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 0.99

00:05:17.700 shitty? In fact, I could give you a pretty long list of human beings who are total crap. And unfortunately, 1.00

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 0.95

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 1.00

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 1.00

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. 0.99

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 1.00

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 0.96

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 1.00

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. 0.97

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, 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.98

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 0.96

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 1.00

00:52:16.100 to listen to. If you could, you know, that's a different conversation, but you can't. You can't 0.99

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 0.93

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 0.82

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 0.95

01:06:03.820 was the, was the, was a real thing and believe that the president is a real racist and suggests 0.93

01:06:12.800 drinking bleach. If you could stop that election and you didn't, you are cowards. You're cowards. 0.99

01:06:21.920 Because if you didn't cheat in this election, you've got a lot of explaining to do. 0.99

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? 0.95

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 0.75

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. 1.00

01:09:04.420 Um, somebody said Great Britain is already in the ocean. Okay. Technically, you need to invite 0.74

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. 1.00

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

Summary

Transcript