Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1201 Scott Adams： Watch Me Monetize My Dumbest Critics While Discussing the Election Allegations. Thank You, Critics!

00:00:00.000 hey everybody come on in come on in it's the weekend it's sort of a holiday weekend

00:00:16.260 and you don't have any work to do today i hope i hope you don't i hope that the only thing you

00:00:23.560 have to do today is enjoy the simultaneous sip and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of

00:00:30.600 tanker tails or sign a canteen jug or flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite

00:00:36.140 liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine at the end

00:00:41.920 of the day the thing that makes everything better including the holidays it's called the

00:00:47.100 simultaneous sip and it happens now go hello belgium nice of you to join us this morning

00:00:57.960 well we got a fun one today i saw a survey on the internet a scientific one not a not a twitter

00:01:07.020 survey that asked people who would you generally trust to tell you the truth and then they listed

00:01:15.720 a number of professions and you would get to choose which of those professions you found

00:01:21.640 trustworthy well what was at the top of the list of trustworthy professions was it journalists

00:01:32.200 do you think journalists were at the top of the trusted professions no they were not luckily nurses

00:01:41.300 doctors doctors and engineers were right at the top of the list wouldn't you want that to be true

00:01:48.400 right i mean that's sort of good news right if the people that the public believes are medical

00:01:55.520 professionals and engineers and then just stop i'm exaggerating a little bit but how would how good

00:02:06.660 would society be if we believed our health care professionals completely you know you got to be a

00:02:13.380 little skeptical but you believe them the most and then engineers and then you just stop and everybody

00:02:20.460 else you just say ah maybe i don't know i'm not so sure about you i'm willing to go with the health

00:02:26.960 care professional and the engineers but i don't know about you so journalists had uh only 23 percent

00:02:34.200 thought that they were generally trustworthy now you might say to yourself that seems like a problem

00:02:42.620 because journalists are in some ways the gateway to all truth everything that we understand about the world

00:02:53.180 seems to come through journalists first you know then it gets turned into history and whatever

00:02:58.800 whatever else law you name it but having journalists at the very bottom of the trust

00:03:07.860 uh funnel seems like a little bit of a problem but engineers have a 93 percent trust rate i'm kind of a

00:03:15.640 hybrid because as a cartoonist i'm closer to a journalist and doing this i'm closer to a journalist than i am to an

00:03:22.320 engineer but all of my early uh exposure was working with engineers for years and years so i feel like i

00:03:30.800 picked up some of their good habits i like to think i did um correct me if i'm wrong i need a fact check on

00:03:39.400 this i think this is true when i talked to you about uh i said i was confused about the religious folks who

00:03:48.260 wanted to continue having uh church services in the pandemic and i asked you what would jesus say

00:03:56.260 about that would jesus say yeah give me my individual freedom or would jesus say yeah you're gonna have

00:04:04.100 your individual freedom but just hold on a little bit take a little sacrifice for your neighbor we'll get

00:04:09.960 there you know you're not going to lose your freedom but temporarily gonna ask you to make a sacrifice

00:04:15.420 i thought jesus would come down on that side but as you know i'm neither a believer nor a religious

00:04:21.820 scholar so i wouldn't i wouldn't follow my own advice on religion that's for sure if i could give

00:04:28.660 you any advice don't take my advice on religion i'm the last person you should listen to on that domain

00:04:35.140 but didn't the pope agree with me i feel like i saw the story and then i went to research it and

00:04:44.660 maybe a little bit ambiguous what he's talking about let me read what the pope said and see if

00:04:50.720 he agreed with the supreme court who said freedom rules and go ahead or does he uh agree that maybe

00:05:00.240 you should keep the restrictions so the pope says some groups protested refusing to keep their distance

00:05:06.720 marching against travel restrictions as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their

00:05:13.760 people constitute some kind of political assault or autonomy or autonomy on autonomy or personal freedom

00:05:21.720 so it it feels like the pope is pro lockdown and it feels like he would be equally pro lockdown when

00:05:31.900 it came to churches is that the way you read it i i read it as the pope is okay with closing churches

00:05:40.760 temporarily because it's just a health thing so uh let's just leave that there i've told you before that on cnn

00:05:50.940 there are two personalities that are far more uh let's say objective and valuable than the rest of them

00:06:00.600 all right so i don't like to be the person who says that some group or or some entity is a hundred percent

00:06:08.040 bad right because usually there's something good and something bad about just about everything

00:06:13.020 and on cnn there are two shows that i think are very worth watching one is uh smirkanish who is always

00:06:22.260 more objective than just about anybody on television he does a really good job at that and the other is

00:06:27.500 farid zakaria now farid definitely has tds he's got a bad case of tds but my observation is

00:06:38.020 that it seems to be limited to what he believes the president is thinking which is at least you know

00:06:45.400 limited so he thinks the president's got some racial ideas he he thinks the president is doing it because

00:06:51.940 of racial ideas that part's just tds as far as i can tell but the rest of the things that farid says on

00:07:01.640 any other topic are pretty darn good not only uh educational but entertaining and by the way

00:07:09.140 i decided yesterday i'm going to make it a habit especially between now and the end of the year

00:07:15.600 through the holidays i'm going to intentionally add compliments to people who deserve them and i'm going

00:07:23.000 to include compliments to people on the left and the right and it's in the spirit of the holidays

00:07:29.140 i'm just going to point out that if somebody even if i disagree with them if they're doing something

00:07:34.360 notably good i'm going to call it out just in the spirit of the season so farid is uh does a great

00:07:41.540 show but here's what's interesting on his show to uh his most recent show he uh i think he broke it to

00:07:51.440 cnn viewers and i don't know if anybody has ever said this clearly so it's the clarity of the story

00:07:58.420 that that makes it important it's not that it hasn't ever been discussed but when he puts it in

00:08:04.380 clear words which is what he's really really good at i think he woke up the left in a way that they

00:08:12.820 hadn't quite been woken up and it goes like this i'm paraphrasing but effectively farid explained

00:08:19.740 to the left and i don't know that they knew this most of them that president trump doesn't have to

00:08:27.200 do anything to take a second term doesn't need to do anything all he needs to do is enjoy the fact

00:08:37.700 that there is great question about the validity of the election he can let his lawyers now that's

00:08:44.500 something he's actively doing but he can let the lawyers take the the battle through the courts

00:08:49.860 and even even his critics are saying okay okay as long as you're using the courts and you're using

00:08:57.380 legal challenges we don't think you're going to prevail but we're not going to complain too much

00:09:04.760 about the fact that you're doing it because you're you're within the rules all right so here's the part

00:09:11.820 that the left didn't quite understand all you need is doubt and you get the second term of president

00:09:22.220 trump there's nothing else you need there's one thing you need period doubt you don't need a court win

00:09:32.600 because it can be decided by the legislatures if the legislatures decide they don't have a you know

00:09:40.800 a good idea let's put it this way if the legislatures all just say oh yeah we're just going to go with

00:09:47.080 the popular vote well then biden becomes president but if there's enough reasonable doubt the legislatures

00:09:55.420 might say we don't trust the election it would be the republicans who say that of course and there

00:10:02.020 are enough states and the swing states controlled by enough republican legislatures that if they inject

00:10:08.400 enough doubt into the electoral process fortunately the founders and the the framers of the constitution

00:10:16.660 they allowed for that so that's a that was a known risk and so the process has very clear steps

00:10:23.780 oh if you can't make a decision with the electoral college process it moves to the con the house

00:10:31.220 the house gets one vote for each state and there are more republican states that's it that's it

00:10:41.100 i'm gonna i'm gonna pause this comment so on youtube somebody says stay in your lane scott

00:10:49.160 i would like to recommend to you a book called loser think a prominent part of this book is mocking

00:10:57.100 people who tell me to stay in my lane do you know i wasn't always a cartoonist no if i'd stayed in my

00:11:04.780 lane i wouldn't be a cartoonist if i'd stayed in my lane i would not have one of the most popular

00:11:11.860 live stream shows in america stay in your lane is literally i think the dumbest thing anybody's ever

00:11:24.300 said you wouldn't have airplanes you wouldn't have airplanes computers technology you wouldn't have

00:11:32.820 civilization if people like me stayed in their lane it's leaving the lane they gave you everything

00:11:41.440 that you enjoy today all of it a hundred percent of what makes your life good today my lovely critic

00:11:49.780 was that people like me don't take your advice if we took your advice we'd be wallowing in mud and

00:11:56.560 eating our own feces so um let me continue so farid has made the case clearly in a way i'd never seen

00:12:07.580 before that the president doesn't have to do much of anything would you say that the president has

00:12:13.300 successfully injected doubt into the election process i actually don't think it was mostly him

00:12:19.780 in this case in this case i think the president is following i don't think he's leading on the question

00:12:26.960 of election uh election allegations i think he's following his base imagine if you will that the

00:12:35.120 republican base had gone through the election and said all right well we don't like the outcome

00:12:40.200 but it was fair would president trump be fighting this in court no no he's not leading this he's

00:12:49.220 actually going with his base almost as a show of respect the base wants him to fight he's he's got

00:12:58.280 this relationship commitment with his base that's unlike anything i've ever seen and i think he just

00:13:04.780 feels the obligation i mean he'd like to win of course he probably thinks he was robbed of course

00:13:09.520 but i think the driving motivation in the real world is that the base wants them to do it and they

00:13:17.120 have a relationship so i think he feels an obligation to to follow it through but as ellie alexander is

00:13:24.080 reminding people in his tweets and public work lately that um there might be some primary challenges to

00:13:32.800 republicans who don't doubt the outcome of the election so there might be a little risk being

00:13:42.040 injected into the system for republicans who thought they had safe seats or maybe it's the ones who are

00:13:47.740 closer to not safe but ellie alexander is putting that notion into the universe now in terms of

00:13:57.680 persuasion you can't persuade somebody of something that they have they're not familiar with in other

00:14:04.180 words if they haven't heard your argument you're not going to persuade them so the first thing you

00:14:09.060 have to do is get people a little bit pregnant with an idea that they had not been wrestling with

00:14:15.560 up to that point and the idea that ellie alexander is putting into the into the universe and very

00:14:23.120 productively i would say if you're a trump supporter and you'd like to see the president prevail this is

00:14:29.260 very productive uh persuasion and it's very simple and it has to do with the fact that people can get

00:14:36.800 used to things if they wait long enough so all he needs to do to accomplish this bit of persuasion

00:14:46.200 is to make you think about it make you talk about it possibly get you to debate it if you see a debate

00:14:54.460 on cnn about this concept whether republicans will be primaried he won because that's it if you see on

00:15:04.360 cnn or fox news any conversation by any of the talking heads that even bring up the topic all you

00:15:13.020 would need is somebody to do what i'm doing right now just talk about it that's it because the first

00:15:18.920 time you hear this idea that republicans might get primaried by their own party if they don't if they

00:15:25.460 don't you know firm up and be on the same side on this election allegations the first time you hear

00:15:32.840 you think well maybe that's a little harsh but the longer you talk about it the longer you think about

00:15:39.460 it that thing which struck you as being a little harsh maybe over the line suddenly it starts to

00:15:46.060 feel like just reality you might get primaried so i don't know that people will get primaried if they

00:15:54.120 don't um you know back the president on this but he has injected that risk where it didn't exist

00:16:02.580 before so ali is succeeding that what you're watching is persuasion that unambiguously is

00:16:10.740 succeeding whether it succeeds all the way is another question but it's certainly succeeding in

00:16:16.080 its you know limited goal so farid is telling the left that the cat might be on the roof meaning

00:16:23.280 breaking it to them easy uh getting so freed is doing the same thing he he's introducing an idea

00:16:30.320 that this might not go the way the democrats are positive it's going to go and the difference

00:16:37.600 between the way the democrats are positive it's going to go in other words biden taking office

00:16:43.100 there is nothing obstructing the other path now that's the part that they're going to have to come

00:16:52.800 to grips with it would be one thing if farid had said well there's this weird long shot

00:16:59.300 other way the things could go but you probably don't have to worry about it because it's a long

00:17:04.800 shot there's obstacles and there are things that could stop it but he didn't say that he basically

00:17:12.440 drew a picture that's a straight line to trump taking a second term let me ask you this has trump

00:17:20.440 succeeded or you don't even have to say trump can you just say it is true that nearly all republicans

00:17:29.280 believe the election was stolen right the polls show that the republicans believe it how about

00:17:36.500 democrats well according to rasmussen 30 percent of democrats think the election was stolen

00:17:42.000 now imagine days go by and rudy and you know jen ellis and the the team and and uh the kraken stuff

00:17:51.000 and sydney powell and you just hear more and more stories about allegations and you're a democrat

00:17:56.980 and you're one of the democrats who does not already think the election was stolen so you're in the 70

00:18:02.880 percent of democrats what happens if you are subjected to a non-stop trickle avalanche rainstorm

00:18:11.260 of allegations now you might say to yourself every time i hear one the lawsuit gets thrown in a court

00:18:18.000 so i guess they're all bad maybe but that's not really the way brains work your logic might try to

00:18:27.880 protect you and say no no those other lawsuits got thrown out and even though those other lawsuits

00:18:33.760 used different evidence and made different claims the fact that completely different lawsuits

00:18:42.000 with different evidence and different claims the fact that those were rejected certainly makes me feel

00:18:49.320 safe that the next one that they have had time to prepare good evidence and make completely different

00:18:56.060 kinds of claims well i'm pretty safe that those different lawsuits are going to be failures too

00:19:01.120 so that would be your you know your cut your confirmation bias and your pattern recognition

00:19:07.800 kicking in and trying to protect yourself but the fact is republicans have a whole bunch of doubt

00:19:14.380 about this election there is plenty of evidence that they will consider useful meaning that the data

00:19:22.540 anomalies they will believe even if they're not true the sworn testimonies of hundreds of people who said

00:19:28.500 they saw frauds republicans are likely to believe even if they're not true so fact aside and court aside

00:19:38.680 and science aside our democratic process ish the republic if you will is built on how we feel

00:19:49.260 it's not built on the court it's not built on the truth it's not built on science

00:19:57.100 our system is expressly specifically built on how we feel by design that's not an accident

00:20:08.680 when you vote are you voting the facts well sometimes you think you are but you're not when you vote

00:20:17.360 are you voting because of all your logic you might think you are but you're not and i think the founders

00:20:24.860 knew that this is an emotional process and the fact that everybody gets to vote and you're all

00:20:31.000 encouraged to vote and you have the right to vote that's about your psychology that's about making you feel

00:20:36.900 the system was credible it's your feeling it's designed to make you feel the system is credible

00:20:44.340 feel that you participated and feel that you're part of it

00:20:49.480 the constitution is about what you feel that's it and specifically designed that way it's not an accident

00:20:58.540 so if the way this ends up going is that the republicans by a majority feel that the election was stolen

00:21:09.160 they have every constitutional right to act on the feeling and they don't have to explain it

00:21:20.340 they do not need to go into court and then make their case and prove it to a jury

00:21:25.660 that their feelings also match the facts it isn't part of the process and i don't think

00:21:32.500 that the framers of the constitution left it out by mistake i think they framed it exactly the way

00:21:42.280 they thought they were framing it which is if the legislature and the and the house decide that

00:21:49.500 the process they feel doesn't have the confidence of the people they feel they've lost the confidence

00:21:59.140 of the people they can try to regain it by using the system as designed and the house to simply vote

00:22:07.920 now that story that i just told you to many of you sort of hearing it for the first time sounds

00:22:13.440 ridiculous anybody who is already aware of this path which many republicans have been for weeks

00:22:19.420 you're a little bit used to it already aren't you think about how you felt the first time you heard

00:22:26.760 that trump could win the election without winning the popular vote and without winning the electoral

00:22:34.780 college and that it would be perfectly legal and constitutional and it wouldn't even be an aberration

00:22:46.100 it would be the way the constitution was designed to work to solve this exact problem

00:22:55.200 the exact problem is that there's some doubt about the election and it's a big doubt that's the

00:23:03.220 problem it's designed to solve and it will so watch yourself getting used to something that

00:23:09.180 shocked you like crazy when you first heard it two weeks later you're thinking yeah that could happen

00:23:15.080 why wouldn't that happen keely mackenany uh used the word baseless and threw it back at the uh her at the

00:23:24.480 press uh which was very clever because of course the uh the word be the word baseless is being used

00:23:31.980 against about the allegations of the election being fraudulent now baseless is a clever persuasion word

00:23:39.060 and i have spoken about this when you hear baseless do you say to yourself oh it could be true

00:23:45.840 but we haven't seen evidence yet is that how you interpret baseless because that would be

00:23:53.220 you know an accurate interpretation but that's not how you you register the word the way your brain

00:24:00.520 hears baseless is that we've already looked into it and there's nothing there right it's not what it

00:24:07.300 means but that's how your brain interprets it and that's why democrats used like to use that word

00:24:12.280 baseless because it it it influences you to think that there won't be anything there no matter how much

00:24:20.200 you look suppose they had said something that meant the same thing suppose they had said there nobody has

00:24:27.740 produced evidence that will hold up in court about the fraud yet would that be a fair statement

00:24:36.040 nobody has produced um uh conclusive evidence of fraud that's big enough to change the election

00:24:43.580 yet that would be true right but notice i threw in the word yet what did the word yet make you think

00:24:54.060 the word yet makes you think it's going to happen it just hasn't happened yet so yet is a manipulative

00:25:02.320 word like baseless but yet manipulates you in the way of thinking well we probably will find it if we keep

00:25:08.780 looking baseless says well we probably already looked and it wasn't there see now this is uh but there's not

00:25:17.900 much you can do to battle that claim because it's a really good attack using baseless is just really smart

00:25:25.260 effective persuasion so what do you do when your enemy uses smart effective persuasion against your

00:25:32.320 argument and it just works it just works well one of the things you can do if you're kelly mcenany is

00:25:41.840 you can take their freaking word baseless throw it back in their stupid mugs and apply it to the russia

00:25:47.860 collusion bullshit and say that you you threw the country into you know almost a paralysis for three

00:25:57.160 and a half years you the democrats on a quote as she repeated at least twice baseless accusations

00:26:05.080 about russia collusion baseless i say now what do the democrats say when kaylee mcenany calls russia

00:26:14.480 collusion baseless yeah they got the same problem don't they they got a problem because they're going

00:26:22.980 to argue well it wasn't baseless we had a reason and then what would kaylee mcenany say i'm i'm just

00:26:32.320 just doing a mental thing here what could she say hypothetically uh well basically the let me short

00:26:41.620 short circuit this everything that they're saying about and all the words being used about

00:26:48.180 fraud allegations in the election apply almost perfectly to the russia core uh the russia

00:26:54.480 collusion hoax and so she's pointing out their hypocrisy and doing a great job about it and it's also

00:27:02.020 funny it's just sort of funny so i've decided that one of kaylee mcenany's signatures which makes her a

00:27:11.380 perfect uh a perfect uh a perfect hire for trump is that the things she does are effective but

00:27:19.960 they're always a little bit funny that there's always that little extra x factor and this is one

00:27:26.000 of those examples because using their word baseless and throwing it in their face on a different topic

00:27:30.920 to make them realize that the word itself is illegitimate they either have to call her on using the

00:27:37.260 word or they have to admit that when they use it it's illegitimate and they can't so it's a good trap

00:27:42.600 which is funny it doesn't change anything it's just kind of funny so she's sort of perfect for trump

00:27:49.600 um so i discovered a way to monetize the stupidity of my critics uh and of course i did that with dilbert

00:27:58.480 because dilbert was largely mocking you know bad managers and and things like that now they're not

00:28:05.200 necessarily critics but i did figure out how to monetize uh bad managers by the dilbert comics

00:28:13.140 draft but i've somewhat accidentally slid and this was no plan or anything i just sort of ended up here

00:28:21.220 through trial and error so i'm going to turn one of my critics into content right now in front of you

00:28:30.420 i'll change stupidity and criticism into content which will amuse and entertain you and uh i believe

00:28:39.120 i'll get ad revenue on youtube when you watch it so i'm literally going to monetize this freaking idiot

00:28:48.380 critic that i'm going to talk about right now all right now i laid a trap yesterday which was not

00:28:55.340 planned in advance but when i did it accidentally i decided to keep it because it was so delightful

00:29:02.820 completely accidental but it still formed a trap and here's what it is i'll read the tweet

00:29:08.760 and we'll talk about it i said extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof now that's a

00:29:15.200 carl sagan truism right so we have bumper sticker brains so when we recognize little sayings

00:29:23.840 that seem to be true they're very persuasive it's like oh there's a saying well if there's a saying

00:29:31.040 then it must be true there's no logic to it but our brains work that way so this this saying that

00:29:38.340 extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof has been out in the world for decades and so most

00:29:43.580 people just think well yeah that makes sense and it does um and then i go on and i say democrats

00:29:50.880 make the extraordinary claim all right now see if you think this is an extraordinary claim

00:29:56.020 that democrats are making that despite sky-high motivation and plenty of opportunity to cheat in the

00:30:03.780 election that they didn't do it how how extraordinary would it be if you let's say took a pile of money

00:30:14.080 cash and left it on the street of a crime ridden inner city how extraordinary would it be if you came back

00:30:24.280 in a week and it was all there that nobody took any that'd be pretty extraordinary wouldn't it

00:30:30.940 right so where you have the opportunity and sky-high motivation for a crime how often does it not happen

00:30:42.320 zero zero zero times there are zero times that you have a gigantic motivation orange hitler we must

00:30:51.180 stop him and you have lots of opportunity because at the very least um giuliani has shown that there's

00:30:59.060 lots of places they could have cheated so long as you can control the witnesses right if you couldn't

00:31:06.500 control the witnesses it'd be harder to you know to steal an election because they'd be watching

00:31:12.280 everything but we do know and nobody doubts this the democrats did control the witnessing process

00:31:19.480 and limited it i feel like everybody agrees that happened there's a disagreement about how important it was

00:31:26.440 but nobody questions that it happened i haven't seen any pushback on it at all

00:31:30.780 and so in a situation where you've got effectively a pile of money sitting in the street in a high crime

00:31:39.440 neighborhood how much proof do i need that it got stolen a year later do you think i would need to prove

00:31:48.440 it i don't think so i would say that the logic of the situation dictates that that money's gone

00:31:55.920 wrong now is anything in this life a hundred percent no not really i mean nothing is a hundred percent

00:32:03.940 even if you think it is now even even newton was a little bit wrong on gravity right so einstein

00:32:11.020 cleared it up a little bit so you can be a little bit wrong on things that you're really right about

00:32:16.140 nothing's a hundred percent but uh there are things that we can treat as true because they're so likely

00:32:22.700 to be true let's go on now the trap was and if you didn't spot it the trap was that i knew that

00:32:29.640 these smart dumb people would say ha ha ha ha ha scott you can't prove a negative in other words

00:32:39.300 you can't prove uh you can't prove that something happened because you have no evidence right if

00:32:46.200 there's no evidence of a thing happening or not happening you can't prove anything so i knew people

00:32:51.880 would come in and say you can't prove a negative so alex leo an ex vp of daily beast she comes in to

00:33:00.380 school me and she says this if that's how this works now i'm gonna need you to prove you don't

00:33:07.340 molest animals scott i've heard you do and the extraordinary claim that you're a sane rational

00:33:14.240 non-molester needs serious evidence all right so here are the smart dumb people now what i mean by a

00:33:21.280 smart dumb person is they're smart enough to know that there's a bumper sticker saying that you can't

00:33:28.400 prove a negative so they're smart enough to know that but they're not smart enough to apply that to

00:33:35.940 the situation and also understand if there's an exception involved so they're smart but they're dumb

00:33:43.320 they're too dumb to use what they're smart enough to know here's my argument can you prove a negative

00:33:51.260 people you're all very brilliant i know you're above average if you're watching this live stream

00:33:56.720 can you prove a negative well the first thing you should ask me is prove it to whom can you prove it in

00:34:06.060 court or can you prove it in a scientific way because those are not really the same right the

00:34:12.900 burden of proof in a court case versus what a scientist would do those are different so the

00:34:18.680 first thing you have to ask is well can you prove a negative in science can you prove a negative in court

00:34:27.040 but can you prove a negative to the satisfaction of the public which would be the third domain right

00:34:34.700 if i could prove it in a way that i convince you that can have real world utility that's a real

00:34:42.220 thing i could make a case and convince you in public that it's true effectively proving it even if it's not

00:34:50.720 true so let me give you an example if you thought a minute ago that you can't prove a negative let me give

00:34:59.940 you uh an example suppose you had a rock in your hand and you're standing next to a cliff and you

00:35:09.080 take that rock and you hold it behind you where you can't see it and you let it go and you also know

00:35:15.680 that there's nobody else around because you went up to the top of the mountain by yourself and you can

00:35:19.960 see you lots of visibility you're you're all alone and you took your rock in your hand and you held it

00:35:25.600 behind you where you can't see it and you let go of it can you prove that the rock fell

00:35:34.280 you don't have any witnesses you don't have any documentation you don't have a video of it

00:35:42.720 you don't have any proof all you know is that the situation you created guarantees the result

00:35:51.800 is that proof because maybe that's an anti-gravity pocket in the universe it just happened to be

00:36:00.180 where your hand was maybe an alien comes out of the air with a tractor beam and focuses on the rock

00:36:06.680 and pulls it into space i mean maybe it didn't fall but in the real world the rock fell and it fell

00:36:16.000 every time but you can't prove it the only thing you know is that you created a situation

00:36:21.980 in which it's only going to go one way so back to my situation can you prove a negative yes you can

00:36:32.860 you can prove it in a million different ways in the real world can you always prove can you always

00:36:39.060 prove a negative in a scientific realm i don't know i don't care i'm not talking about a scientific realm

00:36:44.980 can you always prove a negative in a courtroom situation i don't know i don't care i'm not

00:36:52.280 talking about that the only thing that matters as farid zacario has explained now to the left

00:36:59.680 is whether the public believes it can you prove to the public

00:37:05.520 there's something you didn't see and didn't witness although there are plenty of witnesses i'm just

00:37:11.560 talking hypothetically could you prove there's something that had to happen happened so let me

00:37:18.080 tell you we know that the election was not secure and there were lots of opportunities to cheat

00:37:24.280 so long as you controlled the witnesses which we know happened and you had sky-high motivation

00:37:33.480 and sky-high things to gain lots of people involved what are the odds that it wasn't stolen close to zero

00:37:45.020 close to zero because that setup should guarantee that you get a stolen election every time and so i

00:37:53.140 would say to you well you can't prove an election was stolen maybe that's possible maybe it can't be

00:38:00.160 proven but can you convince republicans that with that setup it had to be stolen or at the very least

00:38:10.500 you can have no confidence that it wasn't stolen and i believe that having no confidence in the result

00:38:20.480 even if it wasn't stolen if you've got no confidence in it because of the nature of the way it was set up

00:38:28.020 you have a constitutional remedy that's crystal clear it ends up in the house and you get a second

00:38:37.540 term of president trump so to my critic ex-vp of daily beast and alex leo you're smart enough to know

00:38:46.600 that there's a bumper sticker that says you can't prove a negative but you're not smart enough to know

00:38:51.840 how any of it works in the real world and that there's nothing that's a hundred percent but you

00:38:58.360 can certainly make a case all right so here's here's the other thing that uh my critics do that i find

00:39:08.440 absolutely hilarious they if they make a comment and i respond to it just respond to it so somebody

00:39:18.400 insults me or makes a charge and i tweet back a response just one response what do the uh the bad

00:39:27.000 trolls pile in and say after that oh i triggered you i triggered you now and i'll be like um i get

00:39:37.000 insulted on twitter once every five minutes and during my entire career i have been deeply insulted by a

00:39:46.140 stranger every five minutes for approximately 32 years i think i mean my entire experience is

00:39:54.980 strangers insulting me all day long but in their minds this one is the one that triggered me

00:40:03.000 i literally treat critics as entertainment and now you know part of my business model i could not be

00:40:10.920 less concerned with somebody you know some rando critic on uh on twitter but then then you get oh she's

00:40:20.800 living in your head rent free and i'm thinking no nothing like that's happening um all right

00:40:31.080 so newt gingrich adds a little bit of context for us with this tweet he says the more data that comes

00:40:41.460 out on vote anomalies that clearly are not legitimate says newt the more it looks like 2020 may be the

00:40:49.440 biggest presidential theft since adams and clay robbed andrew jackson in 1824

00:40:56.480 so i'm not a big history buff did you even know that according to historians it's just a fact i guess

00:41:10.900 because newt's a historian it's a fact that adams and clay robbed andrew jackson in 1824 did you even

00:41:18.760 know that um all right so that's my relative maybe allegedly all right uh

00:41:31.980 oh you're seeing the news there's some fake news that's uh cnn's playing up big i think fox news is

00:41:42.460 playing it too that there's somebody out in the world suggesting republicans boycott the

00:41:48.740 senatorial general uh the special election in georgia and remember what the first time i heard that

00:41:55.720 and and people on social media were saying oh yeah ali alexander is saying that what did i tell you

00:42:02.080 when a whole bunch of you said that ali alexander was saying we should boycott the election i said to you

00:42:10.280 with no evidence no proof no court case no science i said that didn't happen and a dozen

00:42:18.720 of you were like oh yeah he said it i saw it myself i witnessed it he absolutely said it it took

00:42:24.520 about a minute and a half after the live stream was over to validate that he did not say that and does

00:42:31.220 not want you to boycott the election very much does not want you to boycott the election in fact

00:42:37.300 opposite of that now wherever the hell you got that i don't know uh i don't know if you were talking

00:42:43.580 about the primary getting primaried or he got confused or what but here's what the fake news

00:42:50.420 is doing to you it's the same play that uh rudy giuliani is doing which is getting you used to

00:42:58.220 something before it happens they're they're sort of breaking you in getting you a little do a little

00:43:04.860 stretching better get used to this and that is the idea that there's some republican calling for a

00:43:13.360 boycott so now cnn is reporting this again and it reports uh trump rejects boycott calls in georgia

00:43:21.340 runoff so wouldn't you think that if you saw the headline trump rejects boycott calls wouldn't that

00:43:30.140 headline point to a link to show you who it was who is asking for a boycott but it doesn't right it's

00:43:39.600 a story about republicans calling for a boycott without any evidence or link to republicans calling

00:43:48.600 for a boycott do you know why there's no link to republicans calling for a boycott because there are

00:43:56.180 no republicans calling for a boycott no no there's no there are no republicans calling for a boycott

00:44:04.720 right they just want you to put get that in your head so maybe it'll become a thing so cnn is trying

00:44:11.500 to create a boycott by telling you that trump has rejected a boycott which puts boycott in your head

00:44:18.700 now you're all smart enough to know you're being played right nobody wants a boycott

00:44:24.980 okay so here's something i've done before but i think it's it's funny so i'm going to do it again

00:44:32.260 i want to take you through the the evolution of the democrat uh statements and arguments about the

00:44:38.880 election allegations of fraud all right day one you're you're all we think your election was

00:44:45.100 fraudulent say the republicans so the democrats sort of as one said some version of this there was no

00:44:53.780 fraud it isn't even possible to cheat not only was there no fraud but it's not even possible

00:45:01.580 wasn't that the first thing that every democrat said then some evidence started to or at least

00:45:10.760 allegations of evidence started to surface and then the story softened a little bit and it turned

00:45:17.240 from there was no no fraud and it's not possible to okay there was some fraud but no one is alleging

00:45:24.360 that there was enough fraud to change the election so just let it go and then it turned into

00:45:31.820 okay there might be you know okay we understand now that the allegations uh are not that it is

00:45:39.900 oh so i'm sorry i skipped one okay there might be some fraud but the but the but it's not widespread

00:45:46.920 so it went from there's none to okay there's a little fraud but it's not widespread and then of

00:45:55.120 course republicans explained that the accusation was not that it was widespread but rather that it was

00:46:00.760 focused in the swing states and very targeted eventually that message got through and the

00:46:06.340 the democrats response evolved a little bit more and now it turned then it turned into all right

00:46:13.120 okay we understand that the allegations are not that it was widespread but rather targeted in swing

00:46:19.620 states but you keep moving the goal posts i mean before you said it's widespread now you're saying it's

00:46:26.540 targeted moving the goal posts you're moving the goal posts except nobody moved the goal posts

00:46:33.960 it was always that it was targeted at the places where it mattered but it's still baseless still

00:46:41.220 baseless you move the goal posts and it's baseless you know people who move the goal posts

00:46:47.500 you know there's they don't have an argument all right so then it evolved to

00:46:52.300 um

00:46:54.320 it evolved to okay okay all right trump's lawyers are now alleging that there's enough fraud

00:47:02.820 that would change the election okay okay we'll give you that there there are enough allegations

00:47:07.980 that if they were true it would change the elections um but it's not been proven in court

00:47:14.120 not been proven not been proven in court and then that evolved into okay okay you have hundreds of

00:47:23.240 witnesses and you've got tons of data analysis showing anomalous results in swing state cities

00:47:30.640 you've got sky high motivation to cheat and lots of opportunity but it hasn't been proven

00:47:36.940 so while these things are true lots of witnesses hundreds of them

00:47:42.340 a fraud tons of data analysis that looks pretty solid

00:47:46.400 and lots of opportunity and motivation but it hasn't been proven

00:47:50.980 and then related to that is well trump lost whatever the number is today 38 lawsuits in a row

00:47:59.620 i'm just making that up i think that's in the neighborhood though he lost 38 lawsuits in a row

00:48:04.840 you know and if he lost 38 lawsuits in a row i mean that's all you need to know right

00:48:15.680 and then uh here's a little factoid for you that uh robert barnes attorney robert barnes said he said

00:48:26.780 prior to the supreme court decision on bush verse gore every federal court and every state supreme court

00:48:35.480 had ruled for gore over bush every time until the supreme court and then it reversed

00:48:44.380 so as uh robert barnes points out he says the election contests only start next week

00:48:52.900 because all the early stuff just sort of doesn't count it's all about getting to the supreme court

00:48:59.960 and it looks like they will so if you thought that any of those uh minor court lawsuits getting tossed

00:49:07.360 down mattered they don't not only that but there were different claims with different evidence or

00:49:16.960 as the judge would say lack of evidence so does history repeat if the situation is different

00:49:24.120 the whole point of history repeating is it's got to be the same situation

00:49:28.200 but democrats have decided that history repeats when the thing that's repeating doesn't have any

00:49:35.340 correlation except in words they're both called lawsuits i guess to the two things and they still

00:49:42.340 think history is going to repeat that's not logical these are just different things one does not predict

00:49:48.860 the other no matter how many lawsuits are ever lost uh in a court that doesn't mean the next one's

00:49:58.160 going to lose they're not connected they're different lawsuits all right now of course i think democrats may

00:50:06.120 be starting to realize and i think janna ellis said this too some version of this i'm going to use my

00:50:11.540 own words for it so don't blame her if this is wrong but um that the lawsuits were really about keeping

00:50:18.300 the argument alive and stalling and trying to get some delay on the certification of the vote

00:50:25.700 so when the democrats say hey you were just flailing with these weak cases i don't think the republicans

00:50:33.300 disagree with that they wouldn't use the word flailing but i don't think they disagree that they

00:50:39.640 were these were weak quickly prepared cases that were just thrown into the system it's just that the

00:50:46.220 strategy was not to win those the strategy was to inject a doubt maybe get a delay keep the argument

00:50:53.760 alive in the mind of the public make it make it look like there's lots of smoke so there must be fire

00:50:59.780 did it accomplish those things well it certainly accomplished the latter which is make you think

00:51:05.760 there's a lot going on all right um so here's where i think they are today so i think they've evolved

00:51:15.440 all the way from there was no fluoride and it's not even possible they've evolved all the way okay okay

00:51:22.160 history doesn't repeat in terms of these lawsuits that's true um if it's if they're different kinds

00:51:30.960 of suits and sure trump lawyers have hundreds of witnesses tons of data analysis showing anomalous

00:51:37.060 results in swing states they've got sky high motivation and lots of opportunity but i don't

00:51:43.200 see you citing any proof so this is the one that happened today somebody on social media alleged the

00:51:50.300 election was fraudulent and a democrat said you're not citing any proof so it went from there is no

00:51:59.360 proof no it went from it didn't happen to there's no proof to you're not citing the proof that's a big

00:52:08.980 difference from it's impossible to you haven't shown me the or there is no proof to you're not citing it in

00:52:17.180 your tweet because you know they're tweets you don't really cite a lot of evidence uh although you

00:52:25.420 could and you should all right uh here are some of the uh the mistakes of logic that they're making

00:52:35.500 which i talk about in my book loser think which you should buy as a gift for somebody you love for

00:52:41.480 christmas it's available everywhere the books are sold and on page 143 i talk about a thing called

00:52:47.560 word thinking where you try to use words to convince people that there is an argument but it's really

00:52:54.580 just a combination of words so for example the word baseless which i've talked about is trying to make

00:53:01.220 an argument by word choice there's no argument they're trying to make you think there is just by the

00:53:08.860 choice of words baseless and widespread um and then on page 67 of loser think is the idea that history

00:53:19.780 doesn't repeat especially if the situation is different and it's always different so these lawsuits

00:53:26.660 uh are obviously don't predict the bad ones don't predict what happens with the later ones and then of

00:53:32.580 course there's plenty of straw man straw manning going on here that is so common and dumb i didn't

00:53:39.620 even include it in my book about bad thinking the the straw man idea where somebody makes a claim a

00:53:47.260 and instead of defending against claim a you just act as if they said claim b and you defend that because

00:53:54.760 it's easier to defend that's straw manning you're just pretending somebody said something else

00:54:00.060 so you can defend the other thing because you can't defend the actual thing so that's what the

00:54:05.000 widespread thing is so the claim is that there's specific fraud in just the right places and what

00:54:11.060 they say when they defend is like well there's no widespread there's no widespread claim so that's

00:54:17.100 just straw manning by changing the argument all right um let us look um oh here's another thing that

00:54:27.120 robert barnes said by the way you should follow him on twitter if if you're looking to follow an

00:54:33.300 attorney who actually is just not crazy uh he would be the one all right um he tweeted how did democrats

00:54:44.940 kick kanye west off the ballot in his home state so kanye west was kicked off the ballot in his home state

00:54:53.200 uh minnesota right by demanding and the answer is that by demanding a strict signature match so i guess

00:55:00.480 there wasn't good signature matching on kanye's you know uh uh what was it the petitions to get on the

00:55:09.220 ballot so he got not allowed but then after he's disallowed by strict signature matching they decide that

00:55:18.500 the actual election they will turn off the strict signature matching so so kanye is taken off the

00:55:27.500 ballot using a rule and then they change the rule to run the actual election there's no justification

00:55:35.500 for change in that rule if the election process requires strict signature matching it's a good idea

00:55:43.240 when you're you know when you've got a petition it's a good idea in the primaries and it's a good

00:55:48.400 idea in the election so all right um here let me put this in context do you think that the will of the

00:55:58.380 people is important in our system well you'd say of course we vote even if we argue about the vote

00:56:05.440 sometimes generally speaking you know we we get the thing we want it's the will of the people it's

00:56:11.180 basically a democracy even though it has lots of awards but let's let's look at this presidential

00:56:16.600 election and i'm going to put some some numbers on stuff just to uh explain the concept but the numbers

00:56:24.640 i'm putting on things are just being pulled out of the air okay so let me ask you this do you think that

00:56:32.260 social media uh collectively and its choice of who to promote and who to boost and who to suppress

00:56:40.320 how much of a percentage change in the election result do you think that the that all of the

00:56:46.740 social media mechanisms caused well we don't know but i'm going to put a number on it just to

00:56:53.720 complete an argument so don't don't argue too much about whether this number is right just just wait for

00:56:59.600 the fuller argument okay i'll say i'll say five percent all right i've seen bigger estimates i see them

00:57:05.860 in the comments you're saying 17 10 to 15 20 but just for argument i'll take a modest number i feel

00:57:13.860 like you would all agree that's at least five percent i mean is there any smart person in the world today

00:57:20.320 who would argue that the social media decisions didn't move the election five percent i don't think

00:57:27.180 anybody would make that argument today they might argue at 17 but i don't think even democrats would

00:57:33.840 argue five percent would argue five percent would they so let's let's put a pin in that so let's say

00:57:38.900 the social media moved at five percent and of course would have moved at five percent toward biden how about

00:57:45.780 the fake news does the fact that we just saw a survey that showed that democrats actually haven't seen a lot

00:57:56.860 of the news haven't seen stuff about hunter biden haven't seen allegations about tara reid and all

00:58:03.840 that if you put together all of the the hoaxes the the drinking bleach hoax the fine people hoax and then

00:58:11.760 all the news that they don't even show how much as a percentage and again these are just more conceptual

00:58:19.040 percentages there's no real science here um how much do you think that cumulatively moved the needle

00:58:27.120 now of course you've got fox news very powerful entity you know persuading in the other direction

00:58:32.900 but i would say that this that the fake news probably i'm going to say five percent now i see bigger

00:58:39.420 estimates in the comments 20 35 75 i don't doubt your numbers so i'm not going to say that your estimate

00:58:48.040 that it moved is 75 i'm not going to say that's wrong i'm just going to stay a modest number

00:58:55.460 to make a larger point all right say say five percent how about um rule changes how many rule

00:59:04.800 or law changes did we see just before the election well the one i talked about uh robert barnes talked

00:59:12.020 about a rule change that kicked kanye off the ballot had he been on the ballot would it have changed the

00:59:19.220 election i think so what about changes to having uh unsolicited mail-in ballots sent to everybody

00:59:28.800 that was a rule change right how much did that affect things well we knew that democrats would be more

00:59:36.320 likely mail-in ballot people and we knew that republicans were more uh vote-in-person people

00:59:43.480 so i think every expert would agree that if you look at the cumulative number of rule changes about

00:59:51.820 signature matching and uh where witnesses can be and where they can stand and um you know there were

00:59:59.220 decisions made by uh judges that should have been legislators if you just just take all of those

01:00:05.460 rule changes together how much did they move the election well i'll be modest again i'll say five

01:00:11.800 percent again because i don't know i mean could it be more i'll just say five percent all right so how

01:00:18.980 much did covid change the outcome now in one way it changed it is that caused some of the rule changes

01:00:26.520 such as unsolicited mail-in ballots but how much did it change it beyond that how many people didn't

01:00:33.860 vote because they didn't want to take a risk you know people who didn't want to mail-in ballot but

01:00:39.880 they were afraid of going in person we don't know but i would say that um it probably changed things

01:00:47.300 i mean it probably had some effect right so how much did fraud change the election well some of you

01:00:56.080 are going to say 100 you know it flipped the result some of you are going to say well it's there's some

01:01:02.400 but maybe not enough to change the election in my opinion it's at least five percent just subjective

01:01:10.220 just an opinion don't ask me to prove it i'm just saying that i live in the real world and when you

01:01:16.040 see a situation that looks like this one where you have all the opportunity in the world to cheat

01:01:21.220 plenty of opportunity as long as you can control the witnesses which is true and sky high motivation

01:01:28.520 to do it like just through the roof motivation you're going to get at least five percent fraud

01:01:35.180 i mean i would estimate massive fraud but it's at least five percent all right so let's take these

01:01:43.740 together so again i'm taking the low end of what i think most of you think could be much bigger impacts

01:01:50.940 but let's look at them together social media maybe move things five percent fake news five percent

01:01:56.520 rule changes five percent covid i don't know maybe another five percent fraud maybe five percent

01:02:04.240 now if you add all these together uh how many did you get here uh five ten fifteen twenty twenty five percent

01:02:13.320 and most of that movement would be toward biden how much did the will of the people

01:02:21.300 factor into this election zero zero now you could argue that the will of the people had to at least

01:02:32.340 get within striking distance like it had to be a close ish election for the will of the people to be

01:02:39.360 completely irrelevant right so i guess in some sense you we at least got it to a tie so in some

01:02:46.460 hypothetical theoretical sense then the people's will made some difference but the total amount that the vote

01:02:53.720 changes we're talking about this you know two three percent thing but we've got probably at least

01:03:00.640 25 percent impact of things that had nothing to do with the will of the people that are completely

01:03:07.700 unrelated so do we even have a democracy no no no we don't it's not even close we're not even in

01:03:19.600 the same universe as a democracy or a republic you know whatever i say democracy about the united

01:03:27.060 united states you're all smart enough to translate that into your mind right we're a republic with

01:03:32.220 democratic elements to our our system um yeah we're not even close but here's the weird thing

01:03:41.140 are you okay with it now you're not okay with the result so a lot of you are not okay with the outcome

01:03:49.760 but are you okay with the fact that we live in a country that is not even close to a democracy in

01:03:58.740 terms of presidential elections not even close we're not anywhere near it well weirdly we all complain

01:04:07.080 about it and none of us are okay with it in terms of the outcome but we kind of do accept it

01:04:13.100 remember this rule that uh it sounds so trivial but it explains so much of life you can get used to

01:04:21.700 anything you can get used to anything and we live in a system that's not even close to a democracy

01:04:28.900 or republic while we all want that and we just sort of got used to it now part of how you can get used

01:04:38.700 to it is sort of understanding that as newt gingrich says there probably has been mischief forever

01:04:45.480 probably there's never been an election that was as fair as it needed to be probably we've never had

01:04:54.080 the system that we thought we did that we were taught in school it probably never existed but what

01:04:59.980 changed is now you know it and what changed is that the fake news and social media um became more

01:05:08.940 powerful so it's even more obvious that it was never what you thought it was it's just more obvious

01:05:15.380 but it's probably not that different in terms so let me ask you this if our system is as i say

01:05:23.620 not a democracy but rather is a competition between oligarchs is that worse if you had a choice of a

01:05:35.120 benevolent dictator or a very flawed democracy where the wrong person could get elected which one's a

01:05:43.260 better system if you could if you knew and of course this is the hard part because you can't

01:05:48.820 guarantee that a dictator is benevolent and absolute power corrupts so it's a tough tough deal but if you

01:05:55.640 could get it you know if there were any way that that's possible and i think it's basically not but if

01:06:02.440 it were possible that would be a better system than a democracy as long as the people you know like

01:06:09.500 their system and weren't complaining about it but what about the system we actually do have

01:06:14.080 it's not a democracy it's not any kind of a dictatorship clearly but it's definitely uh a war

01:06:23.720 between oligarchs and persuaders there's this hidden underground war of their you know now you've got the

01:06:30.880 data analysts who are coming in like an infantry you know the republicans send in the data analysts

01:06:36.200 it's just like a war you know they said all right you know we got the tanks over here we better call in

01:06:42.020 air support over here got the data analysts move the data analysts in we got the money people all

01:06:48.720 right bring in the billionaires then the billionaires you know compete with fighting and say all right

01:06:54.020 bring in the networks networks come online and the networks come in and fox news fight cnn and stuff

01:07:00.700 like that but the our process is now maybe 20 rich people fighting it out for control it's 20 rich people

01:07:15.960 fighting it out for control that is our system is it worse than like an actual democracy probably not

01:07:26.760 probably not if you think i'm complaining

01:07:32.520 i'm not i'm just noting that you don't live in the reality that you hope to live in i don't know if

01:07:42.920 it's worse because isn't the united states doing pretty well i mean compared to other countries

01:07:47.940 and hasn't our system really realistically it's always been this battle of 20 20 powerful people

01:07:55.460 and then they decide based on their little battle who it is that the public thinks is president

01:08:00.840 that's kind of what's going on i don't know if it's any different than it's ever been

01:08:05.840 and so i'm not going to complain about it because all of our systems have flaws

01:08:12.020 but it is useful to know something more about your reality

01:08:16.440 all right

01:08:19.780 um i don't remember if i said this or i thought i said it but i'd asked the other day whether it was

01:08:28.540 possible to create a voting app or a voting system that is you know credible and free from fraud

01:08:36.560 and a lot of smart people said no that we don't have the technology to do that i vehemently disagree

01:08:43.360 i believe that if you assemble the various technologies that do exist we already have

01:08:50.580 everything we need blockchain being you know one component

01:08:53.780 as smart people have said you need to not just check that the vote happened the way the person voted

01:08:59.840 you need to also be able to check that the person voting is the person you want to vote

01:09:04.280 and that they have the the right to vote you can do all that i believe that's completely doable

01:09:09.660 all right best periscope ever thank you i i don't know that it was but i always like to hear that

01:09:18.100 somebody says a representative democracy is an oligarchy kind of is isn't it yeah yeah a

01:09:26.880 representative democracy but at least in theory the oligarchs would be ones you voted for but in

01:09:34.120 reality voters don't have that much effect on the presidency today

01:09:40.140 somebody says you don't need blockchain i i believe that too i think you don't need blockchain

01:09:46.560 uh i'm not as well informed to know but why would you need blockchain

01:09:52.960 if you could just audit your own vote if after you voted and you know the election's done and

01:10:02.160 certified you can just check your app and it shows you the vote on the database and you know it got

01:10:07.640 there would you need blockchain i don't know i feel as if you could get there without it but i'm not

01:10:14.320 the expert all right um somebody says the uh farid zikario video is from september

01:10:23.200 interesting but it's on social media recently so if it gets so if that's true and it probably is

01:10:32.080 see that i wouldn't doubt that at all um but the so if you want to modify in your head what i said

01:10:40.640 about farid the only thing you change is that it's new information to his crowd i've got a feeling

01:10:46.780 that they are not hearing that because when they argue about it they don't act like they know that

01:10:52.420 path is there and i think what's also new is that if it's true that it's from september and it probably

01:10:59.420 is um when farid was first saying it it probably sounded really uh theoretical but if you fast forward

01:11:08.880 from september to today does it sound theoretical because now you can observe that the president's

01:11:17.120 attorneys have succeeded in convincing at least the republican public that it was fraudulent do you

01:11:24.900 think that didn't affect the republican politicians no if the republican public thinks the election was

01:11:31.600 stolen the politicians kind of need to think that too even if they don't think it they're going to

01:11:38.740 have to agree with their base on that it's too important somebody says mcconnell and graham got

01:11:45.900 thousands of illegal votes well the thing that you will never catch me doing is acting like fraud could

01:11:53.280 only happen on one side but i am wondering why we're not hearing accusations from democrats that

01:12:00.660 republicans also did some fraud so there's another dog that's not barking do you hear it where are the

01:12:08.320 democrats who normally just throw back whatever accusation you throw at them right i mean it works

01:12:13.980 both ways if anybody accuses anybody of anything the other side in five seconds will say well you're

01:12:21.400 doing it you did it last year we're just doing what you did though so are you a little bit curious

01:12:29.600 that the most obvious thing that should be happening now is the democrats saying you say we stole the

01:12:35.960 election yet what about your republican controlled towns what about them they're stealing elections

01:12:41.780 i've got witnesses where are those because there's a trap there right if the if the democrats decided

01:12:50.740 that they would say hey you guys are cheating too then then trump becomes president because if the

01:12:57.860 democrats think there was cheating and the republicans think there was cheating and we don't know the net

01:13:02.980 of the cheating the election doesn't get certified the house votes and trump gets a second term

01:13:10.080 so the democrats even if they think republicans massively cheated in other places you know that the

01:13:19.300 republicans are making claims about the swing states but maybe maybe where there were where there was a

01:13:27.280 little more republican control of a local election you don't think there was any fraud in any in any local

01:13:36.320 election you know at least within the city there was republican controlled none i would submit to you

01:13:45.560 that the democrats probably have a whole bunch of examples that they're just sitting on because they

01:13:53.280 don't want to raise the idea that fraud is possible because the biggest part of the point is it's not

01:13:59.200 possible so so they have cut themselves off from their most normal um i just realized i'm not wearing my

01:14:07.020 my ring on camera i take it off to type because sometimes it limits my finger movement but i'm still married

01:14:15.420 in case you're wondering um anyway i think i finished my point that's all for now and i will talk to you

01:14:23.300 tomorrow

01:14:24.140 all right periscope is off and youtube you have my full attention

01:14:31.900 yeah the slaughter meter became um the wrong measurement for the situation because what happened was

01:14:40.380 i do still think that in terms of the original purpose of the slaughter meter

01:14:45.960 was predicting that trump would get the right number of votes to be re-elected i still think that's

01:14:52.040 true it's just i don't know if we'll ever be able to know yeah will the system ever suss that out

01:14:57.920 so the slaughter meter uh was designed about how many votes trump would get i'm reluctant to repurpose

01:15:06.080 it and say it's now the the odds that the legal and constitutional system will will put him back

01:15:12.720 and back in power so i'm going to just skip that for now i think uh what is my prediction of who will

01:15:19.900 take office uh biden so my prediction that biden will will take office is not based on the legal

01:15:27.420 challenge it's not based on how many votes there were whether or not there was fraud or whether or not

01:15:33.140 it can be proven or even if the fraud was enough to reverse the election it's based on the fact that i don't

01:15:39.380 think the courts could uh could inject this much uh let's say damage into the system that i believe the

01:15:50.160 courts would ignore the law to protect the system and i'd be okay with that actually if now i'm not sure

01:15:58.400 it's the right decision but in terms of the the balance if the supreme court is ever confronted

01:16:04.980 with a decision where they could be technically legally constitutionally accurate but if they are

01:16:12.620 it will destroy the country i depend on them to protect the country first right and i think i can

01:16:21.800 protect i can depend on that they're going to protect the country and they're going to avoid a civil war

01:16:27.460 even if it means a ridiculous decision so i don't think the supreme court can be the help that the

01:16:36.920 president wants and i think that the social media and fake news are now powerful enough that they can

01:16:44.780 just bully biden into office and just tell you it was all fine so i don't think trump has the power

01:16:53.460 to overcome those forces but it's not impossible like farid zakaria said apparently in september

01:16:59.860 there is a there's a path with no obstacle he's got a clear clean path to the office just don't know

01:17:07.720 if he'll take it all right that's all for now i'll talk to you

01:17:12.460 you

01:17:32.000 you

01:17:32.460 you

01:17:33.740 you

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 28, 2020

Episode 1201 Scott Adams： Watch Me Monetize My Dumbest Critics While Discussing the Election Allegations. Thank You, Critics!

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript