

00:39:46.680 can't. It just isn't possible. So again, I'm not recommending it because it's breaking the law. I never

00:39:53.900 recommend breaking the law. But it would be funny. I'm just saying it would be funny. I don't recommend it.

00:40:01.380 All right. So I tweet that said the Milwaukee recount is going slowly because Trump's attorneys have been

00:40:13.500 constantly interrupting and challenging tens of thousands of ballots. What is it that you would

00:40:21.460 challenge on these ballots? If an attorney challenges a ballot, what would be the basis? Well, I would think

00:40:30.400 the basis would be a technical problem, like an address wasn't complete, or a signature didn't match.

00:40:38.720 Aren't those supposed to be rejected? Now, I know there's a process for curing them, going back to the

00:40:45.540 voter. But that process has passed. I believe that there's a time limit that's probably passed in which

00:40:53.780 you can cure a ballot. So what happens if the attorneys find a whole bunch of ballots that maybe could have been

00:41:01.520 cured, some of them if you were in the right time frame, but that time frame is passed? What happens? This is

00:41:09.600 really untested territory. I don't know what the legal result is. Do they throw them out? And then they can never be

00:41:15.500 cured? Because I've got a feeling if you put a lawyer in a room with a bunch of ballots, that lawyer is going to have a lot of

00:41:23.720 arguments. It's like, well, that doesn't look like the letter E to me. That looks like the letter C. You got the address

00:41:31.760 wrong. Throw that one out.

00:41:33.480 All right. So then another tweet. And again, I don't believe anything that's data in 2020. All right?

00:41:48.540 Doesn't matter what the topic is. It's voting. It's coronavirus. It doesn't matter. If you believe any

00:41:54.580 public, regardless of the source, if you believe any data you see in public in 2020, you haven't been

00:42:02.820 paying attention. It's pretty much all unreliable. Some of it is true, but it's all unreliable.

00:42:12.720 Okay? And here's one of them. 59 counties in Georgia rejected zero mail-in ballots this year.

00:42:20.960 Uh, not zero rounded to the nearest decimal, says the tweet, but actually zero. What are the odds

00:42:30.020 that, you know, and of course, typically it's only going to be in the zero to 2.2% range. National

00:42:37.820 average is 1%, and it was 1.4% in 2016 and 2018. So is that a big difference? I mean, maybe,

00:42:46.600 maybe the difference between zero and 1%. Maybe there are lots of, maybe there are lots of

00:42:54.620 counties that had zero rejected ballots. What do you think? I think the odds of that are pretty close

00:43:02.420 to zero, meaning that they probably just turned off the controls. Isn't it far more likely that

00:43:09.660 what happened is nobody was rejecting ballots in those counties? I can't say it's impossible,

00:43:17.680 but I also don't know if the data is even correct. So, uh, don't let me make you think

00:43:23.200 past the sale, because I think I did that accidentally. The sale is whether the data is even

00:43:29.080 real. All right? Don't get past that. And then thinking that if it is real, it shows that there's

00:43:36.500 fraud. You got to back up. I don't know if this data is real. And if it is real, I don't even,

00:43:42.960 I don't know if it's unusual. So you got to figure that out first. Don't think past the sale.

00:43:48.500 Um, let's talk about whether election cheating is possible. Okay? Here's the, here's the big payoff

00:43:56.100 for this live stream. It, how many of you think that it's possible to do enough cheating that you

00:44:05.000 would, um, change the result of a national election and not be spotted? How many think that's a thing

00:44:13.700 that could be done? Change a national election. So it's got to be enough fraud to do that, but also

00:44:20.620 not be spotted. Is it possible? Because I'm talking to, uh, at least one smart person who says,

00:44:28.360 Scott, Scott, Scott, don't you know that the system is designed with way too much transparency?

00:44:37.040 There's people watching at every step. You've got witnesses, you've got cameras in the ceiling,

00:44:42.040 you've got, uh, signatures, you've got verification. I mean, they've removed the ability

00:44:50.100 to cheat, at least cheating in a big enough scale to change an election. What do you think?

00:44:58.480 Now, when the Democrats, uh, and I'm, I'm talking to one in particular, who was very smart, very,

00:45:05.800 uh, let's say very, uh, worldly in terms of would not be some kind of a virgin about,

00:45:13.460 you know, the fact that crime exists in the world. Somebody who's seen enough of the dirty side of life

00:45:19.020 who should know where fraud can and cannot live believes that the election system

00:45:26.660 is sufficiently free of it that you could conclude this was a fair election just because the way it's

00:45:34.420 designed. What do you think? Let's go through it. Number one, do you believe that, uh, the Kennedy

00:45:43.760 Nixon, uh, election was rigged? Now, if it was rigged, and I believe historians now agree in this,

00:45:51.720 right? Give me a fact check, but I think the historians agree that the Kennedy Nixon election

00:45:57.900 was rigged. Now, did it have to be widespread? Apparently not. I think it could have been done

00:46:05.400 in maybe, you know, one city that was Democrat controlled, for example, Chicago or whatever the

00:46:10.840 claim is, Ohio, I forget. But it didn't need to be widespread, and it was not detected at the time.

00:46:19.500 Now, have things changed since the early 60s in terms of have we gone from an election that could

00:46:27.260 be rigged to an election that can't be? Well, I wonder if you went back in time and said to the

00:46:34.100 people who had created the election process, hey, you guys created this process. Is there any way

00:46:40.340 anybody could cheat enough to change a national election? What would they have said in 1960,

00:46:47.380 whatever? Somebody says, Scott's going full QAnon. You have fallen. I'm going to block you for saying

00:46:56.660 that. Um, you have fallen for the narrative. You won't find anything that I say here that you disagree

00:47:07.700 with. I'll bet you. I'll bet you. I'll bet you there's not a single thing that I say that you'll

00:47:13.220 disagree with. Um, so don't you think that during the Kennedy-Nixon time, the people who designed it

00:47:21.300 thought that they had a system that couldn't be cheated? They probably thought they had it.

00:47:27.260 But they didn't, apparently. So just put that in the back of your mind and it will continue.

00:47:35.240 So have you seen, um, did you see the special on CNN? Um, I hope, I hope you all saw this special

00:47:44.320 on CNN where they went through the entire voting process from, you know, from beginning to end.

00:47:51.840 And they showed you all the controls and the way that they monitor it so that you could see with

00:47:58.640 your own eyes from beginning to end, there's a trail of custody that's watched the whole time.

00:48:04.400 You have multiple observers. You've got cameras. You all saw that special, right? That showed

00:48:08.980 that election cheating is so difficult. It basically couldn't happen. Did you all see the special?

00:48:15.300 Oh, no, you didn't. Because it doesn't exist. Yeah, there's no special like that. But why not?

00:48:25.920 Isn't that the most obvious news content you can imagine? What would be a more obvious thing to put

00:48:33.260 on television if you were CNN than a little segment that says, look, people think this election was

00:48:40.780 stolen. Let us show you how that's impossible. All right? Let us just walk you through it.

00:48:47.440 You stupid Republican rubes. Let us just show you how the process works. And then, you idiots,

00:48:56.160 you won't be thinking it was fraud because we'll just show you. You couldn't have a fraud in this

00:49:00.700 situation. We'll just lay it out for you. Look at it yourself. You can see there's no opportunity for

00:49:08.380 fraud in this process. Yeah, you didn't see that fucking special, did you? And you're not going

00:49:15.660 to see that special. Do you know why? Yeah, you know why. You know exactly why. Nobody wants to put

00:49:23.780 that on the air. All right. So I asked that question, why are no experts saying that it can't be done?

00:49:34.900 And an election law expert weighed in, David Becker, UC Berkeley grad. So we know he's smart.

00:49:45.880 UC Berkeley. Very smart. So what do you think an election law expert said when I asked the question,

00:49:52.860 why haven't we seen somebody saying that these are secure elections? And he says, I'd really hope

00:50:00.300 you'd listen to experts on this. Because experts are really fucking believable. So he says, I really

00:50:09.200 hope you'd listen to experts on this. More paper ballots, more identity validation, more audits,

00:50:15.420 more bipartisan observation and transparency than ever before. Widespread fraud is not possible

00:50:23.280 and didn't happen. See what he did there. You see how he inserted the word widespread. Did, did I say

00:50:32.300 widespread? Nope. If he had not put the word widespread in there, would he be, would he be so

00:50:38.820 confident? Nope. It was the Kennedy Nixon election that was allegedly rigged. Was it widespread? No,

00:50:50.500 no. No, it was very targeted. So he had to change the argument to debunk it. And you see this very

00:50:57.740 consistently. And then when I pointed out that he changed the argument, he changed it to some other

00:51:02.380 argument. So basically, nobody is going to touch this question of whether these elections are, are

00:51:09.680 cheatable. Who, who would be a good expert to tell you whether a city election was rigged? Would you want

00:51:19.440 to hear from an election law professional or would you want to hear from Rudy Giuliani? Now say what you

00:51:28.220 will about Rudy Giuliani, but don't you think he's kind of an expert on municipal fraud? I always think

00:51:37.780 he would know more about that than just about anybody in the world. If you've been a mayor of a major city

00:51:43.760 and you've been a prosecutor and you've prosecuted the mafia and, you know, you lived in this world of

00:51:50.260 fraud and crime and it's, you know, part of your experience, I think Rudy Giuliani is an expert.

00:51:57.180 And Rudy Giuliani says if Philadelphia had a fair election this time, it's the first time in 60 years.

00:52:03.540 Why don't you listen to him? Because listen to the experts.

00:52:07.500 The listen to the experts things is purely stupidity because you can't tell which expert

00:52:16.100 to listen to. If you could, you know, that's a different conversation, but you can't. You can't

00:52:24.360 tell. Is it Rudy or is it this election professional? They have different opinions. All right. So let's

00:52:31.240 talk about whether, uh, you had the motive and the opportunity for fraud in this election.

00:52:37.900 And I'll move this whiteboard over here so you can see it. Let's talk about the motivation first.

00:52:44.480 The fake news has told Democrats that they were dealing with some kind of a

00:52:48.960 orange Hitler. If you thought that you could stop orange Hitler from a second term, would you break the

00:52:59.080 law to do it? Well, some of you would, some of you would not. If only one person was involved in

00:53:06.160 elections, well, maybe that person would never break the law, but that's not the case. Millions of people

00:53:13.040 are involved in elections. You only need enough of them to be willing to break the law for the law to

00:53:20.760 get broken. You don't need everybody to break the law. You just need enough. And if you have millions of

00:53:27.120 people who believe that orange Hitler might be taking a second term, are there enough people

00:53:34.200 who would be willing to break the law? Yes. Clearly and unambiguously, yes. So there would be enough

00:53:42.940 people willing, but willingness is not enough to get it done, right? Just be willing to do it.

00:53:49.220 Did they think it was an existential threat? And did they believe the hoaxes? Did they believe the

00:53:58.200 fine people hoax? Did they believe the drinking bleach hoax? If you believe this stuff because you

00:54:03.740 believe the fake news, does that create a situation in which the motivation for massive fraud involving

00:54:11.180 potentially lots of people, is the motivation there? Yes, right? Is there anybody watching this

00:54:19.080 who would disagree with the statement that the motivation to cheat was higher than it has ever

00:54:26.460 been? By far. Not even close. Because we've never had this situation where people had actually been

00:54:33.560 brainwashed to think that Hitler was maybe taking office for a second term. That's unprecedented.

00:54:40.260 So I think everybody would agree, no matter what kind of expert you are. And hey, wait a minute,

00:54:46.460 am I an expert? Am I an expert on, let's say, human motivation within a large organization?

00:54:55.020 I kind of am, in my own way. If you're the author of the Dilbert comic, you are kind of an expert on

00:55:03.580 human motivation in large organizations. But I don't have a degree in anything like that, so

00:55:09.820 I won't make that claim. All right. Now let's talk about the question of, is it possible? Because I

00:55:17.780 think this is a really important question. If you have the highest motivation in the world

00:55:22.240 to cheat, and I would argue it is literally the highest motivation in the world to cheat,

00:55:29.260 and that does exist, is it possible? That's the only other question. Because if both of those exist,

00:55:36.700 the highest motivation, and it's practical to do it, would you not say it's guaranteed to happen?

00:55:43.660 I think it would be, right? So if it happened, could you detect it? And how would you detect it?

00:55:52.240 For example, could you observe it directly? Well, the complaint is that the observers were not

00:56:00.940 allowed to observe. And in a number of cases, there are no observers. So could you, could direct

00:56:09.040 observation be enough to guarantee that there are no places that there could be fraud? I think the

00:56:16.200 answer is obviously that's not enough. Direct observation can be good for plugging specific

00:56:23.220 holes. For example, the things that are happening within the room where you're counting probably

00:56:29.020 get some direct observation, probably have some cameras. But I don't think there's anybody who

00:56:33.860 believes that these alone, the cameras and the direct observation, given how limited that is for the

00:56:40.740 entire chain of custody. Is it? Is there anybody who drives around behind the the vans carrying the

00:56:49.140 ballots? Does anybody drive behind those vans to make sure that they, you know, they don't stop and unload

00:56:55.200 anything? There must be massive parts of the process that are not witnessed by two witnesses, wouldn't you

00:57:02.560 say? How about the recount? Will the recount find fraud? No, because if the ballots are fraudulent, you would

00:57:11.840 just count them a second time. So there's nobody who believes. My dog's going crazy downstairs. I might

00:57:21.160 have to go deal with that in a minute. Nobody believes that a recount finds fraud. A recount can only find

00:57:27.980 a specific kind of fraud. Such as, uh, can you hear that? My dog is going crazy downstairs. And so I

00:57:38.920 either have an intruder or something. I don't know what's going on down there. But so a recount won't

00:57:45.440 detect fraud. It would only detect a very specific kind. How about an audit? So an audit is more than a

00:57:53.460 recount. We don't do audits. Could an audit find problems in the system? I think it could, but we

00:58:02.760 don't do them. We do an audit in a very small way, uh, similar to the IRS. If the IRS calls you and says,

00:58:11.260 we're going to audit you, do they audit everything that your tax returns claim? No, no. Even an auditor

00:58:19.880 from the IRS only looks at a certain question. They might say, ah, there was a red flag on your

00:58:25.640 return. We're going to look at that question. But they're not going to open up your entire return.

00:58:31.300 I suppose they might if they saw some major fraud, but that's not the intention. They're looking at

00:58:35.980 just the question. Likewise, an audit of an election process at most is going to look at a specific

00:58:44.000 question. Is there anybody who's going to be double checking the, uh, software line by line in the

00:58:51.320 election system? No, no, nobody's going to check the code. That's not happening. Have you heard that

00:58:58.980 happening? If they don't check the software, have they really done an audit? Not really. So I would say

00:59:06.500 that anybody who tells you there's something like an election audit happening, that's more untrue than

00:59:13.880 true. It might be that they've audited some specific questions. Doesn't mean they're auditing

00:59:19.500 everything. How about lawsuits? You file a lawsuit, then you've got discovery, and you know, you can

00:59:26.520 really dig into the details. Could a lawsuit find irregularities? Well, it turns out there's a problem

00:59:34.320 because you can't follow the, you can't file the lawsuit unless you have evidence. And you can't get

00:59:41.380 evidence with a recount, you can't get it with an audit, and you can't necessarily get it with direct

00:59:48.380 observation or cameras. So how can you file a lawsuit if you don't have any evidence and you don't have

00:59:55.540 any way to get it? Because the system is not designed to present it. It's just not there. So you can, you

01:00:04.500 know, you can do things around the margins, but you would expect to have a situation like the Trump

01:00:10.820 legal team. You'd expect 26 out of 27 lawsuits to be tossed out because the court says, uh, where's your

01:00:19.100 evidence? I can't get it. I can't get the evidence. So I can't even get the process started because I can't

01:00:27.900 get the evidence. But what about data irregularities? Do you think you could prove election fraud with

01:00:36.040 data irregularities? Well, maybe. And I've been telling you for some time now that you would see

01:00:45.840 evidence that would convince you that there was fraud. The, the evidence that I think would be the

01:00:52.820 convincing stuff is the data irregularities. But as we saw with the Wisconsin tweet that I talked

01:00:59.580 about, do you trust anybody's data yet? Nope, you don't. Almost every claim we've seen about the

01:01:08.180 election, pretty much every claim, has turned out to be false. And it doesn't even matter who's making

01:01:15.280 it, Democrat, Republican. It feels like just about every claim about the election has turned out to be

01:01:21.400 false. So eventually, given time, I think the data irregularities can be found. So this is probably

01:01:32.060 the only place you could find fraud. Now, if you found it here, that might give you cause for a

01:01:38.280 lawsuit, which might allow you to dig into things and, you know, maybe, maybe find something. But

01:01:44.220 the data irregularities we probably will not find, uh, or at least will not be confident of until the

01:01:50.940 whole Biden process is done. So here's where I think we're going to be at some point in the future.

01:01:57.520 And I got in trouble for saying, I think it would be in two weeks. So I'm going to take the deadline

01:02:02.000 away from it because I got myself in trouble with a deadline because I'd just be guessing on deadline.

01:02:08.200 Eventually, the data irregularities will make the case as convincingly as I think the, uh,

01:02:16.300 Kennedy-Nixon election. And then what do you do? Then what do you do? Now, there's one other

01:02:24.720 phenomenon I haven't seen anybody talk about that I'm going to add to the conversation and it's going

01:02:30.560 to make you mad and you're going to realize it's true. Let's say there was some evidence.

01:02:38.180 We got 220 sworn statements, right? So that suggests that maybe the direct observation and

01:02:46.560 the witnesses worked to some degree. So let's say of those 220, they can put together a dozen good

01:02:54.220 lawsuits. And let's say that they're all pretty valid. You've got a witness, maybe after that you

01:03:00.960 could get some documentation to demonstrate it's true. Maybe the cameras show it too. And then you

01:03:07.100 take this to a judge and you say, I got it now. Now we found this, uh, this source of a problem.

01:03:14.960 Let's say we found that, uh, a nursing home had sent in a hundred ballots, but none of the actual

01:03:21.980 residents are aware that they voted. So you say, ha ha, gotcha. We, we found that you use this

01:03:29.300 senior center to harvest votes. You just took them out of the mailbox, you filled them out yourself and

01:03:35.060 sent them in. So I'm going to make a lawsuit about that. I'm going to take it to court.

01:03:39.460 Gotcha. What does the judge say? Does the judge say, show me your evidence? Nope. Because the judge

01:03:50.900 doesn't care because the judge at first asks you, how many votes are we talking about? And you say,

01:03:57.300 well, I got a hundred votes. There were a hundred people who will swear they didn't vote. And yet their

01:04:03.400 vote was registered. And the judge says, ah, so what? If I overturn a hundred votes, it doesn't change

01:04:12.640 the election. Get out of here. So if you don't find it all, you can't do anything about it. So you

01:04:24.060 could find a lot of it, but if you only find chunks of it, here's a chunk, here's a chunk,

01:04:30.780 here's a chunk. The chunks are worthless because each chunk doesn't add up enough to change the

01:04:38.660 outcome. And so the judge says, there's nothing to work on here. Yeah, I can, you could prove that

01:04:44.700 these hundred votes don't count, but it's just this little chunk doesn't change anything. So I'm not

01:04:49.720 even going to hear it. So it's sort of a perfect situation. Somebody says that's appealable. Yeah,

01:04:59.240 I suppose anything's appealable. Somebody says who here wants to start a civil war? You know, the thing

01:05:09.940 that I appreciate about this country is that we're not going to have a civil war. It's just not going

01:05:18.660 to happen. And the reason is so simple. You know why we won't have a civil war? Don't want one. That's

01:05:27.760 it. That's the whole reason. You have to have somebody want one, right? Nobody wants one. Even

01:05:34.680 the militias, they're not looking to start one. I mean, they may independently want to overthrow the

01:05:42.120 country or something, but not over the election necessarily. Uh, I just don't think anybody wants

01:05:48.040 one. And you would have to have a lot of people wanting one. It just doesn't happen on its own.

01:05:54.380 All right. Um, and I would like to say to my Democrat friends who believe that orange Hitler

01:06:03.820 was the, was the, was a real thing and believe that the president is a real racist and suggests

01:06:12.800 drinking bleach. If you could stop that election and you didn't, you are cowards. You're cowards.

01:06:21.920 Because if you didn't cheat in this election, you've got a lot of explaining to do.

01:06:26.280 You should be able to tell me you threw the election and you're happy about it because you

01:06:31.840 saved the country, in your opinion, saves us from orange Hitler. Wouldn't you be proud of that?

01:06:38.260 Well, I would think you would be. All right. I think I may have said everything I want to do.

01:06:43.020 Oh, uh, Biden is boring us to death. And, uh, the only other thing I want to say about,

01:06:50.080 um, oh, what does anybody think that the Senate race in Georgia is going to be a clean election?

01:06:56.860 If, if, if, let's say hypothetically, hypothetically, if Democrats had rigged the presidential election,

01:07:07.920 and now we're doing this Senate, uh, special election in Georgia, wouldn't they rig that too?

01:07:15.040 And wouldn't they just do it exactly the same way? So we're going to learn something interesting,

01:07:21.180 because if both Republicans lose in Georgia, which is what people are not expecting,

01:07:29.100 it's going to reopen this question of fraud. And if the Democrats cheated in the main election and got

01:07:37.880 away with it, why wouldn't they do it again the same way? If it works, why wouldn't you do it again?

01:07:46.000 Really? Really? Um, so, uh, James Mattis says he hopes Biden gets rid of America first as a concept,

01:07:56.020 um, to which I say, now I see why two different presidents fired that guy. Mattis was probably

01:08:04.500 the most overrated general of all times, you know, as it turns out. Uh, I had been a big fan,

01:08:10.140 but once you hear him speaking candidly, he doesn't seem even bright. Uh, there's something,

01:08:18.480 there's something going on there. Because if you're an American general and you don't think America

01:08:25.280 first, that does not preclude being generous to other countries. Saying America first doesn't mean you

01:08:34.420 screw France. America first doesn't mean you throw Great Britain into the ocean. It means that you

01:08:43.040 operate in a enlightened way about self-interest. Um, all right, that's all I got for now. And I'll talk to

01:08:52.180 you tomorrow. All right, Periscope's off. YouTubers, you have my full attention.

01:09:04.420 Um, somebody said Great Britain is already in the ocean. Okay. Technically, you need to invite

01:09:14.280 Robert Barnes. You know, he'd be a great interview. Robert Barnes would be. But I'm, um, now that I'm

01:09:23.500 doing, uh, live streaming on two platforms, I don't have the technology to do a guest that both of you

01:09:29.900 could hear on YouTube and Periscope at the same time. Um, why do the YouTubers get more time with

01:09:35.860 you? Well, uh, no real reason. Um, how did Stacey Abrams become so important? By doing a good job.

01:09:49.200 Stacey Abrams, is it Abrams? Abrams, right? Stacey Abrams, she's doing something right.

01:09:56.120 I mean, she almost became governor and she's credited with, you know, changing the election

01:10:03.060 situation in Georgia. So she's doing something really well. Um, somebody said I should go in the

01:10:12.600 Megyn Kelly show. That's a podcast. I would, uh, I'm taking some time off from doing podcasts and stuff,

01:10:20.740 but she would be fun. Do you think vaccine should be mandatory? Uh, I don't think that's possible.

01:10:31.700 Don't think it's possible, but I do think that, um, it will be effectively mandatory. So I don't

01:10:38.840 think the government needs to do it because you saw that Qantas already said you have to have a

01:10:43.100 vaccination to fly in their airlines. I would expect, um, all the airlines to go that way.

01:10:50.180 So I think that if you want to operate in the real world, probably you're going to have to get a

01:10:56.440 vaccination at some point, but I don't know that the government has to do it. I think commerce alone

01:11:02.020 would do it. How many hours a day do I work in comics? Um, maybe an average of one or two a day,

01:11:09.800 but I work on weekends too. Is this the golden age? It might be, it might be, you know, the

01:11:17.880 coronavirus as horrible as it was and is changed so many things for the better. I think, you know,

01:11:26.700 it just forced us to shake the box and rethink everything. So we may be, yeah. Um,

01:11:34.180 uh, you love how, yeah, you know, the thing, the thing that everybody does, that's an exaggeration,

01:11:46.400 not everybody, but a lot of people do is they pretend that if you're in a group that you agree

01:11:52.640 with everything the group has done. So while it's true that Trump supporters have done X,

01:11:59.080 I didn't do X. So why do I get blamed? Why is it my fault if, if I like a president and somebody else

01:12:09.020 likes a president and somebody else kicks a dog and we both like president Trump, why is that my

01:12:16.480 problem? I'm kind of not that person. I'm a different person. 2024 candidates. Well, the obvious ones

01:12:25.760 will be, um, Pompeo, uh, Matt Gaetz. I think you'll see Tom Cotton, maybe Rubio. Yeah. All the usual

01:12:35.300 stuff. Um, you're going to write another book. I haven't decided yet. I might. Um, uh, yes. All right.

01:12:53.960 So I'm reading your questions and, uh, it's very boring to watch me read your questions. So I think

01:13:00.140 I'm done and I will talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 24, 2020

Episode 1197 Scott Adams： Odds of Rigging an Election and Getting Away With it？ Whiteboard Time!

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript