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 0.65

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 1.00

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 0.97

00:25:47.860 collusion bullshit and say that you you threw the country into you know almost a paralysis for three 0.71

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 0.95

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 0.81

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 0.54

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 0.99

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 0.56

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 0.80

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

Summary

Transcript