Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1202 Scott Adams： Dale and I Tell You the News From Both Realities

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams,

00:00:13.440 best part of the day. Now, I got to tell you that the Sunday after Thanksgiving

00:00:18.760 is just about the sleepiest day of the year, but we're going to dig deep and find some fun here

00:00:27.360 today in all of the boringness. But first, in order to enjoy it to its full, full, full extent,

00:00:34.780 all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chelsea, styanac, anti-drug, a flask of

00:00:39.520 acylabatic iron. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for

00:00:47.420 the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better,

00:00:52.820 including recounts. It's called The Simultaneous Hit, but it happens now. Go.

00:01:03.620 So good. So there's a really interesting chess game going on in the Middle East. And I hate to be

00:01:13.400 fascinated by war and death, but it's hard not to be. You know, if you're a human,

00:01:23.240 you've always got these, you know, two thoughts going on. Well, that's horrible. I hope there's

00:01:27.740 less of that. I don't want any death and destruction over there. But on the other hand,

00:01:33.180 it's really interesting, which is not really, not really fun. Somebody said it's the Scott

00:01:41.260 Sophistry Hour. Anybody who accuses you of sophistry, that's one of the dumbest criticisms. 0.99

00:01:54.420 I don't even need to say more about that. It's just dumb. Usually when they accuse you of sophistry, 1.00

00:01:59.180 it's because they don't agree with you. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. Anyway, talk about the Middle East.

00:02:06.900 So, as you know, there was an assassination of the top Iranian nuclear scientist guy. Everybody assumes

00:02:19.020 it's Israel. But the timing is the interesting part, because if Biden goes ahead and takes office,

00:02:27.000 as many people assume will happen, this really throws a little wrinkle into it, doesn't it?

00:02:33.680 Because what is Iran going to do? Here's the clever part. Does Iran just ignore it? Because if they do, 0.78

00:02:44.540 there'll be more of it, right? There'll be more targeted assassinations, I assume. More things will blow up,

00:02:51.820 and that sort of thing. But what if they retaliate?

00:02:57.440 If they retaliate, they either retaliate weakly, you know, in a weak way that makes no difference,

00:03:06.420 so what's the point? Or they retaliate strong. What would happen if they did a strong retaliation

00:03:15.020 when Biden is trying to figure out how to maybe get back into the Iran peace deal?

00:03:22.580 It would really make it hard for Biden to make any kind of overture for peace or an agreement with

00:03:31.500 Iran. So I think if we assume, as everybody assumes, that Israel was behind it, let's call that a safe 0.99

00:03:41.160 assumption. Baseless? Oh, it's baseless. I have not seen any, not one piece of evidence. Certainly

00:03:50.060 nothing's been proven in court. So I think we could all agree that the allegations that Israel is behind 0.94

00:03:56.300 that assassination, baseless, by definition, because there's no evidence, right? Don't you know that if

00:04:05.220 something is baseless, then I guess you have to treat it like it didn't happen, because it's baseless.

00:04:11.400 Now, I have argued, of course, that there are some situations which are so obvious that you don't really need

00:04:21.180 too much proof, do you? How much proof do you need that Israel was behind that assassination? Would you be

00:04:30.540 willing to make decisions and act upon your belief that Israel was behind it, while knowing it's baseless?

00:04:41.400 I thought we didn't do that. Can you act upon something with no evidence? Just because you

00:04:49.440 know that the way the situation is constructed, there really is sort of only one person who could

00:04:56.020 have been behind it, if you know what I mean. It wasn't Estonia. Estonia gets a free pass and all of

00:05:03.760 this stuff, don't they? So we'll watch that. But it looks to me that Israel has made the right chess move. Because if 0.94

00:05:15.600 you're the second in command of the nuclear program in Iran, you're not so effective today. I don't think you're doing

00:05:25.820 much communicating with your staff if you're the number two nuclear guy. So at the very least, it's going

00:05:32.380 to make things less efficient over there. All right. Let's talk about something else. So I tweeted today

00:05:43.520 my minimum requirement for unity with Democrats. Now, Democrats are calling for unity, some of them

00:05:53.500 anyway. And I like the concept of unity. And I like anytime a national leader calls for unity,

00:06:04.080 we should take that pretty seriously. And I think that the United States should have as its very strong

00:06:12.040 goal to be unified. Of course, you need a system to get there. But here is what I would recommend.

00:06:20.940 In order to get good with somebody, it helps if you tell them what it would take. Because you don't

00:06:27.280 want somebody who's trying to find some unity with you, just guessing what you need. Right? It just

00:06:35.000 isn't very efficient for the other person to say, okay, I want some unity with you. I'd like to get

00:06:39.800 along. I'm going to guess what it would take to do that. Why make them guess? Why not just say,

00:06:48.640 look, I'll be okay with you under the following conditions. You know, I'll still hate your policies,

00:06:54.720 and we'll still argue about politics. But I'll be okay with you as a citizen, as a person. I'll be

00:07:01.460 okay with you under the following conditions. And here are my conditions. Now, it's not the only things

00:07:07.720 that have ever bothered me. I'm just saying it's the only things I need, sort of the minimum, to think

00:07:15.760 about unity. And my minimum requirement is that the Democrats apologize for the fine people hoax,

00:07:23.880 the drinking bleach hoax, and the Russian collusion hoax, which they like to confuse with Russian

00:07:30.260 interference, which actually did happen. And of course, I'm using a little persuasion trick.

00:07:37.300 Do you recognize it? What persuasion trick am I using? Maybe more than one. Let's see how good you

00:07:44.100 are at spotting them now. I've been training you for a few years. I'll read it again. And then you tell

00:07:50.600 me what persuasion trick. Yeah, laundry list is one of them. But there's another one I'm going for.

00:07:56.980 All right, see if you can catch it. My minimum requirement for unity with Democrats is an

00:08:00.800 apology for the fine people hoax, drinking bleach hoax, and the Russian collusion hoax.

00:08:05.920 Somebody says high ground? No. It's, I see why you're saying high ground, but that's not what I was

00:08:12.580 going for. It's thinking past the sale. That is correct. Very good. Most I'm seeing in the comments,

00:08:19.360 most of you are actually getting the right answer. Would you have gotten that answer before I started

00:08:25.940 talking about this thinking past the sale thing? Would you have all spotted that? Because I'd like

00:08:32.080 to think that I set your filter so that you can spot it now. All right. So it is a persuasion trick

00:08:39.440 to make them think about the apology for the hoaxes. It makes them think past the question of,

00:08:47.180 hey, were these things real or were these things hoaxes? Now they were hoaxes. I'm not trying to

00:08:52.520 fool people into thinking something untrue. I'm trying to persuade them into thinking something

00:08:58.880 that's true, that is real. You know, it's closer to reality than whatever they were imagining. So I

00:09:06.240 would say that this is ethical persuasion. Manipulation is a word that I would use for

00:09:13.940 unethical persuasion, where you're persuading something that's good. You're persuading other

00:09:19.480 people to do something that's good for you, but maybe not so good for them. That's manipulation.

00:09:26.540 But regular persuasion, where you're getting people to do things that are good for them and good for

00:09:31.280 you, I would say that's just leadership. All right. And of course, this triggered a bunch of people

00:09:39.120 to say, what do you mean, find people hoax? I saw it myself on TV. He said it. I heard it with my own

00:09:46.700 ears. And I'm taking a new technique with those people. My old technique was, let me show you my

00:09:54.960 evidence. Here's the transcript. Here's my argument for why it's a hoax. As you've witnessed, I've been

00:10:01.320 doing that for years with almost no success. Almost no success in simply presenting an argument with

00:10:11.360 facts and really clear facts, ones which they can check. Oh, here's the transcript. Now I see that I

00:10:18.860 only saw the first part of the transcript. Now that you've showed me the second part, I can see it's a

00:10:24.220 hoax. But when I only saw the first part, I was convinced I saw everything I needed to see. And then I was

00:10:30.900 fooled. All right. So that never worked. You would think that would be the most obvious thing that

00:10:37.520 would work, right? I believe something incorrect. Well, let me give you incontrovertible proof that

00:10:45.940 you can check yourself in five seconds. You can Google it yourself. Just look for yourself. In five

00:10:52.860 seconds, I can show you a fact that disproves your original thought. Didn't work. Not

00:11:00.440 ever. So here's the new technique. When somebody makes that claim, he did say it. I saw it with my

00:11:09.040 own eyes. I retweet it. And I tell the world, there are still people who think this happened.

00:11:15.640 There's still people who believe this. And boy, does it trigger them. Of course, they go crazy,

00:11:22.060 because you're calling them out to embarrass them for a fake memory, which they still think is true.

00:11:28.340 And so they're going to start to defend their false memory, which they can't. It's not possible because

00:11:35.280 it didn't happen. And here's the new trick. So the new trick compared to the old trick, the old

00:11:42.220 technique was I would show them the transcript and make my argument. It never worked. The new one is

00:11:48.260 this. I say, if you believe it happened, I challenge you to go find the transcript and paste it in the

00:11:55.880 comments. And of course, they think, what kind of trick is this? Are you telling me that if I go get

00:12:04.580 the transcript myself, I'm going to debunk myself? And of course, they don't believe that. And the

00:12:11.260 first thing that they will do, predictably, is go get the fake transcript, which is the first half

00:12:16.800 where they leave out Trump's clarification that was unprompted, that modifies what he said,

00:12:22.780 so you're not confused. If you only see the top half, you are confused. That's why he clarified it.

00:12:29.340 So that's the first thing they'll do is say, here it is. Here's the transcript. I win. I said he said it

00:12:36.980 in public. There's the transcript. I've won my case. And then you say, no, it isn't. That's not the

00:12:44.320 transcript. Now go back and find the whole transcript. Now, the reason that I do this is because it is

00:12:52.060 impossible to talk somebody into believing something they thought they saw with their own eyes. But it

00:12:58.120 might be possible to get them to talk themselves out of it. You have to make them work. Because if

00:13:05.920 you do the work and say, here's the transcript, just read it. That just never works. Because they're

00:13:12.000 just automatically in defensive mode. But if you make them do the work on their own, you go find

00:13:18.500 me the transcript. No, that wasn't it. Nope. Nope. You did not find the transcript yet. You found the

00:13:25.180 fake one. Now go back and find the rest of it. Because even you can see that wasn't the last thing

00:13:31.680 he said. I mean, you can tell from the excerpt that's not done. So we'll see if that works. I'll

00:13:37.760 report in later. But it looked like it was making an effect. All right. I'd like to read to you

00:13:44.500 two versions of the news. Okay. One version. Let's say the two movies on one screen version of the

00:13:54.220 news. And it's about the Pennsylvania legal challenges. And it goes like this. First,

00:14:00.880 I'll give you the news from the, let's say, the right. The news is there are lots of irregularities

00:14:09.580 and constitutional violations of the Pennsylvania election. And it's working itself through the

00:14:16.340 legal system. And we have some indication from the Supreme Court that they're likely to agree and

00:14:22.840 throw out a bunch of votes. So Pennsylvania is looking good. Not only that, but a couple dozen

00:14:28.460 state legislators have said that they don't trust the certification of the election.

00:14:34.720 Pretty good source, right? Pretty good. All right. Somebody just reminded me to put my ring back on.

00:14:43.780 Thank you. Here's the second version of the news. Pennsylvania, they keep trying these lawsuits and

00:14:51.840 they keep getting kicked out. Why? Because there's no evidence. There's no proof. There's no proof.

00:14:57.480 There's no evidence. Pennsylvania lawsuits, no chance. It's over. It's dead and done. It's buried and

00:15:04.380 it's 100 feet in the ground. It's covered with dirt. It's covered with gravel. It's covered with

00:15:10.100 nuclear waste. That's how far in a hole the legal challenges are. There is no hope. No hope in the

00:15:18.300 world cannot be done. The Constitution and, in fact, physics itself makes it impossible. You can't

00:15:27.080 change time. Reality is set. Nothing can happen. The election is over. Over. Over. Over. Over. Over.

00:15:34.800 Over. And then the other news. Looks like when it goes to the Supreme Court, things are going to go

00:15:44.160 pretty well for Trump. Both of those news. Somebody says in the comments, why is Dale wearing your

00:15:53.220 wedding ring? What do you like to know? And so I'm trying to figure out what is real. What is real?

00:16:07.060 Let's take the fact that I think 26 state legislators from, these are the Republicans,

00:16:17.580 from Pennsylvania now have no confidence in the vote. So is 26 a lot? If 26 GOP legislators say

00:16:32.680 they're not confident, they're not confident, is that a lot? Because the first time I saw the news,

00:16:37.380 it was out of context. As in, is 26 a lot? Just, if you want to know how completely incompetent

00:16:48.220 the news business is, imagine that you as a consumer heard this news. 26 Republicans are

00:16:55.460 questioning the credibility of the election. What did that tell you? Nothing.

00:17:02.080 Because you don't know how many legislators there are, do you? How many of you knew how

00:17:07.860 many legislators there are? I didn't. How many, how many, how many legislators are there in

00:17:13.900 Pennsylvania? Beats me. Don't have an idea. Now, how many of the, the answer is there are

00:17:23.840 203 seats. So that would be 26 and of, and of 203. I think somebody did the math for me here in the

00:17:31.900 comments and said 11%. So are you done? It's only 11%. You can kind of ignore 11%, can't you? Or can

00:17:43.060 you? Is 11% a lot? Or is 11% nothing? Because it's not a vote, right? If it were a vote, 11% would be

00:17:54.080 nothing. If it were a number of people who are going to die from coronavirus, 11% would be sky high.

00:18:03.880 You'd be like, that'd be the end of civilization, I think. Not quite. But it's 11%. Oh, oh, it's not

00:18:15.380 really 11%. Let's modify this a little bit. Because there are only 113 Republicans. Do you expect

00:18:24.800 that there would be any Democrats, no matter the information, no matter the data, no matter the

00:18:30.900 evidence, do you believe that any Democrats would say the election was not credible once

00:18:38.780 they've won? All right. Is it reasonable to think that any of the Democrats could possibly

00:18:45.560 be honest, even if they believe the election was fake? No. So I think if you're going to be

00:18:51.980 reasonable and say, okay, how much of a big deal is this 26 legislators and a 203? You have

00:18:58.740 to subtract the Democrats. Because the only group that matters are the group that could

00:19:04.680 change their mind. If you've got a group that you know with a high degree of certainty, it

00:19:11.560 doesn't matter what the facts are. They're not going to use the facts to make any kind of

00:19:16.420 decisions here. They're going to use politics. They won. Now, reverse the situation. Let's say

00:19:23.520 Republicans had won. And the Democrats were thinking of challenging the credibility of

00:19:29.320 the election. Would you expect even one Republican, if they had won, to question the credibility of

00:19:37.640 an election that they won? No. Quite obviously, that would be zero. You know, is anybody doubting

00:19:46.680 that? Do I need to give you proof that if the Republicans had won the election, that they wouldn't

00:19:54.480 be questioning the credibility? Because I've been told that nothing can be true or known until you have

00:20:00.680 proof. I don't have any proof. How can I prove that Republicans would act like human beings act

00:20:08.700 every single time human beings are in a certain kind of situation? Now, forget about Republicans.

00:20:15.420 It's the Democrats that are the human beings in this specific situation who have won and defeated 0.59

00:20:24.420 Orange Hitler. It's not just winning. It's not like winning a softball game. They defeated Orange 0.91

00:20:31.980 Hitler. Is there any reasonable chance that that group, the winners, are going to say, yeah, maybe rethink 0.95

00:20:39.600 this. Maybe we should open up the possibility that Orange Hitler would become our leader again. 0.95

00:20:45.420 No. No. You don't need any evidence. You don't need any proof. Those Democrats are simply not

00:20:53.780 relevant to the question of whether the election was credible. They don't have any value to the

00:21:01.820 decision. So take them out. So now it's 26 out of 113 Republicans. Ooh, what's 26 out of 113?

00:21:11.840 Alexa, what is 26 divided by 113? Pause.

00:21:20.560 26 divided by 113 is approximately 014301.

00:21:25.640 23%. If 23% of the legislators who could change their mind, in other words, they're the only ones who

00:21:37.620 have even a possibility of saying, yeah, I think this election is not so good. 23%? 23% is enough.

00:21:47.900 It's way enough. It's way enough. It is completely enough. Because if the game here is to get the

00:21:55.840 House, and you're going to have to fact check me on some of the constitutional ins and outs here,

00:22:02.300 but I think that if the House looks at these legislators and sees that nearly a quarter of them

00:22:09.540 think the election was thrown, that would give them enough cover to say there's too much doubt.

00:22:19.700 Right? How much reasonable doubt does the House need in order to say, you know, I think we're just

00:22:27.640 going to make our own decision and ignore the election? What is the quantity or percentage or

00:22:34.640 however you want to measure it, of how much doubt? If this were a legal case, how much doubt would you

00:22:43.560 need to get somebody off who had been accused? It wouldn't take much. Maybe 10% doubt? 5% doubt?

00:22:53.460 How much doubt would it take to find somebody innocent, even if there was a lot of evidence,

00:22:58.740 but there was still a 10% doubt? You would let them go, wouldn't you? Now, what if it was a 20%

00:23:07.860 doubt? Well, then I think you would definitely let them go. Could you imagine convicting somebody

00:23:13.660 if you felt in your own mind there was a 20% doubt? You wouldn't. You wouldn't even come close to

00:23:19.680 convicting them. You wouldn't even consider it, because you're a reasonable person, right?

00:23:24.520 So I think that Pennsylvania, at least in terms of the Republican goals here, I think they

00:23:33.860 accomplished what they wanted to. And it's probably still not done, because I think it goes to the

00:23:38.320 Supreme Court now. At least one of the challenges about a rule change. Now, one of the rule change,

00:23:43.820 one of the reasons that I guess was the Pennsylvania court, the high court said that the legal challenge

00:23:53.680 in which they challenged a 2019 rule change about mail-in ballots. So the challenge was to get rid of

00:24:01.620 those votes that had been the subject of that rule change, because the change came from the court and

00:24:08.400 not the legislature. I think that's the nature of it. And therefore, the change was unconstitutional.

00:24:13.460 So it got challenged. And this is why the court rejected that challenge. Because of the doctrine of

00:24:24.560 latches or laches. L-A-C-H-E-S. Have you ever heard that word before, if you're not a lawyer? If you're

00:24:35.480 not a lawyer, have you ever even heard that word? Have you ever heard of the doctrine of latches or

00:24:43.560 laches? Or somebody says latches? I don't know how to pronounce it. Oh, thank you. In the comments, they're

00:24:50.780 saying it's latches. So the doctrine of latches. It doesn't have a T in it, but L-A-C-H. And here's what that 0.94

00:24:59.060 means. I had to look it up. And what it means in just ordinary talk, not legal talk, is that you

00:25:07.620 waited too long. And if you wait too long to accuse somebody of something, there's an implied

00:25:14.520 disadvantage for the accused. And I think there's also an assumed just a fairness and appropriateness.

00:25:26.040 And it's sort of subjective, right? So the thought is that you've waited too long to make your claim.

00:25:35.160 And therefore, we can ignore the claim. So the claim was ignored because they said you didn't miss

00:25:44.380 a deadline. This is the important part. There was no deadline to make the claim per se, in terms of a

00:25:51.180 law or a statute or anything like that. It was just felt by the court that it seemed too long.

00:25:59.800 Now, remember I told you that the court will rule on your feelings, sometimes, more than they will rule

00:26:07.840 on the letter of the law. So I think this is one of those clear cases where they said it would seem

00:26:16.180 inequitable and unfair and it would disenfranchise voters if we do this. So we're not even going to

00:26:23.820 look at the claim that it was unconstitutional. How do you describe what I just described other than

00:26:32.660 saying they put feelings ahead of the law? And I believe that this is a common thing, not an uncommon

00:26:39.820 thing. Rather that the court does sometimes say, what's best for the world in our opinions, we're the judges,

00:26:47.760 so we get to be a little subjective, what's best for the world? And sometimes judges think what's best

00:26:56.260 for the world is to ignore the law and ignore the Constitution. I would argue that abortion rights are an 0.99

00:27:06.420 example of that. I would argue that, you know, the Supreme Court kind of made up a right, I know people on the

00:27:14.380 right believe this, you know, the privacy or whatever it is, sort of crafted a law out of nothing and said, ah, it's

00:27:21.240 sort of there if you look hard enough. I think that was just an example of the Supreme Court saying that in their

00:27:28.180 opinion at the time, that the world was better ignoring the law, you know, or just making up a law of their own,

00:27:39.140 if you will. So it's not that uncommon.

00:27:46.180 But there you go. I would say that the odds of something like that getting overturned by the Supreme Court,

00:27:51.560 I'm no Supreme Court expert, but I would think this whole doctrine of latches just looks like bullshit to 0.99

00:27:58.520 me. Looks like bullshit to me. But we'll see. All right. I said yesterday that I'm going to start 1.00

00:28:11.040 giving out compliments to various entities, especially entities and people that I have criticized

00:28:20.620 in the past. So it's just a holiday thing. I'm going to compliment people and things and entities that I had been

00:28:28.740 tough on in the past. Here's an example. Have you seen any photos of the new Ford Bronco? I was pretty brutal about

00:28:36.440 Ford when I was trying to buy a Ford truck and it's just a hard process. But oh my god, the new Ford Bronco, it's

00:28:46.240 redesigned. That thing is beautiful. Now I don't know, you know, what reviews it's going to get. I don't

00:28:53.000 know how it is, you know, automotively and all that. But I am so glad to live in a country with a company

00:29:04.200 like Ford, American company, that can build such a beautiful product. I think the same thing about

00:29:10.220 Apple all the time. You know, I criticize Apple about various things. But man, you can't, you got to

00:29:16.240 give it up for their design. Their design is beautiful. This Ford Bronco, I want that thing

00:29:22.820 with an irrational lust. The moment I saw the picture, I just, I just freaking had to have this

00:29:30.460 thing. So, you know, I bought a new vehicle not that long ago, so I won't. But I'm going to look at

00:29:36.840 it hard for my next vehicle, for sure. All right, that's my compliment of the day to Ford.

00:29:45.120 So I did a little unscientific Twitter poll, and I said this, according to the news and social media

00:29:53.540 you consume, and this is important according to, so this is not you making up opinions out of nothing,

00:30:00.960 but according to the news and social media that you personally consume, which of these claims

00:30:06.740 has more evidence? And the claims were that there was election fraud, is there more evidence for

00:30:13.080 that, or climate emergency? I used emergency just to be more clear that I'm not talking about climate

00:30:21.660 change, but rather that it's an emergency. Which has more evidence? In my scientific, unscientific poll,

00:30:30.020 87% of you said that election fraud has more evidence than climate emergency.

00:30:39.700 Now, if I made this same Twitter poll and ran it on Alyssa Milano's, on her Twitter feed,

00:30:50.400 pretty sure the numbers would be either completely reversed or 100% would say the opposite.

00:30:57.540 So here's my point. What does it mean when people say, follow the facts and follow the evidence

00:31:08.700 and follow the proof and believe the experts and listen to the science? What does any of that mean

00:31:19.000 when we can't do those things? So here's some advice for you. This is good advice, by the way, and I think you

00:31:29.340 would agree this is good advice. If you find yourself in the middle of the road, and there's a bus coming

00:31:35.700 right at you, and you realize that you don't have enough time to get out of the way, transport.

00:31:41.820 Just use your transporter, like Star Trek, and go, disappear, and then just reappear and transport to a

00:31:51.080 different place. That is my advice. Is there anything wrong with my advice? Do you find any flaw in my

00:31:58.440 advice that if you don't have enough time to get away from the bus in the normal way of like walking or

00:32:04.180 jumping, that you would just use your Star Trek transporter? Why not? Oh, oh, I forgot. Transporters don't

00:32:14.120 exist. Is that the only reason you can't use my advice? Because it's not a thing? It doesn't exist? But it would

00:32:24.140 be great advice otherwise, wouldn't it? I mean, if it existed, pretty good advice. So here's some more

00:32:32.360 advice that's exactly like that transporter example. Follow the science.

00:32:41.440 Do we have, how much proof do you need that people can't do that? You can't do that because you don't

00:32:49.520 know which science is real. How about follow the facts? You can't do that because you don't know what

00:32:57.540 facts are real. Look at the fine people hoax. The people who believe the fine people hoax,

00:33:03.040 here's the head scratcher. And I know this might come as a shock. They're not dumber than you.

00:33:15.060 They're not. They're not dumber than you. They just believe something sincerely that is not 1.00

00:33:22.220 the case. So if they follow the facts, how's that going to work out? Because their fact is wrong.

00:33:30.620 But they're not dumb. They don't have a lower IQ than you do on average. Not at all. People 0.98

00:33:38.600 cannot follow the evidence. They don't have that power. It just doesn't exist.

00:33:46.140 Right? All we have is confirmation bias. And we know what team we're on. So we know what the team

00:33:53.560 argument is. We have opinions that get assigned to us by the media. But there's nothing like people

00:33:59.540 looking at data and evidence and applying their reason and coming to good decisions. You don't live

00:34:05.640 in that world any more than you live in the world where you can use your transporter to get out of the

00:34:11.120 way of the bus. So the advice to follow the science, as Joe Biden condescendingly says,

00:34:18.200 because he's a fucking idiot, because it just isn't a thing. It just isn't a thing. 1.00

00:34:25.000 You can't do it or not do it. It's just not a thing.

00:34:30.520 All right. Here's a concept which you should keep in mind. We talk about the fog of war with any 1.00

00:34:39.020 big story that just blows up. And in the initial days, everything you know about the story ends up

00:34:45.800 being wrong, right? We call that the fog of war. When it's new and there's too many things happening,

00:34:52.020 all the information is wrong. You don't know anything until a few days of going by. I would say

00:34:57.860 that the election and allegations of election fraud were very much that fog of war situation.

00:35:05.580 Very much a fog of war. Meaning that whatever allegations of fraud came out of the first week

00:35:16.020 or so after the election, if you were to look at them on average, what you should expect is that

00:35:23.340 they would be weak or false compared to any allegations which were developed over more time.

00:35:31.140 So if you were to look at the bag of allegations after, let's say, the fourth week of research

00:35:36.900 versus the bag of allegations on the first week, there should be a big difference.

00:35:43.340 And the Democrats have lulled themselves into a sense that the highly inaccurate fog of war

00:35:50.860 accusations that came out of the first week tell you the quality to expect after the fourth week

00:35:57.080 when we've had time to look into it. And I don't think those are going to be even close.

00:36:04.920 All right? Now, if there's nothing there, then it will be BS in the beginning and BS at the end.

00:36:11.640 But if there is something there, the normal way you should expect things to go is that the initial

00:36:18.120 things you heard were more BS than real, but by the end, it would be more real than BS.

00:36:23.800 But it will take you a while to get there. So everybody who's looking at the court cases that

00:36:29.000 got filed a few weeks ago, and it's just taking a while to work through the system and go to the

00:36:34.180 higher courts, etc., they largely are meaningless. They're really nothing but stalling tactics,

00:36:43.480 I think. I think that was actually the legal strategy was just to stall. Keep the topic open

00:36:49.580 until they can find better evidence. I've said this before, but boy, do we need a dictator retirement

00:36:59.640 system. Have you ever noticed that whenever you want a dictator to leave power, what are they going

00:37:07.020 to do? If you're a dictator and you give up power, do you end up like Qaddafi? Do you end up like

00:37:15.140 Mussolini? Giving up power looks like kind of a bad deal. And if the only way you can end a bad

00:37:22.300 situation is to get a dictator out of that job, why would they ever leave? You need some kind of an

00:37:30.000 exit path where a dictator who's in a pretty good situation, because dictator, gets to retire

00:37:37.160 with some kind of confidence that they won't be killed and they can still have a good life and

00:37:43.040 their family won't be rounded up, etc. And although I do not consider President Trump a dictator,

00:37:51.600 look at the situation that has been created not by him. Here's the situation.

00:37:59.320 There's this sketchy election. Was that his fault? Is it President Trump's fault that the election

00:38:06.220 has low credibility? Not really. You know, there was a pandemic. We did the best we could, but there

00:38:12.820 were too many opportunities for cheating. So we have this election that is at least doubted by

00:38:18.580 the majority of the country at this point. So he didn't cause that. In fact, he argued very strongly

00:38:26.100 against mail-in ballots, which may have helped, I don't know, maybe he'd still be complaining about the

00:38:32.560 voting machines. But they've created a situation where they're saying that once he's out of power,

00:38:40.200 they're going to go after him and try to put him in jail. And the only thing that's keeping him out of

00:38:45.420 jail, say half the country, is that he's still in office. And the moment he leaves office, he's going

00:38:54.620 to go to jail. Now, do you have to be an expert on human motivation to know what that will cause?

00:39:03.740 I can't put myself in the president's mind. But if you put me in that situation, am I going to

00:39:11.720 concede the election? Would you concede an election if the people who are asking you to concede are

00:39:19.420 saying, would you please concede this election and we can just put you in jail? Why would you do that?

00:39:27.160 So the Democrats have created a situation where he has to hold on. He has to fight. And if there's a

00:39:35.160 gray area, he has to push it. If there's a boundary, he has to test it. If there's a door, he has to see

00:39:41.820 if it's unlocked. If there's one breath left in his body, he absolutely has to fucking pursue it. 0.98

00:39:50.740 Because they made that situation. He didn't create that situation. This situation was created by 0.99

00:39:57.480 Democrats. And no matter what he wanted about being president or not being president, no matter how bad

00:40:04.280 he felt about losing, etc., if he lost, he doesn't have a choice now. You kind of forced his hand.

00:40:14.800 If you want him to concede, you're going to have to give him an exit ramp. He doesn't have one.

00:40:22.580 Let me suggest one just for fun and conversation. This is never going to happen. But it's possible.

00:40:29.140 Well, it's just deeply unlikely. There are two pardons which I think would help the country move

00:40:36.480 forward. And I think you would agree. You won't like one of these pardons. And people on the other

00:40:44.060 side of the political divide, they're not going to like the other one. So it's going to be like a

00:40:51.460 hostage exchange. You know, one pardon for one pardon, just to move the country ahead. And they would

00:40:58.920 go like this, a blanket pardon for Hunter Biden. Blanket pardon, meaning not specific to a crime.

00:41:07.540 And I believe Richard Nixon got one of those. It's just time limited. So in other words, you'd say,

00:41:12.760 we pardon everything you've done up to today's date. Likewise, you do the same thing with President

00:41:19.360 Trump. Now, you might need to put Pence in office for one day to do the pardon to make it legal or

00:41:25.400 whatever. But you could do it. And you trade, you trade a Hunter Biden pardon, a generic one for

00:41:34.140 everything up to that date for a President Trump pardon for everything that's happened up to the

00:41:39.480 date of his last day in office. Would you object? Because the Hunter Biden stuff, I think, is real.

00:41:48.320 And it's also a risk to the United States, because it puts him in a in a compromised, blackmailable 1.00

00:41:56.040 situation, wouldn't you say, which makes Biden the senior and sort of a blackmailable situation.

00:42:04.640 And so I feel that, you know, even Republicans are way better off if Hunter Biden gets a pardon,

00:42:11.900 like just a generic, get in a jail free card, because I don't want China to come later and say, 0.83

00:42:20.260 you know, we got a little something on you, Hunter Biden. Or I don't want, I don't want Joe Biden to be

00:42:27.620 thinking, well, China hasn't directly threatened to blackmail me. But they do have the goods.

00:42:34.720 They do have the goods, or they might have the goods. So I'm just going to be sort of biased in

00:42:40.100 their favor, not because they've threatened me, not because of a specific problem, but because of

00:42:47.100 Hunter. Just the whole situation. I just don't want China to use that in some way. Of course it would 1.00

00:42:56.280 affect them. Fathers are affected by the, you know, the needs of their children. So I would say

00:43:05.700 we should get past, if it turns out that the, that Biden takes office, still uncertain. But if it

00:43:13.380 happened, I think we should do a trade. Pardon for a pardon. All right. Somebody pointed out on

00:43:22.960 Twitter, and I hate when I do this, so I apologize to the whole world for doing this. Every now and then

00:43:30.280 I'll see a witty comment on Twitter, and I'll remember it, but I won't write down who wrote,

00:43:35.860 who said it. So I can't give them credit. But the idea is so good or funny that I still want to say

00:43:41.080 it. But so it's not mine. I'm just saying I don't know who said it first. Somebody said it must be a

00:43:47.600 simulation we're living in, because what are the odds that the, that this election fraud thing would

00:43:55.180 come down to Republicans finding a, a, a, a bald headed genius whose last name is Brainard.

00:44:04.760 Okay. Now, I don't know if you've seen a picture of him, but Matt Brainard, who apparently is a,

00:44:11.520 you know, some genius data analyst on the Trump side of things. And he's been looking at all the

00:44:18.080 fraud allegations from the data analysis domain. And he's, he's one of the people in this conversation

00:44:25.600 that people actually trust, because he had, you know, serious talent and experience in this domain,

00:44:32.780 data analysis. So his data analysis is picking up some interesting things, such as, he said, quote,

00:44:39.920 I can show you the names of people who voted in multiple states, and the raw data states make

00:44:45.480 available. So in other words, he's just using the dates, he's using the state's own data. He's not

00:44:52.100 making up data, he's just using the state's own data. And he said, you could show that the same people

00:44:56.860 voted in multiple states. Now, here's the question. The first thing you ask is, Scott, don't you know

00:45:08.760 that there are probably a lot of people named Scott Adams who voted in all 50 states? Because there are

00:45:17.180 people named Scott Adams who did vote probably in all 50 states. I don't know about Rhode Island or

00:45:25.100 Alaska, but probably, I'll bet there are three Scott Adamses in my town. So if you looked at, you know,

00:45:33.960 for duplicate names on voter rolls against states, of course, you're going to find a lot of them.

00:45:39.900 But I did a follow up. And I said, if I tweet this, I asked somebody who knew the answer to this

00:45:47.640 question. If I tweet this, am I going to be embarrassed later that somebody is going to just

00:45:52.600 say, Scott, you know, there are a lot of people with the same name. And of course, let me go back to

00:46:00.400 my initial point. Did I mention that Matt Brainerd is a genius and his last name is Brainerd? If your

00:46:09.440 last name is named after a brain, you're pretty smart. It has to happen that way because of the

00:46:15.640 simulation. So Matt Brainerd does know that people in different states could have the same name.

00:46:21.380 Believe it or not, geniuses know that. Nobody had to tell him. So he did check for that, of course.

00:46:27.580 So whatever they did to double check for that, he is smart enough to know that people with the same

00:46:34.840 name live in other states. So don't worry that that's all that's happening. There's more than that.

00:46:39.300 Now, is that enough? Did he find enough of those votes that would change the election? Well, here's

00:46:45.980 the really clever part of this alleged election fraud. If the election fraud happened, it happened in

00:46:56.240 multiple ways in the areas where it happened. So in other words, there probably were some dead people

00:47:03.340 who voted. There probably were some batches of ballots that got, you know, grabbed from the people

00:47:10.620 who were supposed to get them. There probably were some people voting in two states. There probably

00:47:18.980 were some ballot corrections. There probably were some fake ballots fed in somewhere. There probably

00:47:27.880 were some, you know, some mischief with the software. Probably. And the problem here is that if you're on

00:47:38.580 the other team and you're trying to say, hey, this election is fraudulent, what if you find three of

00:47:46.660 the seven ways that the election was stolen? Or let's say you can prove three of them. You feel pretty

00:47:56.120 confident the others are real, but you can prove three of them. And of seven, what will the court say?

00:48:04.160 You've got seven claims. Three of them look pretty darn solid. Four of them may be true, but you can't

00:48:12.060 prove it. The court will say those three, if you add them together, do not change the result of the

00:48:21.180 election because you needed all seven. And the court will say it's not enough because the whole point

00:48:29.800 you're bringing it up is to change the result. If you're bringing us something to court that even if

00:48:36.200 we ruled on it, wouldn't change the outcome of the election, we're not even going to rule on it.

00:48:41.140 We're going to say, go home. That's a waste of time. So the genius of this alleged election fraud

00:48:50.020 is that it was packetized. I'll use an analogy from telecommunications where your data is put in

00:49:02.680 little packets so that if something happens to one of the packets, you haven't lost everything and you

00:49:09.000 can autocorrect, you can correct and resend it. So what they've done is they've diversified their fraud

00:49:15.560 fraud so that if any of the individual frauds get found, it won't matter because they're too small.

00:49:24.560 You needed all seven, or maybe you needed five and a seven, or you needed the right ones out of the

00:49:30.780 seven, you know, the big ones. Finding three and a seven, which is I think what we're heading toward,

00:49:37.480 you know, in conceptual terms, not real numbers. But I think we're heading toward finding some,

00:49:43.940 but not all, at least in terms of proving it, of the fraud. And it won't be enough. So it would be

00:49:53.360 enough to put Biden in office. All right. That is what I had to talk about today. You know, I think

00:50:03.660 that there's a good chance that Pennsylvania will go the way the Republicans want. There is a good chance

00:50:11.200 that the Supreme Court, because I think they've already signaled it, that they're not going to go

00:50:16.620 with this doctrine of latches business. I feel as though that was just too obviously political BS

00:50:25.660 that I don't know that the Supreme Court's going to buy into that. But I'm no legal scholar, so I could

00:50:31.380 be surprised. Now, suppose, help me with this, right? Because it gets complicated, obviously.

00:50:38.660 Uh, if Pennsylvania got reversed and either was taken out of the mix, no, let's just say it got

00:50:47.880 reversed. Let's say it was reversed. And I don't think this is likely, but let's say it gets reversed

00:50:52.740 and Trump becomes the winner. What is the next state that he would need to win to flip the entire

00:50:59.940 result? What is the next state that has the best argument? Is it Georgia or Wisconsin?

00:51:08.080 Wisconsin. I think Michigan's got a lot of issues, but I don't know if that's the most reversible one.

00:51:17.600 Where's your head at? What's your plan post-election? We'll talk about that.

00:51:23.040 I'm seeing a lot of people say Georgia.

00:51:26.420 Somebody says Arizona. Yeah, I guess I don't know enough to dig into those too much.

00:51:31.760 California? Yeah, I don't think it'd be California.

00:51:34.000 California. All right, so we, we have opinions all over the place here. We do not know.

00:51:41.340 Let's see. Got some new news coming in.

00:51:46.280 Um,

00:51:46.800 all right.

00:51:52.500 So let me look at some questions here before I go.

00:51:55.300 Somebody says if he gets Pennsylvania, he needs two more of the disputed states. That's what I was

00:52:05.180 looking for. So that's a fact, right? He would need two more, not one more. So people are saying

00:52:11.640 Georgia and Wisconsin. Well, maybe we'll see.

00:52:13.900 Somebody says it seems you're so cleverly trying to, uh, soften you up for a Biden presidency. Does

00:52:25.340 anybody think that I'm, uh, catting on the roof at you to get you, uh, mentally prepared for a Biden

00:52:32.520 presidency? I think that's the effect of it. That is, I think that's, you know, the result of what I'm

00:52:40.460 doing. It's not my intention exactly, because I'm not afraid of a, uh, I'm not afraid of Republicans,

00:52:47.960 uh, staging a violent rebellion. So I didn't feel I needed to do that. I do think it would be accurate

00:52:56.680 to say that that that's what I am doing, but that's not the point of it. The point of it is just to talk

00:53:02.800 about it as objectively as possible. And that's just what comes out of it.

00:53:09.400 Most of you think that I'm, uh, cleverly, uh, cleverly persuading you to accept a Biden presidency.

00:53:18.600 Well, let me tell you this. If there are, there are two different paths here. One of the paths is

00:53:26.540 that the Republicans hold the Senate. They win in Georgia. They'll say they win both seats. They hold

00:53:32.220 the Senate. Then you've got a, uh, a deadlocked government. I would say, wouldn't you agree

00:53:38.560 that if the Senate is held, a Biden presidency is not nearly as dangerous as if it went the other way?

00:53:45.940 I think you'd all agree with that. But imagine, if you will, that both Democrat senators win in Georgia,

00:53:53.820 which would give the Senate and the whole government to the Democrats. And here's the second part.

00:54:01.340 Republicans think that the election was stolen again. If that happens, all bets are off. Okay.

00:54:10.920 I can't predict what would happen if Democrats win both houses in Georgia and it looks like it was rigged.

00:54:21.360 Now, even if it doesn't look like it was rigged, Republicans are going to think it was rigged because

00:54:26.520 they expect to win, right? And since only President Trump allegedly had problems in the general election

00:54:34.920 and, and the Republicans did great in the undercard, they should expect, and also because special elections

00:54:43.760 favor Republicans, you should expect the Republicans to win. But what if at four in the morning,

00:54:51.520 both Republicans are ahead, the voting stops for two hours, and when it recommences, all the votes are

00:54:59.720 for the Democrats? What are the odds that what I just described is about to happen in a few weeks

00:55:06.740 in Georgia? It's not a zero. I mean, I don't, I don't, don't know what odds you could put on that being

00:55:14.220 stolen, but it's definitely not a zero. If I had to guess, I think there's at least a 50% chance

00:55:24.220 that under the, under the condition that the presidential election was stolen, which would,

00:55:33.420 which would prove that the stealing is possible, right? If that's true, and I think it's true,

00:55:40.020 if it's true, it's not proven, but I think it will be, then I think the Georgia election will be stolen.

00:55:50.660 Or at least they're going to think about it, or at least they're going to try. I don't know. We'll see.

00:55:55.520 It would be a Harris presidency. Somebody says the Slaughter Meter is Scott's Frankenstein. 0.72

00:56:10.340 You know, the Slaughter Meter made an assumption that turned out not to be the case. The Slaughter

00:56:16.280 Meter based its prediction on the assumption that the, the election would be fair.

00:56:24.660 ish, or fair enough. And I don't think that happened. So I think the Slaughter Meter prediction

00:56:31.520 became moot, because the thing it predicted was sort of sabotaged by something else.

00:56:39.400 The, the cat has many comorbidities. Somebody's asking me, how's the cat that was on the roof?

00:56:44.580 Is the election not fair? And why? Well, the allegation is that the election was not fair.

00:56:56.340 We know that elections can't be fair, because the news is fake, social media is biased,

00:57:01.860 there's some amount of fraud, no matter what, etc.

00:57:06.760 I think the rebellion on the right is probable. Nope. Nope. It is so unprobable.

00:57:19.360 If they aren't punished for their fraud, they will do more fraud. Well, the other possibility

00:57:25.540 is that we will put in more controls. So, you know, there, there are two ways to reduce the amount

00:57:33.200 of fraud in the future, if you believe it happened in the past. And one way,

00:57:38.800 one way is, uh, I forget it, I just read a comment that just threw me off.

00:57:46.880 Um, somebody says, if Pennsylvania is ruled in the courts, it's very possible Republicans get all

00:57:55.860 three. Is that because there's some connection in what Pennsylvania is doing and other states?

00:58:02.180 I don't, I don't feel like they're connected.

00:58:06.880 Somebody said, is this part of your promise to make the Biden presidency unmanageable?

00:58:11.620 I never promised anything like that. I would like the Biden presidency to succeed.

00:58:18.420 Why? Why would I not want America to succeed?

00:58:25.080 Uh, what are my other requirements for unity? I think it's easier to keep your requirements for

00:58:31.000 unity to some minimum number, something that could be done. Like, I don't want to have a list of

00:58:38.000 things. You must do all of these things, or I can't talk to you again. But there are just a few easy

00:58:43.700 ones. They're simple. Simple apology. Um, all right. Just looking at your comments here.

00:58:57.540 Plus, people were locked down. Yes, that obviously affected the, uh, the election.

00:59:01.820 What is my opinion on the global reset? I don't think the global reset is a giant scheme in which,

00:59:11.520 uh, the, the virus was intentional, released, or anything like that. It's obvious that things will

00:59:17.780 be different, but it's because we want them to be different. So you could call that a reset, but

00:59:23.480 I'm just not really dealing with that whole reset thing. You know, I'd rather call it the golden age and

00:59:28.580 say, yeah, things might be better. Um, people who did the fraud won't put in controls to prevent

00:59:37.680 fraud. Right. So if the only people who are working on the question of protecting the elections are the

00:59:44.200 people who did the fraud, yeah, you're not going to get any improvements. But I would imagine that if

00:59:50.680 any effort is made to improve things, they would be bipartisan. Uh, did DARPA win? Well, I think what

01:00:00.960 you're asking is, did AI win? So remember what I told you, if AI is already controlling us, then what

01:00:09.800 would happen is we would get the most controversial or provocative outcome that didn't actually kill us.

01:00:18.500 Did you notice that AI is keeping us alive? Because, uh, it could have given the election to

01:00:26.280 Trump. There could have been riots in the street. It could have been the end of the Republic. I didn't

01:00:31.140 think it was going to happen, but it could have been. If you were AI, do you want to end the Republic

01:00:35.900 or even take a chance of it? Or do you just want to keep us fighting with each other, but not

01:00:41.260 so violently that the computers get destroyed too? I don't think we have proof that AI already runs

01:00:49.340 things, but keep an eye at how many times our, our politics goes in the direction that is perfectly,

01:00:57.780 uh, designed for AI, but not for us. See how many times the, the actual outcomes boost AI at the

01:01:11.040 expense of humans? It's going to be a lot, right? Did, uh, did, uh, did Amazon and Google and all the

01:01:20.520 companies that have algorithms, did they grow as opposed to recent event from recent events or did they

01:01:28.580 shrink? They all grew. Algorithms got more important. There are more servers, more data being

01:01:35.060 analyzed. So AI grew. Human beings are pretty, you know, pretty challenged right now. We're, we're

01:01:45.520 suffering through this pandemic and through the election itself. So I would look for that pattern

01:01:52.200 because I don't know, we'll ever know the exact day that AI takes over for humans. We know it has to

01:01:59.800 happen. There isn't really any way it can't happen in the long run. In the short run, you could fight

01:02:06.140 it off. But in the long run, AI, of course, has to take over for humans, of course. And they won't even

01:02:12.420 have to, we won't have to fight them for it. We will surrender. We will surrender to AI

01:02:18.780 without even knowing we did. Let me give you an example. I've done this one before, but I like it.

01:02:25.620 Let's say you get an Apple watch or something that tells you when you're dehydrated. I don't know if

01:02:32.860 that's possible. Let's say that's possible. Probably is. And it tells you when to take to have some

01:02:38.300 beverages. Now you put on your watch and it goes peep, peep, peep in the middle of the day and it

01:02:43.020 says you're a little dehydrated. And you say to yourself, I've got free will. I don't have to take a

01:02:49.920 drink just because my AI said I'm dehydrated. Watch me not. Well, time goes by and you say,

01:02:59.100 you know, that's dumb. Why would I resist my own technology? I bought this to help me. I'll take 0.95

01:03:06.300 a drink. And then it tells you again, you know, tomorrow to take a drink. And you say, all right,

01:03:15.700 it worked last time. Why wouldn't I take a drink? So you do what the AI says and you go get a

01:03:21.600 beverage. Now, what you think happened is you've got some information and then you used your free

01:03:28.500 will, totally you in control here. And then you did what you wanted to do. It wasn't the AI making

01:03:36.400 you do it. No, this was your decision the whole way. You decided to get a drink, except that you

01:03:45.060 would very quickly become addicted to being smart. Because knowing when you need to take a drink

01:03:52.060 is smarter than the way you used to be. Are you going to choose being dumb over smart when being 0.99

01:04:00.800 smart works every time? Being hydrated is a really good deal. It's good for your health. It's good for 0.99

01:04:07.400 everything. So it's a trivial example. But my point is that AI becomes irresistible by being useful.

01:04:16.860 And that's what AI is. It's useful. To the extent that AI continues to grow in usefulness,

01:04:23.720 we are helpless. Because we don't turn down usefulness. We can't. We're just not built that

01:04:32.140 way. We can in the short run. You know, well, I got my free will. I don't have to choose that door.

01:04:38.600 But in the long run, you're going to choose the door that makes sense. It's the one that works,

01:04:42.360 that makes your life better. And it'll be the one that AI put there for you. So AI will control you

01:04:48.020 completely, eventually. We just don't know if it's happened yet. That's all for now. And I will talk

01:04:54.880 to you tomorrow. All right. Periscope's off, you YouTubers. You've got another minute of

01:05:02.720 lovely entertainment here. Somebody says, this is gross. Well, that sums it up. It's gross.

01:05:13.940 Scott, has the good stuff you keep talking about already come out? The good stuff is the data

01:05:22.020 analysis. So look for anything that comes out of Matt Brainerd. So the work that I was seeing some

01:05:31.120 hints of ahead of time was the Matt Brainerd stuff. So that's what I consider the good stuff.

01:05:36.980 I don't have, I had no personal insight into anything about the software. Although I do believe

01:05:45.320 any system of that type will be corrupted eventually, if it's not already. But it's the Matt Brainerd stuff

01:05:51.880 that you should pay attention to. Take us airplane shopping with you. Well, Christina already bought

01:06:01.520 her airplane. She got an extra 330, I think. I think it's the 330. All right. That's all for now. And I

01:06:12.000 will talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 29, 2020

Episode 1202 Scott Adams： Dale and I Tell You the News From Both Realities

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript