Episode 1202 Scott Adams： Dale and I Tell You the News From Both Realities
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 6 minutes
Words per Minute
142.13673
Summary
In this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, host Scott Adams talks about the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist, and whether or not he suspects Israel is behind it. He also talks about why he thinks Biden should be the next president of the United States, and the need for unity in the Democratic Party.
Transcript
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.
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
00:20:24.420
Orange Hitler. It's not just winning. It's not like winning a softball game. They defeated Orange
00:20:31.980
Hitler. Is there any reasonable chance that that group, the winners, are going to say, yeah, maybe rethink
00:20:39.600
this. Maybe we should open up the possibility that Orange Hitler would become our leader again.
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?
00:21:25.640
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
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
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,
00:27:46.180
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
00:39:50.740
Because they made that situation. He didn't create that situation. This situation was created by
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
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,
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
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.
00:51:26.420
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.
00:51:52.500
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
00:52:13.900
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.
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?
00:58:06.880
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.
00:58:25.080
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
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
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
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