Episode 1199 Scott Adams： Come Join Me For Thanksgiving and Catch up on All the Narrative Crackin'
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 18 minutes
Words per Minute
142.94727
Summary
Could Joe Biden be the next President of the United States? Is he a good fit for the job? And could he be the perfect President for the problems we re all facing right now? And if so, what would he do with Iran?
Transcript
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
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
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
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
00:05:58.760
say this is our out. Maybe they'll say this whole war thing wasn't working. The supporting terrorism
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.
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
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,
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.
00:49:02.480
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