Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1199 Scott Adams： Come Join Me For Thanksgiving and Catch up on All the Narrative Crackin'

00:00:00.500 Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do.

00:00:07.000 Bum-bum-bum-bum.

00:00:09.060 Hey, everybody.

00:00:11.620 Come on in here.

00:00:13.420 Happy Thanksgiving!

00:00:15.420 What a great day.

00:00:17.720 And to make this the best day of all,

00:00:21.720 what could it be?

00:00:23.120 Oh, yeah, you know.

00:00:24.460 All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankerge,

00:00:26.280 else's die in a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, you fill that thing with

00:00:33.440 a beverage of your choice. And then you can join me for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:00:40.300 the dopamine hit of the day, the Thanksgiving blessing you've been waiting for. It's called

00:00:44.900 a simultaneous sip and watch it happen right now. Go. That is good stuff. Good stuff. Well,

00:00:57.360 are you prepared for your Thanksgiving feast today? I am. You want to see it? You want to

00:01:05.260 see my Thanksgiving feast? I got it right here. Yeah, delicious. Now, I'm what you call an

00:01:22.420 unorganized person. I'm not really good at planning in my social life. In my business career, I plan

00:01:31.660 40 years in advance. Actually, literally, I plan 40 years in advance for a business. But for my

00:01:39.160 personal life, I plan about 10 minutes in advance. So I went to the grocery store yesterday saying to

00:01:48.480 myself, looks like I'm going to be socially distancing on Thanksgiving. I better make sure I have some food

00:01:54.680 in the house. So I drove down to my local supermarket, put my mask on, got out of the car, walked over to

00:02:04.860 my grocery store and saw the line going out the door and down the block. And I said to myself, I think

00:02:13.800 I'm going to eat whatever is already at my house. Because I didn't want to get in that line and get the

00:02:22.040 COVID while I'm getting my food. So it turns out this is the only food I have in the house.

00:02:28.480 So this will be my feast tonight. Oh, you think this is sad? It's not. This is delicious.

00:02:34.960 I put it in the convection oven for eight minutes, slice it out like a surgeon, put a little soy sauce

00:02:42.880 and pepper. Don't forget the pepper. And this is a delicious meal. You don't even have to peel it.

00:02:49.560 Just cut it and then eat his little guts out when it's done.

00:02:54.720 You want to talk about politics? It's a holiday. So we don't have to. But I feel like there's just

00:03:03.780 so much going on that we sort of want to. Right? So let's dig in. So I believe that both Iran and

00:03:12.560 China have congratulated Joe Biden now. Does that scare you? We'll get to the Krakens and the 0.99

00:03:19.640 Pennsylvania hearing and all that stuff. But here's an out of the box thought. Could it be that Joe

00:03:30.020 Biden is actually the perfect president for right now? It's possible. And here's the argument.

00:03:39.460 I've argued many times in the past that there's no such thing as a good president or a bad president.

00:03:47.080 The only thing you have is a president who either fits the challenges as they surprisingly pop up

00:03:54.020 or doesn't. Because one personality could be great for a peacetime. One could be great for a war.

00:04:01.360 One could be great for a pandemic. One could be great for the economy. But you don't really get all

00:04:07.000 of that in one person. So your best case scenario is that the person and the problems match up

00:04:13.540 coincidentally at the same time. Trump was perfect to goose the economy when it was already recovering.

00:04:20.580 Perfect. I thought Obama was actually a good choice for an economy that was teetering on the edge and

00:04:27.600 just needed some confidence. He did make you feel confident. Most people anyway. Not all of you.

00:04:33.240 So here is my thought. Could Iran make any kind of a deal with a President Trump? Think about it.

00:04:45.240 Was that even a possibility? Was there any way that Iran, after being, you know, bitch slapped for years by 0.98

00:04:55.280 Trump? Could Iran be bitch slapped for years and then just say, you know, hey, I got an idea. How about we 0.61

00:05:03.400 negotiate a peace? It's not really possible, is it? But imagine Biden taking over. And we still don't

00:05:12.920 know that that's going to happen. We'll talk about that in a little bit. But imagine if he did.

00:05:17.160 If everybody, if the, if the consensus majority is right, and he takes over. Could Iran do a deal

00:05:26.200 with Biden? Now, is Biden likely to immediately remove all the sanctions? Maybe. Maybe. But I feel as

00:05:37.180 if just sort of keeping them on there a little while would be easy for Biden, because doing nothing is

00:05:43.600 easier than doing something. It would be hard to, it would be hard for Biden to add sanctions. But maybe

00:05:50.460 if he goes into office and they're already on, he can ride it a little while. And maybe, maybe Iran will 0.99

00:05:58.760 say this is our out. Maybe they'll say this whole war thing wasn't working. The supporting terrorism 0.86

00:06:06.120 wasn't working. And we just need an exit ramp. Could Trump ever be that exit ramp? Now, he was the

00:06:14.920 perfect exit ramp for Kim Jong-un. Wouldn't you say? I think Trump is actually the perfect exit ramp for

00:06:23.000 that. I think Trump is the perfect exit ramp for Saudi Arabia to improve relations with Israel. Because the

00:06:32.060 president, you know, he backed Saudi Arabia, even when it was hard. Right? So Trump backed Saudi Arabia,

00:06:40.560 when that was really hard to do. They owe him a favor. They owe him a favor, period. They owe him a favor.

00:06:49.920 And so he would be maybe perfect for that. But it looks like that might happen.

00:06:54.540 So could it be? I'm just trying to find the positivity here. You don't mind, do you?

00:07:01.980 We'll be a little bit positive today. Because it's Thanksgiving. Why not? So one possibility is

00:07:08.960 that President Trump will have started all of the necessary elements toward peace. But it could be,

00:07:16.560 it could be, you need a finisher. Could Biden be the finisher? It's possible. It's not impossible.

00:07:29.500 And if any of you are saying, Scott, don't be such a naive, gullible fool. As long as the,

00:07:36.500 as long as the leadership of Iran is in place, they will only lie to you. They will never make peace. 0.81

00:07:43.000 Maybe. Could be. But they're also in a nearly impossible situation. So that can make you

00:07:49.680 flexible. Who knows? So I'm not going to predict that will happen. But I'll just put it out there as

00:07:55.300 maybe. Anything's possible. Biden sent out a Thanksgiving tweet, reminding us that we are

00:08:04.500 not enemies with each other, we Americans. But we are all enemies with the virus. Sounds good.

00:08:13.000 But you called half the country a racist. Basically. Because the way you handled the whole

00:08:19.940 fine people thing. I'm not over that. And I'm not going to get over that. I'm certainly willing to

00:08:27.720 work with whatever administration is in office. You know, I'm certainly willing to be a, you know,

00:08:34.560 friendly to everybody that I meet in person. But no, I'm not really over that. And I've got a feeling

00:08:42.420 I'm not ever going to be over that. Because there are some lines which when crossed, you can't,

00:08:49.360 you can't go back. That was a one way trip. The whole fine people hoax thing. That was a one way

00:08:57.080 trip. You don't get to come back from that. So you can be president, perhaps. You can even get my

00:09:03.700 support. But Joe Biden, I hate your fucking guts for that. And that's not going to change.

00:09:15.560 Here's another best case scenario. Are you ready? Imagine the things that could have happened that

00:09:23.440 didn't. One thing that could have happened was that Trump won the election narrowly.

00:09:32.820 Riots, right? Riots, you know, four more years of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, ruling the streets. It 0.93

00:09:41.260 could have been bad. Could have been bad. Maybe not. You know, maybe it had died down. But I'm not sure

00:09:47.840 that would have been the best path for the coherence of the country. And really, there's a

00:09:53.500 mental health question. I think the country is suffering from mental health problems. Like

00:09:59.760 literally not joking, not making a political point. Like in an actual mental health way, the COVID stuff

00:10:08.760 is really kicking our brain's ass. And then you add on top of that any division that comes down to

00:10:15.060 politics. And your brain is getting quite a workout here in terms of mental health. So would a second

00:10:22.220 term of Trump, if it had sparked even greater violence and unrest, been the best thing for the

00:10:29.380 country? Maybe. But let's just walk through the other options, okay? The other options were that

00:10:37.100 Biden wins clean. And by clean, I mean, in such a way that even the people who thought there was

00:10:46.460 massive cheating would be willing to say, ah, okay, but there's no such thing as that much cheating.

00:10:52.860 So maybe there was some cheating, but he still won, because he won by 60 million votes,

00:10:58.440 hypothetically. So I don't think that was possible. And we didn't get that, right? So it wasn't possible

00:11:11.340 for Biden to win so cleanly that nobody doubted the process. And if Trump had won narrowly, or even

00:11:19.420 by a lot, I think there would have been riots. So what would have been, if you could have drawn this

00:11:25.240 down on paper, what would have been the best outcome? I'm going to propose that we might be

00:11:33.480 experiencing it. It just doesn't feel like it, right? If I said to you, hey, hey, guys, are you

00:11:41.300 having the best case scenario right now? You would look at me like I'm crazy. It's like, are you kidding?

00:11:48.580 The election process is in question? You know, the process has been a mess? How is this the best

00:11:56.540 case scenario? Well, let me make my case. And it goes like this. Did we avoid the riots in the street?

00:12:06.280 So far? So far? Would you say that your assumption about what kind of unrest there would be immediately

00:12:15.640 after the election? Were you not wrong? Everybody who said there would be massive unrest after the

00:12:23.500 election, I think you'd have to say they were wrong. That didn't happen. So that's good. So, so far,

00:12:32.020 anything that gets us to not rioting in the streets, that's better than it was, right? So let's bank that

00:12:41.140 thought. But let's continue. Suppose what comes out of this is a national understanding that our

00:12:50.400 election system is not, is not secure. Now, whether or not there was massive cheating that changed the

00:12:59.020 outcome, separately but connected to that question, is are our elections secure? Because you always have

00:13:06.340 to worry about the future as well, right? Suppose the only thing that came out of this was that we

00:13:13.120 learned how to fix our elections and make them secure in the future. That would be amazing. That

00:13:20.340 would be a really, really, really good outcome. You could even argue it would be the first time that

00:13:27.240 the United States had a true democracy. Democracy, republic, you know what I'm talking about. Don't be

00:13:34.020 pedantic. All right? We could be heading toward the second American revolution. It just happens with

00:13:43.580 software and with our election process. We might be learning that for the first time ever, we might

00:13:51.040 have the opportunity to let the people pick our politicians. I don't know if that's good, but you do

00:13:58.980 fight revolutions to get that. So people obviously want it. So if that was the only outcome, we move

00:14:07.160 to, let's say, maybe a blockchain system. I would guess that in four years, we'll probably have a

00:14:14.460 parallel system. Here's the way I would do it. I would build a blockchain-based app, and I would run

00:14:21.740 one election with parallel systems. And I would say, for some of you who volunteer, do us a favor.

00:14:28.560 Vote on the app, and then separately vote, you know, the normal way with a ballot or going in person.

00:14:34.840 And we won't count the app votes the first time we do it. We're just going to run parallel systems

00:14:41.140 and see if, you know, we learn anything, see if anything breaks. Then if it works, you fix whatever

00:14:47.960 problems and maybe put it into action. But I would run them parallel and just do it as an experiment.

00:14:54.060 If that's all we got out of this, it would be amazing. Amazing. It might even signal the coming

00:15:03.620 of the golden age. Now suppose that President Trump decides to go George Washington on this.

00:15:13.000 Let's say he pursues the court cases and Rudy makes his case. Now he might not win in court

00:15:20.640 in the sense that the election is reversed and Trump is put in office. I don't think that's

00:15:26.000 going to happen, because I just don't think the courts will look at the facts. I think they'll

00:15:30.800 look at the big picture, you know, what's going to keep civilization together. And so I think that

00:15:37.100 they might go for whatever gives you the most stable situation, as opposed to technically what

00:15:43.840 the law would indicate. So that's what I think. Now suppose the president says, I'm going to take,

00:15:50.460 I'm going to take my opportunity. I'm going to go George Washington. And I'm going to say, you know,

00:15:56.840 according to this process, and according to the voters, I have convinced you, you the voters,

00:16:02.160 you are convinced that the election was stolen. I could fight and get power back. But I'm going

00:16:08.480 to go George Washington. And I'm going to say, let's, let's keep the system intact.

00:16:17.100 It would look kind of a strong play. And then he starts maybe another career as a media news

00:16:23.300 mogul. It's a big success. It's a lot of fun. Could be good. Suppose the Republicans do hold the

00:16:30.900 Senate, which I have a lot of doubts about. Because if the election was rigged at the presidential

00:16:36.360 level, why wouldn't it be rigged at the state level when they do this Senate runoff thing?

00:16:43.180 What would possibly stop them at the local level from rigging it again, if they rigged it the first

00:16:50.740 time? So if you imagine it's true that they rigged it the first time at a national level,

00:16:56.360 which means rigging it at the necessary state levels, why wouldn't they do it again? What

00:17:03.240 possible thing would stop them if it worked? So I don't know that we'll get a Republican Senate,

00:17:10.920 but let's say we do. That means that maybe Biden doesn't overtax me. And maybe we get a little

00:17:19.240 relief from the, you know, the social unrest. Maybe Trump's voice is just as strong, but it's external

00:17:27.720 to government. Could be just as strong. Might not be bad. Stock markets up, right? I feel like we'll

00:17:39.180 survive this one way or the other. All right. I also think that if you're a Republican, the current

00:17:48.020 situation of, let's say Biden takes office and he does a reasonably moderate job without too many

00:17:55.540 super lefty things because the Congress won't let him get away with it, what happens in 2022?

00:18:04.580 We're on a path that almost guarantees Republican control of Congress by 2022.

00:18:10.740 2022. And then what happens in 2024? Well, Biden won't be running, so you don't have an incumbent.

00:18:19.180 And if you don't have an incumbent and the last election looks like it was stolen,

00:18:24.600 I like the Republicans' chances, whoever that is, whether it's Trump or somebody else.

00:18:30.680 So don't assume that bad news has happened. Let's talk about the churches. I guess the Supreme

00:18:37.400 Court backed some church in New York, the local government, Cuomo, wanted the churches to

00:18:47.520 close, I guess. I don't know all the details, but the Supreme Court, five to four, said you are

00:18:54.780 treating the churches unfairly compared to other groups and businesses and organizations, so they

00:19:00.980 reversed it. Now, I'm not, I'm not a believer or religious, so I've been kind of staying out of

00:19:09.460 this topic, but I want to just throw this notion into the mix. What would Jesus do? Let's say Jesus

00:19:20.020 was, you know, came back and, and he just became the pastor of your local church and, you know, you got

00:19:26.740 lucky. So you go to your local church and there's actually Jesus came back to life. What would Jesus

00:19:33.920 do in the pandemic? Okay, don't be a wise guy. I know he would just heal his, heal his people. That's

00:19:41.300 too clever. Yes, he would just go out and he would touch the people who had COVID and heal them. That's

00:19:47.300 not what I'm talking about. What would he do in terms of keeping the church open? Would he,

00:19:52.260 would he say, hey, let's just wait, wait it out and we'll be fine? Or would he say, no, religious,

00:20:01.920 the religious impulse is too important, too important to your souls. And even taking one year off

00:20:10.320 is unacceptable because you have rights, you know, you have a constitutional right, plus, you know,

00:20:18.720 God wants you to worship, right? But what would Jesus do? Literally, literally Jesus, what would

00:20:25.660 he do? Would Jesus say, yeah, some of you are going to die, but it's very important that you worship in

00:20:32.240 the same building at the same time. Does that sound like Jesus? Did that sound like something Jesus would

00:20:39.440 say? Yeah, some of you will die, but it's very important that you don't worship alone for this one

00:20:47.300 year where we have this medical problem. But rather, you should do it in person.

00:20:54.320 I don't feel like he would say that. But again, I'm not religious. And it's, you know, my opinion on

00:21:01.300 this is completely irrelevant. Let me tell you what I would do if I were the church who had won this

00:21:08.640 court case. I would say, we have won our court case. Now we're going to close the church.

00:21:14.000 That's what I'd do. If I were Jesus, I would fight the government trying to close my church

00:21:21.080 because I would say, hey, I think this is unfair. I might fight the case because of the unfairness

00:21:29.360 of it, the way it's being implemented. But once I won, and it was no longer the government's choice

00:21:36.100 whether this church is open or not, and now it's more of a Jesus question, right? What would Jesus do?

00:21:44.000 I feel like Jesus would win the court case because he's Jesus. How does Jesus lose a court case? I think

00:21:51.860 he'd be pretty good defending his side. But I think he might say, let me give you a parable.

00:22:01.700 Suppose your local church had a termite problem, and your pastor said, we're going to miss a week of

00:22:11.600 church because we've got to tent it, and we're going to do a termite eradication thing. So you're

00:22:18.840 just going to lose one week. Can't use the building just one week because it wouldn't be healthy. Would

00:22:25.020 you be okay with that? Or would you take it to the Supreme Court? Why not? I think you'd be okay

00:22:30.820 with it. So it's really sort of a timing thing, right? The reason you'd be okay with the termite

00:22:36.380 tent is that it's not permanent. Things that aren't permanent aren't really problems. That's sort of my

00:22:46.360 philosophy. There's two parts of the philosophy. If you can solve it with money, I've taken this from

00:22:52.880 my friend Jason. If you can solve a problem with money, it's not that big a problem because there's

00:22:59.060 usually a way to find money. You know, there are ways to make money. Somebody says, come on, man.

00:23:08.940 Somebody says, Jesus defeated death. You're wrong, Scott. I don't know what that means. Souls are more

00:23:15.660 important than virus. Would your soul be damaged if your church is tented for termites? Would your soul

00:23:26.020 be damaged? Or would you just say, I think I'll pray at home today and hit the church next week when

00:23:31.780 it's safe? I don't know. So again, nothing about my opinion on this should be important. I'm not part of

00:23:39.800 the question, but there you go. Let's talk about the Flynn pardon. Everybody saw that coming. I think

00:23:46.200 you all expected that, right? You all expected Flynn to get pardoned. I did. And here's the funny part.

00:23:55.140 I was listening to MSNBC and flipping back and forth to Fox, and it is really shocking. I don't know how

00:24:04.240 many times, you know, you've had the experience yourself. So it's, this is not a new thought,

00:24:08.900 but listening to MSNBC talk about the same news you're watching on another network is, is a really

00:24:15.940 freaky experiment experience. According to them, a case in which the prosecutor himself wants to drop

00:24:25.020 the charges. They're, they think they act like they're watching a murder that this, uh, this pardon was so

00:24:33.560 over the line that the president has now destroyed all our norms. And, and what did I tell you that

00:24:42.620 the prosecutor himself doesn't want to prosecute the case because there's not enough of a case there?

00:24:48.420 The prosecutor wants to drop the, the, the charges. If the prosecutor wants to drop the charges,

00:24:58.060 that's not really watching a murder happen. That's more like nothing happening here, right? So it's

00:25:07.420 really freaky watching the MSNBC people think that they're, it's just the worst problem in the world.

00:25:12.260 Um, so what about Snowden? So Snowden's name came up. I think the president said he doesn't

00:25:23.520 know a whole bunch about the case, but he will be looking into it. So he, he was neither a yes nor

00:25:29.020 a no on that. I feel as though every time the president noodles about a pardon, it ends up

00:25:36.420 happening. Is there any exception to that? Have we seen yet any case where the president has talked

00:25:44.020 in public? Well, you know, I'm thinking about that, or I'm looking into it where it didn't happen.

00:25:50.040 Because I feel as if he wouldn't say that unless he knew he was going to do it, right? I mean, he could

00:25:57.500 always change his mind. But I've got a feeling his preliminary thinking, and here I'm doing a little

00:26:03.340 mind reading, so don't take this too seriously. I feel as if he doesn't bring it up unless he's favorably

00:26:11.780 disposed already. I feel that way. Now, of course, he was responding to a question, but if he were not

00:26:18.680 favorably disposed, I feel he would have said, well, that's a tough one. You know, I, that's, that was a

00:26:26.100 very serious crime. You know, I, I think that would be a tough pardon. I think if he said that, then I'd

00:26:33.900 expect maybe it wouldn't happen. But if he just says, well, I haven't looked into it, that feels like

00:26:39.980 he's already decided. But we'll see. Apparently, Barr is violently opposed to it, and a lot of

00:26:47.600 well-meaning patriotic people are also opposed to it. I'm not also real steeped in the details. I

00:26:55.780 understand that the accusation is that he hurt our national security and may have even gotten people

00:27:01.800 killed. That's, that's the, that's the allegation, right? But here's my take on this. So I just watched

00:27:10.860 an interview with him, a fresh interview, in which Snowden was saying that his only condition for

00:27:15.860 returning to the U.S., and I guess this has been consistent from the start, is that he wants a

00:27:21.540 guarantee that he can tell his story at trial. Did you know that's all he's asking for? That Snowden

00:27:29.640 would come back and go to trial? He's not saying, I need a pardon to return. He's not even asking for

00:27:38.400 that. Apparently not once. He's asked for a fair trial in which he gets to tell his story, and

00:27:48.080 apparently that's not guaranteed. Now, I don't know what it means to guarantee it. I suppose you could put

00:27:54.220 that in writing. I don't know what kind of guarantees the Justice Department can make that

00:28:00.200 are legal. But isn't that not asking for much? So here's my take on it. If it's true that the U.S.

00:28:08.700 will not guarantee him a fair trial, meaning he's not even asking for a fair trial. He's only asking to

00:28:16.900 be able to tell his story. If we can't guarantee that he has to be pardoned. He has to be. Because

00:28:27.320 let me put it into a visual argument. Let's say you are very opposed to the Snowden pardon. And let's

00:28:35.860 say you took all of your concerns and you translated them into a physical weight. And let's say it weighed

00:28:41.720 a ton. That's a lot. All right. That's how much you don't want Snowden to be pardoned. One ton.

00:28:50.860 Now let's do the same measurement on this question of how do you deal with somebody who can't get a fair

00:28:57.260 trial? Well, if I were to take the fact that this person, a whistleblower, can't get a guarantee even to

00:29:06.500 tell his story in public at a trial, what weight would you put on that compared to the ton of weight

00:29:15.500 you'd put on Snowden did something bad in your opinion and should not be pardoned? That's a ton.

00:29:22.300 What weight would you put on protecting the court system in the United States? That most minimal

00:29:30.780 guarantee that you can get a free trial. Well, if don't pardon him weighs a ton, my personal subjective

00:29:40.240 thing is that the other thing weighs 100 tons. Because whatever happens to one individual

00:29:47.400 pales in comparison to the integrity of the system. And if we can't guarantee an American citizen, 0.58

00:29:55.760 a whistleblower, specifically, a fair trial, and not even a fair trial, he's not even asking for a fair

00:30:04.100 trial. He's asking just to tell his story. And we can't give him that. That's 100 tons. And it's not even

00:30:12.740 close to a decision about whether he should or should not be pardoned. Under this situation,

00:30:18.820 yeah, he should be pardoned 100%. And I don't care what he did. Tell me he killed somebody. Okay,

00:30:27.360 still should be pardoned. Tell me he hurt American security. Okay, still should be pardoned. Tell me

00:30:33.820 that everybody in the world and the legal system hates him and thinks he should die. I don't care.

00:30:40.280 This reason is way bigger than all of those reasons. They're not even close. All right.

00:30:50.500 There's a question of whether the president could pardon himself or let's say cleverly with stepping

00:30:56.060 down and having Pence pardon him. And the question is, can you pardon somebody before there's a crime?

00:31:02.380 a let? There's a, you know, a trial and a crime. Is it possible and legal to pardon somebody

00:31:09.320 generically? Well, Emily Campeno said on the five that it's not, that's not a thing. You have to have

00:31:19.860 a crime and then you can pardon it. But if you have a, well, there might've been a crime. We might find

00:31:25.520 one later. You can't pardon it because there's nothing to pardon. Thank you. You get

00:31:32.360 ahead of me in the comments. But is that true? Wasn't true for Nixon. Nixon did get a generic

00:31:40.540 pardon. Now there is a question whether that would have withstood a Supreme Court challenge.

00:31:49.240 But it wasn't challenged. And so it stood. Now, if Trump also got a generic pardon, and apparently

00:31:58.000 generic still has to have boundaries. So in the case of Nixon, there was a time-limited

00:32:04.280 pardon, meaning that he couldn't murder somebody tomorrow and get away with it. He's only pardoned for

00:32:11.140 a limited period of time, maybe the presidency, I think. And they could do the same thing with Trump,

00:32:18.980 say, well, this is the period of time we're talking about, maybe including before the presidency,

00:32:22.860 if you want to go that way, and say you could be generically pardoned without any specific crimes.

00:32:28.720 It's just you're pardoned in advance. So I think it's possible. But in the case of Trump,

00:32:34.180 it might go to the Supreme Court. But he's got the Supreme Court kind of leaning his way at the moment.

00:32:40.440 So I'm going to say that it is possible, but not guaranteed. Meaning the pardon could work,

00:32:47.520 but it could get overturned. All right, let's talk about Sidney Powell, who has filed two big lawsuits

00:32:55.080 late last night. And people are poring over the many, many pages of it, the lawsuit. But one of

00:33:04.180 the things that stands out is in one of the titles, there are some really obvious misspellings.

00:33:10.060 And people are saying, uh, what's going on here? Because that's the one thing you don't expect your

00:33:18.100 high-end lawyers to do wrong. Misspell things in the title. Like, I think there were two words with

00:33:24.980 look like typos, not misspellings. And so a lot of people are saying, uh, what's going on? Now, if I had

00:33:32.360 to guess, they were in a hurry. Something got, I don't know, maybe there was some OCR thing has been

00:33:39.400 suggested. Might've been an OCR problem where then nobody reread it. And so it could have been

00:33:45.460 just, they ran out of time and, uh, didn't do as complete a job as they would normally trying to

00:33:51.040 meet a deadline. Uh, so I don't think that's important in any way, but everybody's talking about

00:33:58.360 it. Um, I don't have an opinion about how strong that evidence is, but let's talk about Rudy's, uh,

00:34:06.800 and Jenna Ellis and et cetera, were at the Pennsylvania hearing yesterday. How many of

00:34:12.400 you watched any part of that hearing? It was hard to find. The networks were not covering it

00:34:17.640 and it was long. Here's my take on it. Uh, the, the basic setup is that Republicans in Pennsylvania

00:34:25.960 held a hearing. Rudy Giuliani and other attorneys, uh, gave their evidence of what they have seen,

00:34:32.580 but here is the brilliant part about it. So I give Rudy and a plus and, and his, his team. I give

00:34:43.340 them an a plus for that hearing. Here's why it wasn't a court of law and therefore obviously nothing

00:34:51.320 binding is going to happen there. But if you're watching it on television, it looks pretty official,

00:34:58.360 doesn't it? Now it was the opposite of any kind of a, uh, uh, let's say a process you could trust

00:35:06.300 because it was all just Republicans showing one side of the story. There were, there were nobody

00:35:12.440 on the other side. No Democrats were arguing the points. No, no lawyers were challenging. It was just

00:35:18.880 Republicans talking to Republicans and making their case. But if you turned it on and you're just a,

00:35:25.620 uh, low information voter and you happened to see it, it kind of looked pretty official looking.

00:35:32.020 And all you heard was all this evidence, uh, from Rudy of allegations of fraud. Lots of them.

00:35:39.840 Apparently there are hundreds of affidavits. Lots of the observations and the affidavits are backed up

00:35:45.800 by multiple witnesses. So it's not even like one person saw a UFO. It's like one person says they saw a

00:35:52.320 UFO and there are 75 people who say the same thing, right? So that just changes your, your perceived

00:35:59.160 credibility because you got lots of witnesses. It's not just one person. So, uh, in terms of the PR

00:36:08.420 battle, which is a big part of this, you have to convince the public before you could have any chance

00:36:14.080 of getting legislators to do something outside of the, the normal process, meaning to decertify

00:36:21.080 or to overturn the result or to have the house pick the president. So if you imagine that, uh,

00:36:27.900 what Rudy was doing is it was providing court like a proof. Well, that didn't happen. He did not

00:36:36.300 present anything that if you were in court, you would say, Oh yeah, I saw a proof because he showed

00:36:42.520 it to us. No, that didn't happen. We're still into allegations and evidence and affidavits. You know,

00:36:48.720 we're, we're, we're moving toward, toward that, but we're not there. And I thought the whole thing

00:36:54.380 was brilliantly planned and executed because it was like a mock trial with only one point of view

00:37:01.100 presented, which is as good as you can get in, uh, engineering a political theater. Now the people

00:37:10.320 who criticized it said, ah, that was just political theater. It was, it was political theater

00:37:17.540 by design and it was really, really good. So calling something political theater isn't really

00:37:25.000 an insult if what you designed was political theater and you designed your political theater

00:37:32.860 to change public opinion and, and, you know, in a related way, change political, uh, you know,

00:37:40.260 people who had been elected changed their opinions too. It really worked. I'm going to tell you that

00:37:48.300 you could not have watched that as an objective citizen and walked away from that thinking there

00:37:54.940 was no massive fraud. You, if you saw that it wasn't proof and, and what I saw at least in there

00:38:02.700 wouldn't hold up in court, but man, it was persuasive. It was really persuasive. Now,

00:38:08.560 will that translate to court? Unknown. We will find out. Here was one of Rudy's best arguments

00:38:16.240 that really, really threw me because I didn't see this one coming and maybe, maybe you did.

00:38:23.560 You're smarter than me. And it goes like this. We know that the courts don't like to disenfranchise

00:38:29.300 voters. So one of the claims is that there were, I don't know, 600, 700,000 votes that were counted

00:38:35.900 without witnesses being allowed to monitor it. Now, normally, let's say you took that to the court and

00:38:43.380 said there were hundreds of thousands of votes which were not monitored, but we don't have proof

00:38:49.720 that they're fake. It just wasn't monitored in the way we wish it had been monitored. That's all we know

00:38:56.780 for sure. Would the court then throw out those votes? No, probably not. Because the court would

00:39:04.660 say, yeah, technically, you made your case. You know, they're supposed to be watched. They were not

00:39:09.700 watched. Technically, that's a violation. But it's better to keep the system stable. It's better not

00:39:16.460 to disenfranchise those people who thought they were voting. What about all the people who voted?

00:39:22.220 Don't they have rights to have their vote counted? How do you throw away a citizen's vote? So you can

00:39:27.860 imagine that the court would just say, yeah, you made your case, and we're still going to rule against

00:39:32.540 you because it's just better for the world. And then Rudy adds this little part, which is really good.

00:39:41.700 If you don't punish them, they'll do it again. And I thought to myself, that's a pretty good

00:39:49.380 argument. Because if your concern as the court is the well-being of, you know, the whole, so you're not

00:39:57.020 going to obsess about the technical infraction if you want to keep the whole healthy, doesn't it keep

00:40:04.020 the whole healthiest if you punish anybody who tries to cheat in a way that could be corrupted? We don't

00:40:11.920 know that the non-observed votes were corrupt. We just know that if next time they don't have to

00:40:19.280 worry about observers, it's going to be corrupt, right? So Rudy makes the point that if you don't

00:40:26.940 reverse the actual outcome of the election and put Trump in office, you will have rewarded

00:40:33.560 cheaters in a way that guarantees we'll never have another fair election. That's a really strong

00:40:41.500 argument. I don't know if that argument will win, but don't you feel that's pretty darn strong? I had not

00:40:49.960 really thought of the deterrent argument. I'd been obsessed on the, well, I think the court's going to go for

00:40:55.960 whatever keeps the stability, even if it means allowing a little bit of fraud. That's a strong

00:41:02.680 argument. All right. We watched the whole country learning because of that Pennsylvania hearing

00:41:10.240 that apparently you can bully and chase away Republican observers with no penalty. That's what

00:41:18.420 we all learned. And if we haven't learned it by watching that, you'll probably learn it pretty soon.

00:41:22.840 So what happens when the entire country learns that Democrats can bully Republicans out of the

00:41:28.720 room where they count the votes? Because if the election is not reversed, if it's not actually

00:41:36.940 reversed, you just taught the country to cheat in the next election. Guaranteed. No way around it.

00:41:45.460 Guaranteed. The next election is garbage if you don't reverse the result of this one.

00:41:50.480 Strong argument. Strong argument. It's a strong argument. I didn't see it coming, really.

00:41:59.800 So here's how the mainstream narrative is starting to crack. I'd say it's, I'd say the narrative is,

00:42:08.180 dare I say, cracking. And you can see it in the language and the choice of words. Let me run you

00:42:14.760 through this. Do you remember immediately after the election, uh, the most common phrase you would

00:42:20.460 hear is there is no evidence of fraud, no evidence of fraud. And then lots of affidavits, you know,

00:42:30.300 were surfaced. And now it went from there's no evidence of fraud to there's no proof of fraud

00:42:38.220 fraud. Because evidence doesn't turn into proof until it's presented in court and judged to be true.

00:42:46.960 But did that happen? Well, I don't know that again, once you get to the legal stuff, I get a little bit

00:42:54.940 lost in that. But my understanding is that the court cases that have been lost so far never judged the

00:43:03.880 facts of, of the allegation. Can somebody fact check me on that? That the lawsuits so far have been

00:43:12.760 dismissed for a variety of technical reasons and standing and, uh, uh, technical stuff. But when the

00:43:23.100 Democrats say that nothing has been proven in court, and indeed also as a separate point,

00:43:31.700 uh, the Trump people or Trump, uh, leaning people have lost, I don't know, 26 out of 27 cases,

00:43:38.780 you, your mind connects those, right? Hasn't been proven in court and they've lost 26 out of 27 cases.

00:43:47.860 Doesn't your mind automatically say, well, that that's got to be the same thing. The reason that

00:43:53.640 they lost all the cases logically, duh, is because they couldn't prove the facts.

00:44:00.160 Doesn't your brain do that automatically? Apparently nothing like that happened. Apparently

00:44:06.000 they never have looked at the facts and therefore there was never ever any opportunity for them to

00:44:11.600 say they were true or false. So, but the, the narrative gets to use language cleverly to make

00:44:20.360 you think that that's why the case is lost, a lack of proof. Apparently that's not the case.

00:44:27.120 Um, so then it became baseless claims. They changed no proof into baseless. Is no proof in court the same

00:44:39.960 as baseless? No, those words don't mean the same thing, but the narrative wants you to nudge you from

00:44:48.880 no proof when in fact there has been no process to decide if proof exists or not. We're, we're too early

00:44:57.200 for that. Um, that, that, that turns into baseless, which of course makes you think that no proof could

00:45:06.480 come, which is different. Uh, then of course they inject the word widespread. Uh, they all tried this

00:45:13.760 track, right? There's no widespread fraud. It's not widespread. And of course the claim was never

00:45:21.280 widespread. The claim was always focused in these key cities. So, but now there's so much evidence from

00:45:30.460 Rudy that even if you imagine that each of the individual pieces of allegations, uh, even if they

00:45:39.460 don't add up to something, it still looks kind of widespread, doesn't it? Even if you just say it's

00:45:45.660 in those swing state cities, Rudy has so many examples in different ways, different techniques,

00:45:53.640 that it's kind of widespread now. I didn't see that coming because I think of widespread in terms of

00:46:00.480 geography, but if you think of it in terms of these targeted cities, it's widespread in terms of

00:46:07.700 thoroughly infiltrating those places. That's pretty widespread. And so that's now changed to, and this

00:46:18.500 is how Twitter put it in one of their headline bullets where they summarize a hashtag. They use

00:46:26.340 this sentence, judges have found no evidence of fraud. Judges have found no evidence of fraud. So now

00:46:35.920 you're back to the trick of, of thinking, well, they must've looked at the evidence and then they found

00:46:43.160 there was no fraud. But apparently that didn't happen. There was no process by which anybody looked

00:46:51.280 at any evidence. So if you haven't done the process, let me give you an example. I'll use my

00:46:59.040 tenting your house for termites example. Tenting doesn't work because my house still has termites.

00:47:08.400 And then the, the termite eradicator guy says, oh, well, we haven't put the tent on your house yet.

00:47:16.120 You understand that there are termites in your house until you put the termite tent on and then

00:47:24.580 you fumigate. And then if we do it right, it's only afterwards that your house could have no termites.

00:47:32.580 You understand that, right? That we're now with termites. Then in the future, there's the tenting.

00:47:39.500 And then possibly if you do it right, you get to a no termite situation. And then I say,

00:47:45.640 nice try. My house is full of termites. Okay. What are you not understanding about the fact that the

00:47:53.500 process hasn't even begun? And I say, look, my house has probably had termites for what, six months?

00:48:02.240 At least maybe a year. Are you telling me that in six months to a year, your company can't put up a

00:48:09.800 tent and get rid of the termites in my house? And the termite goes, guy goes, I don't know what's

00:48:15.360 happening here. You only called me yesterday. How could I have put up a tent six months ago when I

00:48:24.620 didn't even know you existed? You called me yesterday. And I'll say, nice try. But my house

00:48:35.120 is full of termites, you grifter. What's happening? The tenting is tomorrow. It hasn't already happened.

00:48:43.960 What's happening? And I say, yeah, six months and you couldn't put up a tent on my house. Pathetic.

00:48:53.840 All right. So that's happening.

00:49:02.480 I would say that Rudy destroyed three narratives from the other team yesterday. Now, when I say he

00:49:10.960 destroyed their narratives, what I'm not saying is proved his case. All right. So can we be all smart

00:49:18.980 enough to know that when I'm saying he destroyed several narratives, that's not in any way saying

00:49:26.280 he proved his case. All he did was subtract a few attacks against him. That's all. That's all. But he

00:49:33.400 did it really well. Okay. Really well. Here are the three things that you might have believed a few

00:49:40.540 weeks ago. But now maybe you don't. Number one, the claim that there were not enough fraud charges

00:49:48.140 that even if they were fraud and even if it were proven, it could change the outcome of the race.

00:49:55.020 That's now destroyed. Because Rudy has given us the numbers. And we don't know if the case will go his

00:50:01.780 way. But the numbers are absolutely, unambiguously, allegedly, and that's all we're dealing with is

00:50:09.940 the allegation. Big enough. So can we stop saying forever that if Rudy prevails in his case, it would not

00:50:19.920 change the election? Because clearly it would. He has now made the case that it's big enough. Doesn't mean he

00:50:26.500 wins, but it's big enough. Okay. So can we get rid of that narrative forever? Probably not, but we should.

00:50:34.660 Number two, a lot of smart people told me that there's no real opportunity for anybody to cheat

00:50:45.400 on a scale big enough that it could change the election. Well, if you listen to that three-hour

00:50:52.200 hearing, you heard nothing but opportunity for cheating. Apparently, it's not only possible to

00:50:59.480 cheat in an election, but the number of ways to do it are so many that you don't have enough time to

00:51:05.700 hear them all. Now, did Rudy make the case that there were so many allegations that at the very least,

00:51:14.760 it was possible? Meaning that even if each of these individual allegations, you know, we found out

00:51:22.600 nobody used those loopholes, nobody used those opportunities, he still proved the opportunities

00:51:30.380 were there. For example, he might be able to prove that observers were kept out of the room with the ballots.

00:51:38.600 Probably very provable with witnesses, etc. If he proves that people were kept out of that room, it doesn't

00:51:45.120 mean there was fraud inside the room. It just means, you know, he's proven that. I think I had some other

00:51:50.960 point, but I already forgot it. Oh, the point is that he would have proven there was opportunity to

00:51:57.820 cheat behind that closed door. But he would not have proven that the cheating actually happened,

00:52:03.640 hypothetically. So the argument that there wasn't an opportunity, I think he slayed. There is nothing

00:52:11.540 left of that argument. And that is why I say this might be one of the best things that's ever happened

00:52:16.940 to the country. Because I think Rudy will, at the very least, be the agent that causes our election

00:52:24.040 system to be improved and hardened. If that's all that comes out of it, it would be great.

00:52:29.960 Number three, the thought that if there was so much cheating, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott,

00:52:38.960 if there was that much cheating, there would be witnesses. You know, because you would need

00:52:46.060 probably multiple people to be in on it. You're going to have lots of witnesses. So where are all

00:52:54.420 your witnesses, Scott? Well, I think that question has been asked and answered. Turns out there are

00:53:01.600 hundreds of them. And there are only hundreds of them. Because if you had, you know, another thousand

00:53:08.440 of them, they would be saying the same observations. In other words, there were multiple witnesses to

00:53:13.680 each alleged fraud or imperfection. And so now you can never say that again, if you're being honest,

00:53:22.480 you can never say that if there was that much cheating, you'd have tons of witnesses,

00:53:29.380 witnesses. Because there are tons of witnesses. That's now a fact. I think. I mean, he says he

00:53:36.840 has these sworn statements. If he doesn't show them to us, I'd be pretty disappointed. But we assume

00:53:43.940 that that's probably not something he's lying about, right? That they exist. So that doesn't mean

00:53:51.040 he's proven his case. But I don't want to hear anybody say the allegations are not large enough to

00:53:56.560 change the result. I don't want anybody to say there's no opportunity to cheat in our elections.

00:54:03.220 There are tons of them. And I don't want to hear anybody say that there are no witnesses. And of

00:54:08.480 course, if there was that much cheating, there'd be witnesses. There are tons of them. All right.

00:54:12.980 Here's how CNN confused me about the Pennsylvania situation. I'm going to read their exact statement

00:54:19.500 and see if you can figure out what the hell this means. All right. On Wednesday, the Commonwealth

00:54:25.420 Court of Pennsylvania issued a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking further

00:54:32.140 action in certifying the 2020 election pending hearing on mail-in ballots scheduled Friday. All right.

00:54:39.980 So that sentence I interpret as the court's ordered a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials

00:54:49.400 from taking actions to certify the election. So I think this told me that it's not certified

00:54:57.820 because the court prevented them from taking further actions to certify. Okay. So the first part of this

00:55:05.880 says it's not certified yet, and they're pausing it. And then the second part of the same paragraph says

00:55:11.760 Pennsylvania state officials filed an appeal, blah, blah, blah, and said that the injunction will not impact

00:55:17.900 the certification process. But wasn't it already certified? So I'm a little bit, I'm completely confused

00:55:30.340 about the certifying situation. So I don't know if Pennsylvania is in play or not. We'll see. So Twitter suspended

00:55:39.640 Pennsylvania Senator and Colonel Doug Mastriano, because he was leading the Pennsylvania Senate hearings. I don't know

00:55:49.360 what he tweeted, but he got suspended for, I don't know, 12 hours or something. He's back now. And I would just add this to

00:55:58.160 that story. If Twitter suspends you, they owe you a reason, don't you think? Don't you think they owe you a

00:56:07.380 reason? Because you would like to know. I mean, it's not a law. There's no constitutional right that Twitter

00:56:13.880 will tell you why they're suspending you. But it seems good form. You know, they should say, oh, you

00:56:19.300 promoted violence or you said something that wasn't true too many times. Something like that. But on top of

00:56:28.600 that, if an elected official gets suspended from Twitter, Twitter's obligation, again, not legal, not

00:56:37.000 constitutional obligation, but I think an obligation of, I don't know, members of society. Let's say a social

00:56:46.740 obligation, a civilization obligation. If a senator gets suspended for something he said on Twitter,

00:56:54.800 Twitter needs to explain that to us, right? That's not just between Twitter and that one senator or

00:57:02.820 other elected official. It's not just between them. Like, we're part of this fight, right? Like,

00:57:10.260 if you suspend somebody I voted for, you're fucking with me. Right? You owe me an explanation.

00:57:18.660 I didn't see one. So this would be my recommendation to Jack and to Twitter, is that, you know, I don't

00:57:26.480 think that there are no reasons to suspend people. And I feel that they're experimenting their way to

00:57:33.420 maybe a better situation. So as long as they're A-B testing, I'm not going to be too hard on Twitter.

00:57:38.320 They're testing stuff. They're seeing what the response is. They're seeing what works. So some of that's

00:57:43.820 fine. But you need to explain to the public, if you're banning somebody we voted for, that's on us,

00:57:51.060 right? That's personal. I'm not even a, you know, I'm not even a citizen of Pennsylvania, right? I didn't vote

00:57:59.260 for this senator. But it's still personal. Because this is a senator that, you know, one of my country's

00:58:07.200 states elected, they elected him to speak for them. And Twitter decided that he couldn't.

00:58:15.480 Why does Twitter decide that a legally elected senator, at least in this one limited way, can't

00:58:21.860 speak for us? Can't speak for the people? All right. Enough on that. The Daily Wire and Hank Berrien did a

00:58:30.080 story about, apparently there was a study to find out how much Biden supporters know about the news.

00:58:37.040 It went just about the way you think it would go. It turns out that a survey of 1,750 Biden supporters

00:58:45.480 in seven swing states, so they're looking at the swing states, that's what mattered, found that the

00:58:51.820 news media's suppression of stories, now that part is opinion. You know, I know you agree with the

00:58:57.960 opinion, as do I, but that's opinion, have hurt former Vice President Joe Biden's electoral chances.

00:59:04.460 So they go on to talk about the stories that Democrats didn't hear. I'm not talking about

00:59:11.020 they disagree with the stories. They didn't hear them. Complete blackout. All right. So listen to this.

00:59:18.860 82% of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of the following issues. The Tara Reid sexual assault

00:59:28.960 allegations, 35% were unaware. So think about that. 35% of the people who voted for Biden probably

00:59:38.240 thought they didn't want to support the guy who was an accused sexual molester, so they voted for

00:59:43.720 Biden instead. About 35% of them had never heard that he's an accused rapist. I feel sorry for the

00:59:53.440 Democrats. And 8.9% said they would have voted for Trump if they had known about that. These numbers

01:00:02.780 are so big, they would completely change the election if the news and social media had allowed people to

01:00:09.640 know about these stories. The Hunter Biden scandal. 45% of voters, Biden voters, were unaware. 45%

01:00:21.040 of Biden voters had never heard the Hunter Biden scandal. That is so bad, it's just funny.

01:00:30.620 Uh, I really feel sorry for these people. And 9.4% said they would have switched their vote.

01:00:39.740 All right. Uh, 25% didn't know Kamala Harris is really, really left. Come on. How do you not know

01:00:47.760 that? Now, some of it is just people don't watch the news, but these are probably a lot of them are

01:00:53.840 people who did watch the news and still didn't know the news. Um, let's see. Uh, the, how many

01:01:02.000 knew there was a huge jump in economic growth? So how many people knew that we're coming out of the

01:01:08.940 pandemic, at least the economic part, uh, really strongly? 49% of Democrats didn't know about that.

01:01:17.560 They didn't know. How do you not know about the economy? I mean, how do you not pay attention to

01:01:23.780 that? And 5.6% said they would have changed their vote if maybe if they knew about that. How about the

01:01:30.740 historic peace agreements with Israel and their Arab neighbors? Now you can't miss that, right? It's

01:01:37.180 like, it's like what probably one of the biggest stories of the year is that the Middle East is

01:01:42.680 finding peace and that Trump is a big part of that with Jared Kushner. And how many people

01:01:49.500 in the Democrats, uh, how many do you think hadn't heard about that? Uh, let's see. Uh, let's see. I've

01:01:59.080 lost that number. Uh, it's a big number. All right. So they hadn't heard that, uh, oh, 43%, almost 44%

01:02:11.120 had never heard about any of the Middle East peace deals. 44%. Oh my God. Poor Democrats.

01:02:21.020 How about a number of Democrats who are aware the president was behind operation warp speed

01:02:27.380 and that it's a huge success. How many didn't know that who voted for Biden? 36%.

01:02:33.940 36%. All right. Now, uh, of course, some of these people might not have necessarily voted for Trump,

01:02:44.920 but they might've not voted. You know, if you could have gotten 6% of them to not vote,

01:02:50.340 that would have been a pretty big deal. Now here's, here's the, the kick around this

01:02:54.900 because we're spending all our attention talking about fraud or no fraud,

01:03:00.080 the social media and the news is getting a pass. There's nothing like the will of the people or

01:03:07.560 democracy that happened. So this vote wasn't even close to a democratic process within, within the

01:03:16.140 context of a republic. What, not even close. The only thing that happened, and you can see it really

01:03:22.200 clearly in this survey, what happened is the public was brainwashed by social media and the news.

01:03:28.400 That's it. Every other part of the story is way less important. Is, is the fraud important? Well,

01:03:38.420 it's important for fixing the elections in the future perhaps, but even the fraud is smaller

01:03:46.060 than what the social media and, and the fake news did for the past year. Way, way smaller.

01:03:51.860 So because the fraud is the, the fun glowing object and it's the thing we're watching and

01:03:58.300 we're sort of bored about talking about media bias, they got a total pass. The, for all practical

01:04:06.060 purposes, this was the year we formed a Chinese form of government. You know, the Chinese form of

01:04:12.380 government is you've got your Supreme Leader, your President Xi, but really he has to be backed by

01:04:18.680 the Communist Party top officials. If President Xi lost the support, hypothetically, of all of the top

01:04:26.600 officials in the Communist Party, he probably would lose power. So the president, even though he's sort

01:04:33.620 of dictator-like, he's not really because he kind of has to have that lower level agreeing with him.

01:04:39.920 Similar to Iran. Iran has a process where there's the Supreme Leader, but he's a Supreme Leader, but he

01:04:52.420 needs his, you know, religious council to support him or he probably couldn't stay in power. What we

01:04:58.620 have just created accidentally is a process by which the social media CEOs, given that they control what

01:05:07.980 happens in their companies, that they have become effectively like the Communist Party of China.

01:05:14.240 Now, this is an analogy, all right? So don't get too hung up in, hey, they're not exact. There's a

01:05:21.040 slight difference. They're not exact, right? I'm just making the point that our government is now

01:05:28.080 clearly, I mean, this survey shows it as clearly as possible, that the decision of who is president has

01:05:35.260 been taken out of the hands of the public. That statement is very strong. Let me say it again.

01:05:41.540 The social media companies and the heads of the big networks have taken out of the hands of the

01:05:47.620 public the decision of who their government will be. That happened. There's no story that's bigger than

01:05:55.460 that. Do you know why that's not a story? Because we're a communist country now.

01:06:01.260 And the Communist Party, you know, and again, I'm taking the analogy too far. But the heads of the

01:06:09.440 social media platforms and the heads of the news networks, they get to decide who's president.

01:06:16.880 If you don't think that's true, well, I got a survey to show you, because it was just shown pretty

01:06:22.480 conclusively. If the news can simply disappear stories, and you can see that very clearly they did,

01:06:28.980 they get to decide who's president. It's not you. It's not you at all. You're not even a little bit

01:06:35.000 involved in picking the president. Not even, you are simply being assigned an opinion. And then like a

01:06:42.740 good little hypnotized zombie, you go, I have my opinion. I'm using my good judgment, my free will.

01:06:50.800 I will go vote now, according to my smart thinking and free will. And none of that happened.

01:06:58.900 The public is assigned their opinions. And then that's it. That's the process. You wait for the

01:07:06.180 oligarchs to tell you what your opinion will be. They assign it. It doesn't affect everybody.

01:07:12.400 Granted, maybe you are invulnerable. Maybe their brainwashing doesn't work on you.

01:07:20.460 But it works enough on enough people that your vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it works on you.

01:07:29.040 So people still believe that they look at the information and form relevant opinions.

01:07:36.060 That is one of the big reality bending things that you're going to learn. That you don't look at data

01:07:46.580 and form opinions. It doesn't happen. It is purely an illusion. You look at the data that the oligarchs

01:07:55.320 show you, and you don't see anything else. And then you form the opinion that they wanted you to form,

01:08:02.100 which they created by deciding what information you see. You are not part of the decision-making

01:08:08.240 process, even for your own brain. That has now gone. Again, there are exceptions, right? They don't

01:08:17.080 necessarily brainwash every person the same way and just as effectively. But that's what's happening.

01:08:22.720 That's the world you live in now. There's another study that showed that the tone of the COVID-related

01:08:31.160 news articles. In the United States, 91% of them were negative. Now, you say to yourself,

01:08:37.980 doesn't that make sense? It's a pandemic. Shouldn't 91% of the coverage, if not 100%,

01:08:46.520 be leaning a little negative? We're sort of in the middle of a pandemic. Except that if you look at how

01:08:53.560 media outside the United States treats it, 54% give it a negative coverage. So I suppose you could

01:09:03.160 argue that maybe we got hit worse in the United States. Maybe that's part of it. But it feels as

01:09:08.740 though that was a Trump-related problem a little bit, right? That our oligarchs decided that COVID was

01:09:16.860 going to be the story and it was bad for Trump. And there you have it. All right. But part of that study

01:09:26.720 said that it didn't matter if things were trending worse or better with the pandemic. It didn't affect

01:09:33.080 the coverage being 91% negative. So the allegation in this study was that the news creates a narrative

01:09:45.420 that is invulnerable to any change in facts. Chad says, you're wrong, Scotty. I'm going to take that as

01:09:56.860 as parody. All right. How did you enjoy today's special Thanksgiving episode of Coffee with Scott Adams?

01:10:10.220 I feel like I was angrier than I wanted to be. Have I ever spoken with Martin Gettys? I have not. Not even

01:10:19.920 sure who that is. Release your mind and you release the Kraken, somebody says.

01:10:32.980 Thanks for doing a Thanksgiving episode. You know, somebody asked me if I was going to do this on

01:10:37.900 Thanksgiving. To which I say two things. Number one, if you sleep in on weekends and holidays,

01:10:46.720 you're probably not doing yourself a favor. It's a good habit to get into that you keep your sleep

01:10:52.660 schedule similar no matter what's going on, because sleep is pretty important. Even though I hate sleep

01:10:58.440 and try to get as little as possible, I do try to keep the same, you know, approximate schedule. So I'm

01:11:04.540 always going to get up early no matter what. I enjoy it. And then the second thing is,

01:11:11.900 why wouldn't I come here? I enjoy it. I enjoy it. So on a holiday, I want to do things I enjoy.

01:11:21.280 Somebody asked me about the Great Reset, which I still call bullshit.

01:11:26.380 It's on. I believe the Great Reset is all about people confusing the words. It feels like word

01:11:34.880 thinking, because there's this idea that there's, you know, the global elites want to cause this Great

01:11:41.140 Reset to consolidate power, and it's all part of a grand scheme, which I don't believe any of.

01:11:46.980 And then there's Justin Trudeau, who used the phrase, you know, we have a reset because of the

01:11:53.080 pandemic, a completely different use of the word in a whole different context. But because people are

01:12:00.860 people, they said, hey, you use that word reset in a completely different context. Therefore,

01:12:07.380 this completely other different story that uses the word reset must be true.

01:12:12.560 No. The only thing that's uncommon is that word. Now, is it true that there will be a reset? Of

01:12:21.700 course. The pandemic makes us rethink everything, have to change how we're doing. Of course, it's a

01:12:27.800 reset. How could it be anything else? Of course. But it's not that, you know, weird conspiracy thing

01:12:35.680 where the elites are having a meeting in Davos or whatever the hell George Soros is behind. It's none of

01:12:40.960 that. Or at least there's no evidence of it that I have seen. Let me be clear and not say what my

01:12:49.840 critics say. I'll just say that I am not personally aware of any evidence that would make me think that

01:12:58.440 the Great Reset is anything but ridiculous cue talk. Doesn't mean it's not true. Just means I'm not

01:13:06.920 personally aware of any evidence. Am I aware of Vox Day? I'm aware there is somebody with that name.

01:13:15.520 That's about what I'm aware of. Yes, Justin Trudeau said, great reset. But words can be used in

01:13:26.260 different contexts. And that was a different context. That's all it was. If you think that you

01:13:32.380 discovered a secret world plot because Justin Trudeau said it directly on television, you really

01:13:40.720 need to check your thinking. Because if it was really this great, clever secret plot, I'm pretty

01:13:47.260 sure Justin Trudeau would not have revealed it in his speech. How do we get rid of propaganda and back

01:13:55.620 to truth? I would argue that we've never been at truth. We just didn't know it. So when I talked

01:14:01.600 about Trump changing the nature of reality, what people thought they are seeing is that he changed

01:14:09.400 the reality. Now, he did change the reality. But on top of that, he also changed how we see the reality

01:14:18.680 that was already there. Before Trump, you probably thought your elections were pretty secure. You probably

01:14:24.980 thought your social media was a little biased, but how big a deal is that? Maybe you thought that your

01:14:29.580 news was real. Trump taught you that your observation of reality is deeply subjective, and you're probably

01:14:38.940 getting brainwashed. That wasn't new. It was only new to you. It wasn't something that I didn't know.

01:14:50.020 And in 2015, when I said, I think it was 2015, when I said that Trump would change your understanding of

01:14:56.840 reality, it was this. This is the part I was telling you was coming. I could see it as clearly as I could

01:15:05.320 see, you know, my hand in front of my face. You could tell that he was going to mess up what you thought of

01:15:12.220 your own ability to understand your reality in a way that could never be put back in the bottle. And the biggest

01:15:18.360 way he did it was by departing from the fact checking all the time. Because he realized that

01:15:25.300 the facts are not persuasive, and we don't live in a world where facts matter, at least, you know,

01:15:30.960 matter for persuasion. They matter for reality, but not persuasion. I think the president, when people are

01:15:37.340 trying to understand why does he keep saying things that aren't true when he must have figured out by now

01:15:44.940 they're not true. Somebody has told him it's not true. And I would say that the big reality

01:15:52.140 mind effort that some of you are already at, and some of you are almost there, is this. He might know

01:16:01.760 that it doesn't matter. And indeed, he was right. He became president without paying any attention

01:16:11.620 to the specificity of the fact checking. None. He treated it like it literally didn't matter at all.

01:16:20.780 And what happened? He was right. He was 100% right. None of the fact checking mattered. None of it.

01:16:30.160 What did matter is how the networks covered it and social media handled it, etc. But it didn't matter if

01:16:37.540 it was true. And it didn't matter if it wasn't true. So long as it was, you know, well intended to

01:16:43.600 move the country in a good direction. That's what mattered. Okay, that's all for now. I will talk to

01:16:54.220 you tomorrow. Have a great Thanksgiving. And you YouTubers, still here for a minute, but I'm going

01:17:02.220 to sign off in a second. All right. Can President Trump prove election fraud? Do a George Washington

01:17:14.720 and then come back? That's my prediction. That's my prediction. My prediction is that he will do a

01:17:20.720 George Washington, meaning that he will say, yeah, I won, but I'm also going to peacefully transfer.

01:17:27.780 Whether he runs again in 2024, I think that's a wait and see. You know, it does make sense that

01:17:36.440 maybe he would say he's going to. Maybe he thinks he'd like to. But I think age is just too big of a

01:17:42.600 variable. And I'd give it a couple years before you take it seriously. I'm grateful for you as well. So

01:17:52.280 thank you. And I'm grateful to all of you. And I mean that quite sincerely. This is usually one of the

01:18:00.600 highlights of my day, except for the time I spend with Christina. And I want you to have a great

01:18:09.580 Thanksgiving. Take care.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 26, 2020

Episode 1199 Scott Adams： Come Join Me For Thanksgiving and Catch up on All the Narrative Crackin'

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript