Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 01, 2020


Episode 1204 Scott Adams： If You Can't Audit the Election Software, Did an Election Actually Happen？ How Would You Know？


Episode Stats

Length

52 minutes

Words per Minute

135.70787

Word Count

7,149

Sentence Count

494

Misogynist Sentences

3

Hate Speech Sentences

7


Summary

A poll shows that Americans are more worried about each other than they are about other countries, and vice versa. But what does that tell us about the future of our voting system? And what would you do if you were a corporate CEO, and your system produced an outcome that you could not be trusted?


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Ba-dum-bum-bum, ba-dum-bum-bum, la-da-da-da, bum-bum-bum, hey everybody, come on in, it's
00:00:09.320 time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of day, every single time, what do you
00:00:15.740 need?
00:00:16.780 Well, you need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels or a stein, a canteen jug or
00:00:20.660 a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, join
00:00:27.080 me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything
00:00:31.820 better, except audits of election software.
00:00:38.160 It happens now, go.
00:00:43.000 Oh, so good, so good.
00:00:49.600 Well, Rasmussen did a poll, I think you'll see it in a little bit later today, in which
00:00:55.160 they determined that when citizens are asked who the biggest enemy is, each other, or China
00:01:05.160 or Russia, turns out that we're more afraid of each other than other countries.
00:01:13.120 So, Democrats are more afraid of Trump supporters than they are of foreign adversaries and vice
00:01:21.120 versa.
00:01:22.120 Now, what's that tell you?
00:01:25.200 Well, the first thing it tells you is that that kind of a survey isn't exactly apples and
00:01:32.420 oranges, right?
00:01:34.560 So, if China attacks you, you get destroyed in a giant fireball of nuclear fury.
00:01:41.860 If a Democrat or a Republican get mad at you, you might get cancelled.
00:01:50.320 So, they're not quite equal, but it's very interesting just to see sort of the mood in
00:01:57.540 the country.
00:01:58.900 We have been convinced to turn against each other.
00:02:02.780 Now, there's kind of a good news part of that, isn't there?
00:02:06.340 If the thing I'm, if the thing you're most worried about is literally your neighbor, and
00:02:14.820 not China, and not Russia, didn't President Trump do a good job?
00:02:22.240 Think about it.
00:02:23.640 Because the survey is not just telling us that we're worried about each other in the country.
00:02:31.100 It's also telling us that we're not as worried about risks of other countries, which is good
00:02:39.360 news, because I would much rather be, you know, arguing about who's a racist and who's
00:02:45.680 not and who won the election than I would be, you know, hiding in my bunker and waiting
00:02:51.360 for the Chinese Air Force to go over.
00:02:53.940 So, I don't know if that's bad or not, but it's interesting.
00:02:59.820 Here's my big point for the day.
00:03:03.180 All right?
00:03:03.620 So, I'm going to make one big point, and then we're going to talk about lots of little points,
00:03:09.180 but none of the little points, if you added them all together, will equal this one point.
00:03:15.760 It doesn't even get close.
00:03:17.340 And here's the one point.
00:03:18.720 I don't mind that Dominion has said we can't audit their systems, because they say it's
00:03:26.160 proprietary software, and therefore we can't look at them.
00:03:29.720 I don't mind.
00:03:31.260 As long as you know that the alternative to auditing your election software, there's only
00:03:39.560 one alternative, which is to throw out the entire election.
00:03:43.760 Now, that's what you would do if you were, let's say, a corporation.
00:03:47.560 Let's say you were a big corporation, and you had found that some important process
00:03:52.520 had run, and you can't tell if the outcome was real or not real, and there's no way to
00:03:59.480 check.
00:04:00.460 If you were a corporate CEO, and your system had produced you an outcome, doesn't matter
00:04:06.540 what the system is, it produces an outcome that you can't tell.
00:04:11.120 You know that people had a motive to fake it.
00:04:14.200 You know they had the opportunity to fake it, and you can't check to see if they did fake
00:04:19.960 it.
00:04:20.440 What would you do with that data?
00:04:22.800 Well, you wouldn't use it, right?
00:04:25.900 You wouldn't use that data.
00:04:28.960 No head of a corporation would use data that's probably faked, because there's the motive and
00:04:35.760 the opportunity, and you can't check.
00:04:38.980 There's no way to check.
00:04:40.160 It's that simple.
00:04:43.740 Now, if you tell me, Scott, Scott, Scott, we've had this software for years, we can't
00:04:49.140 throw out all our past elections.
00:04:51.360 I'm not saying that.
00:04:53.420 Our past elections are the past.
00:04:55.800 Can't change the past.
00:04:58.000 But 100% of people who are familiar with software will agree with me.
00:05:05.520 There are very few things that you can get 100% of people to agree with, but 100% of people
00:05:11.120 who understand software will agree that if we can't audit the election system, wait for
00:05:18.660 it, we don't even know if an election happened.
00:05:23.820 Because what is the definition of an election?
00:05:26.940 The definition of election is people vote.
00:05:29.460 The votes are counted, and then whoever wins, there's some outcome from that, right?
00:05:36.980 That, I think you'd all agree, that's the definition of what voting is.
00:05:41.380 The people do the process of voting, you count them, then you change whatever you're going
00:05:46.340 to change because of the outcome.
00:05:47.960 Did that happen?
00:05:50.100 We don't know.
00:05:52.100 We don't know.
00:05:53.660 We actually don't know.
00:05:54.860 We know people attempted to vote, so we definitely have that part, and we know that something's
00:06:02.580 going to change, so we've got that part, but there's this whole middle part where we don't
00:06:08.820 know if the thing that people did, the voting, had any correlation with the outcome.
00:06:17.560 Do you know?
00:06:18.540 I mean, you have an opinion, and I have an opinion, but we don't know.
00:06:26.320 Now, I'm not talking about the kind of knowing, like, you know, a philosophical knowing.
00:06:32.620 It's like, can we know we are really alive?
00:06:36.900 No, I'm not talking about philosophically knowing.
00:06:39.900 I'm talking about the practical kind of knowing, the kind where you organize your life around
00:06:48.120 things you're fairly sure of, but you don't know.
00:06:51.480 Like, I don't know that if I get in my car, it won't blow up, but I'm confident that it
00:06:59.720 won't, so I'll get in my car anyway.
00:07:02.240 So the point is, if you're arguing about whether the election was fair or not fair, you're thinking
00:07:08.240 past the sale.
00:07:09.900 Back up a little bit.
00:07:13.020 You don't know if an election happened, right?
00:07:17.600 So if you're talking about whether the outcome is fair or not fair, you've already thought
00:07:22.280 past the question.
00:07:23.780 Was there an election?
00:07:25.480 Because I'm not aware of one.
00:07:27.920 I'm aware of people voting.
00:07:30.160 I'm aware that there's a president-elect, at least, you know, in terms of the public opinion.
00:07:34.700 I'm not aware that there was any counting of votes in which the votes translated into the
00:07:40.980 outcome.
00:07:41.600 I'm not aware of that.
00:07:43.020 Are you?
00:07:44.180 Of course not.
00:07:45.240 Because the system that counted them says you can't audit them.
00:07:52.180 And somebody said that they don't even keep audit logs.
00:07:55.140 I don't know if that's true.
00:07:56.020 But if somebody bought a system, let's back up a little and just appreciate the following
00:08:04.400 statements.
00:08:04.940 So it's been said that in Georgia, the Republican governor and secretary of state visit, both
00:08:11.740 Republicans, or were, and that they're the ones who brought this Dominion software in.
00:08:18.660 Which means that they, being in charge, they didn't make the detailed decisions, but whoever
00:08:25.240 did that for them, decided to sign an election system contract without the right to audit the
00:08:34.960 software.
00:08:36.680 Do you know how big of a mistake that is?
00:08:40.100 I don't know even how to put that on a scale.
00:08:43.800 Well, the size of that mistake, that's like legendary.
00:08:51.400 That's not guy in cubicle forgets to check a box, right?
00:08:57.680 That's a mistake that's as big as the biggest mistake that's ever been made in the history
00:09:02.420 of the world.
00:09:03.820 That's beyond the biggest mistake.
00:09:07.380 Now, I see some skeptics in the comments saying, well, maybe it wasn't a mistake.
00:09:12.540 How do you know it was a mistake?
00:09:15.580 Maybe they intentionally created a situation in which nothing could be found.
00:09:22.180 But remember, there were Republicans.
00:09:26.020 The Republicans definitely did not intentionally pick a system that would keep Republicans out
00:09:33.780 of office.
00:09:35.200 They didn't intentionally do that.
00:09:38.240 They may have, you know, their allegations that they took money or whatever.
00:09:42.120 I don't know anything about that.
00:09:44.160 But certainly I haven't seen evidence to back up any of those claims.
00:09:50.180 But we've got a really bad situation here.
00:09:54.200 Somebody says Trump lost.
00:09:59.140 That's so cute.
00:10:03.640 Here's something that's a head-scratcher.
00:10:05.620 Did Trump run the cleanest election of all time?
00:10:11.680 Because it's getting just weird that Democrats are not blaming either a foreign country or Republicans
00:10:23.080 of also cheating on the election.
00:10:26.220 Really?
00:10:27.620 Really?
00:10:28.200 This is the first election where there was no outside interference.
00:10:33.760 And by the way, as we learned in 2016, outside interference by the mighty Russian intelligence agencies
00:10:42.100 means creating three bad memes and putting them on Facebook.
00:10:46.640 So we're talking about a very low bar to how hard it is to interfere with our election.
00:10:52.120 How hard would it be to create a meme and disguise its origin?
00:10:59.040 Well, that would be pretty easy.
00:11:01.200 Pretty darn easy.
00:11:03.260 So we're not even talking about it.
00:11:06.440 It was the biggest problem in the world four years ago.
00:11:10.040 Nothing's changed.
00:11:11.740 Because there's nothing that changed that would prevent Russia from creating a meme.
00:11:18.520 We're talking about memes.
00:11:21.480 We're not talking about hacking.
00:11:24.560 What would stop them from creating a meme?
00:11:28.000 Nothing.
00:11:28.880 They could obviously plant memes without showing the source.
00:11:33.340 There's obviously a way to do that.
00:11:36.620 So the fact that none of that is happening is just head-shaking.
00:11:42.300 And here's what I think.
00:11:43.100 I think that even Democrats at this point realized the election was not credible.
00:11:50.560 Now, because it wasn't credible, I don't know who won or would have won if it had been fair.
00:11:56.940 But certainly, I feel as if, you know, the survey said 30% of Democrats think it was rigged.
00:12:04.420 But I think it's closer to 100% think that there was at least attempted mischief.
00:12:10.840 Probably 70% have wishful thinking that there wasn't enough of it to change the outcome because they don't want that to be true.
00:12:20.200 But I don't believe there are any Democrats who could have heard the Pennsylvania and then yesterday the Arizona hearings and just hear the accusations.
00:12:31.260 If you just hear the accusations, you don't even need to know if any of them are true.
00:12:35.060 Because what the accusations taught you is that whether or not there were real instances of fraud, there were plenty of opportunities.
00:12:46.720 Can we all agree that in the last week, we've moved from serious people saying completely straight-faced, there wasn't any way to cheat that much.
00:12:59.860 It would have been obvious.
00:13:01.520 Nobody could cheat that much without it being so obvious that they'd get caught.
00:13:06.300 It's not really possible.
00:13:09.020 Do you think anybody believes that this week?
00:13:12.020 It's really possible.
00:13:13.900 In fact, I thought it was possible before, but I was sort of operating on the thought that, well, maybe I don't know how to cheat.
00:13:23.100 But people who are really putting time and attention into it, they've probably figured it out by now.
00:13:30.840 Turns out, it's so easy to cheat in a million different ways so long as you can control the witnessing and the auditing, which is the case.
00:13:40.520 The Democrats and Democrat-controlled cities did control the witnessing, and there's no audit of the software company, of the software.
00:13:49.140 And there's probably no useful audit of the paper ballots because the envelopes were separated.
00:13:56.500 So, was there an election?
00:14:00.560 I don't know.
00:14:03.920 There's a report I saw just before I got on here that I'm really, really skeptical about.
00:14:10.640 But I'll just put it out there.
00:14:12.280 So, this is an alleged story.
00:14:15.220 Don't put this in the same bucket as things you know to be true.
00:14:19.140 But allegedly, the SEC has filed something about Dominion voting systems, and there's an allegation that it's partly owned by China.
00:14:35.720 Now, partly owned, meaning that there's an investment company that's owned by somebody who's owned by China.
00:14:47.560 So, that China would be the end of a chain of ownership, or partial ownership, for some of the Dominion machines.
00:14:55.660 Now, do you think that's possible, that Dominion got a $400 million investment from a bank in Switzerland that is 75% owned by a Chinese government, by the Chinese government?
00:15:12.140 Do you think that's true?
00:15:13.580 Now, if it is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, you found some kind of a smoking gun.
00:15:22.460 Because you could have people investing in lots of stuff, and the investors may not have that much, you know, control over it.
00:15:30.480 But, certainly raises an eyebrow, doesn't it?
00:15:35.620 I mean, it has the look of an attempt to influence things, even if they couldn't.
00:15:42.180 I don't know if they could, just by investing in it, but it sure looks like an attempt.
00:15:49.400 If we can't find any direct evidence that the election was rigged, I think we will.
00:15:57.060 But, let's say we can't audit it, and we just can't get at the information.
00:16:04.460 Is there anything we can do, short of being able to audit it, that would tell us, at least for our own information, whether or not the thing was stolen?
00:16:15.840 And I propose an experiment.
00:16:17.280 So, I think you could do an experiment that would tell you, with a fairly high degree of certainty, whether or not the election was stolen.
00:16:27.500 Now, it wouldn't tell you who really won, you know, or what the amount was, but it would tell you if there was massive fraud.
00:16:34.400 So, let's say not stolen, but let's say a test that would tell you if there were massive fraud or not in the election.
00:16:42.860 And here's the test.
00:16:43.940 First, you find a remote desert area in Utah, and then you build an obelisk, a really cool-looking metal obelisk.
00:16:54.560 But don't make it so big that a couple of big guys couldn't pick it up and put it on a truck.
00:17:00.900 You want to make it small enough that somebody could steal it if they were inclined to do it.
00:17:08.340 Now, here's the second part.
00:17:09.460 You introduce this obelisk into the news, turning it from a simple metal object that looks kind of cool into a famous object.
00:17:20.660 And when something is famous, let's say the Mona Lisa or the Liberty Bell or whatever, fame adds value, right?
00:17:29.660 Because if you had a famous painting, it would be worth a lot, even if it's not as good as less famous paintings.
00:17:39.080 So, you'd have this obelisk in the desert, just hypothetically.
00:17:43.740 I'm not saying you'd do this.
00:17:45.360 But put it in the desert, and then just leave it unguarded after you've told the world that this valuable, unguarded item is in the Utah desert.
00:17:55.420 And then you just wait, wait about a month, and see if it's still there.
00:18:01.480 Now, if it's still there, what your test has shown you is that even when millions of humans know about an unguarded, valuable object that they can go just get,
00:18:15.660 then none of them did it.
00:18:16.640 Now, if that's your situation, where millions of people can know they can just go steal this thing of value, and they don't,
00:18:25.400 you've got yourself a good election.
00:18:27.920 Because the thing we've proven is that there are lots of ways you could have stolen the election.
00:18:33.240 It's just hard to know if it happened or not.
00:18:35.340 But, if human nature can be, let's say, studied to the degree that you know that in some situations humans will always act the same way,
00:18:47.680 well, that's not enough for a court.
00:18:50.340 It's not enough for science.
00:18:52.540 That's enough for you.
00:18:53.520 So, I hope somebody does that experiment and puts a cool-looking obelisk in a Utah desert, and we'll see if it disappears.
00:19:06.640 We'll see.
00:19:07.700 And then you'll know if your election was stolen, or at least attempted.
00:19:10.640 How impressed are you at the two-movie situation that we're having?
00:19:19.560 Do you remember when I first started talking about, oh, there's two movies running on one screen,
00:19:24.560 and the Democrats and the Republicans are seeing different worlds?
00:19:28.220 And you said to yourself, yeah, that's like sort of, I can almost see what you're talking about there.
00:19:34.320 You know, kind of conceptually, a little bit, I can see we're seeing different stuff.
00:19:39.420 But, did you ever think you would get to this point today, where the following two statements are both presented as 100% true?
00:19:51.380 Republicans say, there is a ton of evidence that the election was stolen.
00:19:58.540 Right?
00:19:59.240 Lots of Republicans say that.
00:20:00.660 At the same time, just go on Twitter, you can see that tons of Democrats say,
00:20:07.300 there is zero evidence.
00:20:10.780 Not that the evidence has been debunked.
00:20:14.340 Well, they do say that.
00:20:15.720 But they're saying that there just isn't any.
00:20:19.020 And the Republicans are saying, ah, I'm drowning in it.
00:20:22.900 So it's a little like, you know, what it feels like, is that it's two people standing in the ocean up to their neck.
00:20:30.960 And one looks at the other and says, there's no water here.
00:20:35.140 And the other looks over and says, you're up to your neck in water.
00:20:39.560 There's nothing but water.
00:20:41.340 We are completely in water.
00:20:42.880 And the other one up to their neck looks over and says, no, we're not.
00:20:48.200 That's the world we're in.
00:20:50.480 Now, if you think that this is like blowing your mind because you never thought this could be possible,
00:20:57.160 then you've never been a hypnotist.
00:20:59.740 Because hypnotists know this is completely possible.
00:21:03.340 In fact, normal.
00:21:05.380 It would be weirder if we didn't get to this point.
00:21:08.160 It was completely predictable.
00:21:09.320 And so when I predicted that we would have two presidents, one who actually gets the job,
00:21:15.500 and one that half the country says, yeah, that really was the one who got elected, was the other guy.
00:21:22.100 Did that seem real when I first said it before the election?
00:21:25.740 Remember, I said that before the election.
00:21:28.400 Did that seem like that was going to happen?
00:21:31.020 It happened.
00:21:32.160 Here we are.
00:21:33.040 We do have two presidents in the minds of the public.
00:21:37.860 All right.
00:21:39.320 And Project Veritas somehow got the phone number for a CNN conference call in which Jeff Zucker was talking to his CNN staff about CNN.
00:21:55.440 And apparently Project Veritas will be releasing these audio clips so that we can see what CNN says to each other when they don't think other people are listening.
00:22:08.280 And then James O'Keefe, who was on the call, he live-streamed himself on the call.
00:22:18.120 He asks a question.
00:22:20.840 And then when Zucker realizes that he's on a call with a Project Veritas leader, he says, maybe we should end this call and find some different technology to talk on.
00:22:34.280 So, wait for that.
00:22:39.020 Name any problem in this country that is not made worse by the teachers' unions.
00:22:43.800 There's a challenge for you.
00:22:45.460 Name any domestic problem that isn't worsened by the teachers' unions.
00:22:52.400 And it's one of those things when you first hear it, you think, well, not everything.
00:22:57.460 I mean, there must be some problems that are not made worse by the teachers' unions.
00:23:02.540 But if you imagine that the teachers' unions are destroying education, then it ripples through everything.
00:23:08.880 Our science is bad, you know, our understanding of logic and facts, our ability to get jobs, racism, income inequality, even the ability to pay back a student loan, right?
00:23:25.960 You know, just about everything can be traced back to the teachers' unions being the biggest enemy in the country.
00:23:34.200 A funny thing happened today.
00:23:38.840 The president retweeted an account from Cat Turd.
00:23:44.020 That became a big trending thing.
00:23:46.500 It had more to do with the fact that Cat Turd, spelled exactly like a cat turd, got retweeted by the president.
00:23:56.720 Aren't we going to miss that?
00:23:57.880 Could you ever imagine a president, Joe Biden, retweeting Cat Turd?
00:24:05.040 It doesn't matter what Cat Turd said.
00:24:07.120 Can you imagine a Joe Biden retweeting it?
00:24:09.940 No, you can't.
00:24:11.080 You just can't.
00:24:12.540 So we're going to miss that.
00:24:14.060 I did a little Twitter unscientific survey.
00:24:18.320 And I said, since the beginning of the pandemic, has your relationship with your spouse gotten better, worse, or the same?
00:24:26.140 And the results were interesting.
00:24:29.380 You know, of course, non-scientific.
00:24:31.260 But 40% said their relationships got better during the pandemic.
00:24:37.720 And I believe that.
00:24:38.940 Because I think if the spouses get along and they're forced to spend more time together, they can't drive to work, whatever, then it's just more of something they wanted.
00:24:50.160 They already liked spending time with each other and they got a little extra.
00:24:53.720 So 40% of them said it's better.
00:24:56.720 45% said it's about the same.
00:24:59.800 Good.
00:25:00.500 And 15% said worse.
00:25:03.740 So those are the people who probably were doing well when they didn't spend much time with each other.
00:25:09.040 And when they had to spend time, it was not so good.
00:25:13.300 But this is actually better than I thought.
00:25:15.820 I thought it was going to be more gloomy than this.
00:25:19.720 Now, of course, people might be lying because there's, you know, who knows how honest they were.
00:25:25.900 Here's a new story that's foreshadowing more to come.
00:25:30.060 Apparently, 10 local chapters of Black Lives Matter issued a statement that there's not enough financial disclosure from the national leadership.
00:25:43.760 They don't have accountability and transparency in the massive amount of money that they've collected.
00:25:50.540 So Black Lives Matter at the national level, especially with the George Floyd stuff, they collected massive amounts of money.
00:26:01.980 And the local chapters are saying, could we see a statement about that?
00:26:07.700 And could you share a little bit with us?
00:26:10.060 And where's that money going?
00:26:11.620 Now, who knows if this is a little problem or a big one.
00:26:16.040 But here's the main point.
00:26:18.300 What if Black Lives Matter loses its boogeyman?
00:26:21.760 Because don't you think Trump was the reason that Black Lives Matter could be so popular,
00:26:27.860 despite doing so many things that you would imagine would make you unpopular,
00:26:32.400 such as destroying businesses and whatnot?
00:26:34.620 So I feel as though when Trump, if you imagine that Trump does not have a second term,
00:26:43.300 Black Lives Matter is probably going to turn on each other.
00:26:47.220 Because they would lose their external, you know, boogeyman to focus on.
00:26:52.240 I would also expect Black Lives Matter and Antifa to end up turning on each other.
00:26:58.580 Same reason, because they lost their common enemy.
00:27:01.340 All right.
00:27:09.900 So quite a few election claims have been debunked.
00:27:14.640 But I wanted to read you this list of election anomalies.
00:27:20.660 Because a lot of this will turn on the anomaly part.
00:27:24.100 But here's the problem.
00:27:25.780 Anywhere you see a list of data anomalies,
00:27:28.960 I guarantee you that some of these are not true.
00:27:34.680 Guaranteed.
00:27:36.040 So what happens when you have a list of,
00:27:38.840 I don't know, it looks like 17 or 20 different things that are data anomalies,
00:27:44.980 and it's really easy for the critics to say,
00:27:48.880 ah, here's three of them that aren't true.
00:27:51.280 All right.
00:27:55.100 I'm going to delete whoever said Scott is a sophist.
00:28:00.200 Because you're not even trying.
00:28:06.220 Put user in timeout.
00:28:10.220 So it really hurts your argument if you put some fake stuff on a list with stuff that's not fake.
00:28:16.440 But let me run through these, and in the comments, do some fact-checking, okay?
00:28:23.640 So I'll read the claims, and then you can fact-check me.
00:28:27.380 So my claim is that these are not true.
00:28:31.020 Are you ready?
00:28:32.040 All right.
00:28:32.480 So I'm going to read you things that my claim is are not true,
00:28:36.160 meaning that the entire list isn't 100% true.
00:28:39.180 There are definitely some things on here, I think, that are true, but don't believe them.
00:28:46.680 All right.
00:28:47.000 So there's nothing on the list that just by its nature, you should say, oh, that's true.
00:28:51.520 So stay skeptical on this list.
00:28:55.040 All right.
00:28:55.220 Here it is.
00:28:56.460 For nearly 150 years, every president who has gained votes in a re-election campaign
00:29:01.460 has also won the re-election.
00:29:04.000 Is that meaningful?
00:29:04.700 That whenever a president has gained votes in a re-election, they also won re-election.
00:29:12.100 I would say that is not meaningful, because the population increased.
00:29:18.260 And because Trump never had a primary challenge, and it was such a polarizing kind of a thing,
00:29:29.040 it was just high turnout, right?
00:29:31.320 So I think all that's saying is there was high turnout.
00:29:35.720 Does that tell you anything?
00:29:36.960 Not really.
00:29:37.700 All right.
00:29:38.200 So the first one might be true, but it's not really telling you much because of the special
00:29:43.780 case that people wanted to turn out.
00:29:46.840 It said Trump gained 11 million more votes than 2016, but Biden somehow overcame those odds.
00:29:53.220 Again, I don't know if it's true or not, the number, but let's say it's true.
00:29:57.340 Would that tell you anything about whether or not there was fraud?
00:30:02.300 Nope.
00:30:03.440 Nope.
00:30:04.300 So the first two may or may not be true, but they certainly don't tell you there's fraud.
00:30:09.600 It just tells you that a lot of people voted, right?
00:30:12.540 So that's all you know so far.
00:30:14.580 Number three, Trump won the highest share of minority voters for a GOP candidate since 1960.
00:30:20.980 I believe that's true.
00:30:22.400 And that one's, now we're starting to get into some better stuff here, right?
00:30:25.640 Because if he won a high share of minority voters, and yet the very reason he lost is
00:30:34.300 because he got an unusually low share of minority voters in key cities, that's kind of a red flag,
00:30:41.440 isn't it?
00:30:42.500 It's a bit of a flag.
00:30:44.920 Doesn't mean it's not proof, but certainly makes you scratch your head.
00:30:49.820 Then related to the same thing, this is just another point that Trump grew his support among black voters by 50%.
00:30:58.480 Again, it's the same point, but just another way to look at it.
00:31:03.720 Biden's support among black voters fell below 90%, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.
00:31:12.160 So if you've got Biden getting fewer black votes than historically, and Trump getting more black votes than historically,
00:31:20.800 and by a significant amount, Trump doubled his support, would you expect that he would lose with that?
00:31:29.600 You wouldn't expect it.
00:31:32.020 But again, it's not impossible.
00:31:34.700 It's just starting to get really unlikely.
00:31:39.020 All right, how about Biden shattered the popular vote record while winning a record low 17% of counties?
00:31:47.760 Okay, so that, again, doesn't prove anything, but you've got to ask yourself,
00:31:52.940 why was he getting so many votes in general, but he got...
00:31:58.440 Now, the fact that he got lots of votes in general just means there were a lot of voters.
00:32:02.540 So the first part of this is meaningless.
00:32:04.660 There were lots of votes.
00:32:06.540 But it probably does tell you something that he got a record low 17% of counties.
00:32:13.660 Now, of course, the whole point is that it's the big metro areas that won it for Biden,
00:32:20.220 so I don't know that that's the strongest point.
00:32:22.440 Obama won 873 counties in 2008.
00:32:28.740 Well, Biden only got 524.
00:32:32.320 But somehow, despite getting far fewer counties,
00:32:38.920 Biden got far more votes.
00:32:42.240 Yeah, every one of these that has Biden getting more votes in quantity
00:32:46.300 is not really convincing.
00:32:48.340 Because the one thing we all agree on is that both Trump and Biden got more votes
00:32:55.000 than you would expect in other years.
00:32:58.160 All right, how about...
00:32:59.840 Biden's the first one to lose Ohio and Florida in 60 years and still win.
00:33:07.240 And he's the second president in 168 years to lose Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and still win.
00:33:16.080 Trump won 18 out of 19 bellwether counties.
00:33:21.240 They have a near-perfect record over the 40 years of predicting who would win.
00:33:26.280 Now, that's when it starts to get strong.
00:33:29.220 Now, if you were going to ask me which of these do you find convincing or at least persuasive,
00:33:37.340 I would say this bellwether county thing really stands out, doesn't it?
00:33:42.820 Because, again, it's not impossible that these numbers happened this way naturally.
00:33:49.980 But what are the odds of winning 18 out of 19 bellwether counties
00:33:55.080 when that is nearly impossible?
00:34:01.240 Here's one.
00:34:02.200 Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton except in four cities.
00:34:09.200 Now, I've seen this one debunked online.
00:34:13.520 But I don't know if they're debunking the actual claim or something close to it
00:34:18.720 to make it look like they debunked the actual claim.
00:34:26.700 And what I mean by close to it is,
00:34:28.640 if they're counting the numbers but not the percentage of votes,
00:34:33.660 they counted the wrong thing.
00:34:34.820 So, did Biden underperform Hillary Clinton in terms of raw votes everywhere except those four states?
00:34:45.500 Probably not, right?
00:34:46.920 I think Biden beat Hillary in raw votes in lots of places.
00:34:52.240 Am I right?
00:34:53.000 So, do a fact check on me.
00:34:54.160 I'm kind of guessing on this next thing.
00:34:56.520 Because I think when it gets debunked,
00:34:58.540 they're debunking the raw number of votes and saying,
00:35:02.220 no, there are plenty of places where Biden got more raw number of votes than Hillary Clinton.
00:35:09.500 In fact, check me on that.
00:35:10.960 But isn't the argument the percentage of how many went to Biden versus Trump?
00:35:15.760 I think that's the argument, not the raw number.
00:35:20.820 Republicans won across the country, but Biden somehow beat Trump.
00:35:24.040 So, here are the two points that are kind of connected.
00:35:26.660 Republicans won 27 and a 27 of the toss-up contests.
00:35:33.920 Here's maybe the hardest one to believe.
00:35:37.640 Do you believe the people decided to vote against Trump?
00:35:42.300 Because that's how they were talking.
00:35:43.740 We're voting against Trump.
00:35:45.540 But while they were voting against Trump,
00:35:48.720 they were not voting against the people who support Trump on the same ballot?
00:35:54.040 The people who would be in Congress?
00:35:57.200 Would you do that?
00:35:59.700 How many people are just going to check the president box and not do the other ones?
00:36:05.540 Maybe.
00:36:06.460 So I would say it's still possible.
00:36:08.480 It's possible that lots and lots of people
00:36:10.700 checked only the presidential box and just didn't even vote on the other stuff,
00:36:16.080 which would give you the possibility that Republicans sweep the undercards
00:36:21.000 and the president just gets voted against in big numbers on the top.
00:36:25.980 It's possible.
00:36:27.680 Anything's possible.
00:36:29.360 No incumbent who has received 75% of the primary vote has ever lost re-election.
00:36:34.480 I would consider that one worthless.
00:36:36.980 I know it's predicted in the past,
00:36:39.060 but this time we just had a candidate who was running unchallenged, right?
00:36:49.260 So it doesn't mean anything.
00:36:51.280 I don't think that one's important.
00:36:53.360 Trump won 94% of the primary vote.
00:36:55.580 I think all of the primary stuff is not predictive.
00:37:00.300 I feel like all of the, well, who won the primary before,
00:37:03.000 I don't feel like that's predictive.
00:37:04.880 I realize there's a correlation, but I don't know if it's predictive.
00:37:07.500 Trump set a record for most primary votes.
00:37:14.800 Yeah, so everything that's quantity-related is unpersuasive.
00:37:19.360 So there you are.
00:37:21.440 There are definitely some head-scratchers there,
00:37:23.600 but some of them are debunked and some of them are no big deal.
00:37:27.160 And let's see if I've talked about everything.
00:37:30.500 Oh, there's a study out that says that people who got the measles, mumps, rubella,
00:37:37.500 vaccination, recover from COVID or practically have no symptoms.
00:37:45.220 Now, it's one study, but it shows that the difference,
00:37:49.880 whether you had that shot or didn't have that shot, is gigantic.
00:37:54.300 So we're not talking about, oh, we teased out this statistical difference.
00:37:58.420 We're talking about, if you had this shot, you did great.
00:38:03.580 If you didn't have that shot, you were in the percentage of people who had a bad outcome.
00:38:09.540 So I'd like to see that one proven or disproven.
00:38:12.940 It could be the thing that explains everything.
00:38:15.320 Because, as I've told you, you can't look at the management decisions or the leadership decisions
00:38:22.800 in different countries and tease out why some people got better results than others.
00:38:30.200 There is still some gigantic variable in this whole pandemic that we haven't isolated.
00:38:37.500 It might be this.
00:38:38.620 It could be this vaccination thing.
00:38:40.000 You do realize that the emerging hypothesis about the election is that if it were rigged,
00:38:50.320 it were rigged in what I'll call a packetized way.
00:38:53.220 In other words, little packets of fraud, each of them designed so that they're individually not so big
00:39:00.640 that if any individual packet of fraud got discovered, and let's say those votes were tossed down,
00:39:07.540 that it wouldn't be enough to change the election.
00:39:09.280 Because you're not going to find them all, and they cheated in lots of different ways, allegedly,
00:39:15.200 in different places and different parts of the process.
00:39:21.840 So if you're thinking about the election in terms of finding that big package of fraud,
00:39:30.400 I don't think you're going to find that.
00:39:31.920 Because I think that what it looks like is there won't be the single big package of fraud
00:39:38.480 unless you count rule changes, right?
00:39:42.080 So you could say, well, they shouldn't have made this decision, which allowed these votes to be counted.
00:39:47.220 But I don't know if that's fraud fraud.
00:39:49.720 That's more like politicians trying to get away with whatever they can get away with.
00:39:54.460 That's more like a rule trickery.
00:39:58.180 But I think the actual fraud fraud is going to be in packets by design.
00:40:04.220 Now, as Rudy Giuliani pointed out in the Arizona hearings,
00:40:10.300 that there is at least, there's a tell, or at least some kind of a signal for coordination.
00:40:22.220 Now, that has not been demonstrated or proven.
00:40:25.380 But Rudy Giuliani is, I would say, an expert in sniffing out coordinated plots like the mafia.
00:40:34.240 So he knows something that's a coordinated plot versus something that's just lots of people acting independently.
00:40:41.980 And it sounds like he's sniffing out some coordination here.
00:40:47.580 Now, if it turns out that the fraud exists and it's packetized by design and it's organized,
00:40:56.520 isn't that a pretty big legal case?
00:40:59.360 The organized part takes it up to Rico, right?
00:41:01.980 I think.
00:41:04.240 So, Dr. Scott Atlas resigned from the coronavirus advising job at the White House.
00:41:16.580 That's good news for me so that I don't keep getting confused with Dr. Scott Atlas.
00:41:22.080 But I feel as though that was probably a smart move because he said everything he wanted to say.
00:41:28.220 Everybody heard it.
00:41:29.080 And then after that, he was just becoming a source of criticism.
00:41:34.180 So I think he was smart to move on.
00:41:36.020 It was time.
00:41:41.820 Let's see.
00:41:42.640 So, I'm just deciding what to talk about here.
00:41:57.980 All right.
00:41:59.920 I think that's all I wanted to talk about.
00:42:03.720 And I'm going to go back to my first point when I got on here.
00:42:07.580 All right.
00:42:08.740 So we talked about lots of different allegations.
00:42:13.520 And we talked about lots of different data, you know, anomalies.
00:42:19.280 Beyond this list of data anomalies I read, there's a much more convincing bits of evidence.
00:42:27.360 So there's tons of evidence of fraud, which the Democrats call no evidence at all.
00:42:35.400 I haven't seen anything.
00:42:37.900 But I think it comes down to this.
00:42:40.580 If we have an election system which can't be audited because there's proprietary information in it,
00:42:48.920 that's all you need to know.
00:42:51.400 There's nothing else you have to ask to know what is the right thing to do.
00:42:56.480 The right thing to do is either throw out the result and redo it.
00:43:03.380 You'd have to redo it.
00:43:04.360 You couldn't just throw out the result and put Trump in power.
00:43:07.660 But you can redo it.
00:43:09.540 The other thing you can do is say, we're going to have to scrap the system totally.
00:43:14.440 But for the benefit of the country, we're going to let Biden take over and we'll work it out as we go.
00:43:21.160 That's probably what's going to happen.
00:43:22.700 Probably you're going to get a President Biden who will take the job and we will have to figure out how to redo our system for next time.
00:43:38.880 Because we're definitely not going to go into another election.
00:43:42.140 Let me make you a promise.
00:43:43.540 I promise you, you're not going to be voting in 2024 on machines that don't have an audit capability.
00:43:54.740 Does anybody want to take the opposite side of that bet?
00:43:57.520 I will bet you that we're done with unauditable election systems.
00:44:05.480 We're definitely done.
00:44:07.600 Does anybody doubt that?
00:44:08.800 Because if we have another election with unauditable software, that's a revolution.
00:44:18.320 Because doing it once and then sort of the country has learned about it.
00:44:22.740 Now we know that there's a problem there.
00:44:24.380 Even if the election wasn't rigged, that non-auditable software thing, that's not something you can live with.
00:44:34.840 And so let me say this as clearly as possible.
00:44:37.500 If we're still living with it in 2024, we don't have a country anymore.
00:44:44.280 And then we have to stage a revolution.
00:44:46.940 So in 2024, the revolution is on if we still have unauditable software for our elections.
00:44:56.840 There's no alternative to that.
00:44:58.820 Because if we still have this situation in 2024, you can know the election is stolen.
00:45:05.240 I'm pretty sure this one was fraudulent.
00:45:09.120 But I also think, well, you know, it's possible people were at least trying to make it honest.
00:45:16.940 But if it's the same situation in 2024, you can say with complete certainty that the people in charge were not attempting, not even trying, to give you a real election.
00:45:30.700 Not even trying.
00:45:33.060 Would you agree that that would be not even trying?
00:45:36.800 And if we have a country that's not even trying to have real elections, revolution.
00:45:45.560 That's what I say.
00:45:46.480 And the revolution could be simple.
00:45:48.380 Just destroy the election machines.
00:45:51.860 Let me give you a preview of 2024.
00:45:56.020 Let's say 2024 happens.
00:45:58.500 We still have unauditable election machines.
00:46:04.200 There will be a Tea Party.
00:46:07.100 There will be a Tea Party.
00:46:08.180 Meaning that Republicans, and I mean this literally, not figuratively, will take control of the facilities where those machines are.
00:46:17.220 They will put them on pickup trucks, probably pickup trucks with American flags on them, and they will drive them to the fucking bay.
00:46:27.060 And they will throw those machines into the fucking ocean.
00:46:32.540 And if you try to vote with them again, and you bring them back, those same pickup trucks will appear at your same fucking facilities.
00:46:42.060 They will load up those trucks with your fucking unauditable machines, and they will dump them in the fucking ocean again.
00:46:51.160 This time, we might have to live with the outcome, because we don't want to, you don't want to destroy your own country, you're trying to save it, right?
00:46:59.760 So, we might just have to do the best we can with what we have.
00:47:03.880 But in 2024, there will not be an election with unauditable technology.
00:47:13.580 We will throw that shit in the fucking ocean.
00:47:18.200 That's it.
00:47:19.600 We will throw it in the fucking ocean.
00:47:24.180 You know I'm right, right?
00:47:26.480 You know I'm right.
00:47:27.360 Those machines will be physically removed and thrown in the fucking ocean.
00:47:33.380 Are you with me?
00:47:35.300 Who's with me?
00:47:36.860 I'll drive the truck.
00:47:38.860 I will drive the fucking truck.
00:47:41.720 Right?
00:47:42.280 Because that's revolution.
00:47:44.780 That's, you know, if we do this again, we're not fucking around anymore, right?
00:47:51.460 That's a bright line.
00:47:53.680 So, I give people plenty of flexibility to fix things, to make mistakes.
00:48:01.620 I'm really big on letting people make their mistakes and not kill them for it, right?
00:48:08.560 But it wouldn't be a mistake if we let it happen again.
00:48:12.360 I would be willing to say if you're a governor of a state and your political people are buying a software system, maybe you're not good at it.
00:48:24.640 It's entirely possible that you're, as a politician, you're just not good at procuring things and you didn't know you needed that audit right, etc.
00:48:32.640 But now you know.
00:48:35.300 Now you know.
00:48:36.860 So, there are no excuses for 2024.
00:48:40.520 Your shit's going in the ocean, if you try this again.
00:48:44.020 Your shit's going in the ocean.
00:48:45.880 That's it.
00:48:46.880 We're done.
00:48:47.700 We are done here.
00:48:49.740 Let me tell you a management trick for your life.
00:48:55.000 There are times when you say, I probably will do this, or I might do this, or you should worry that I'll do this, or there's some chance I'll do this.
00:49:07.020 And there's a good reason to say there's a chance, I might do it, I might do it.
00:49:11.020 And then there are other times when you just say, it's a decision.
00:49:15.280 So, let me put this not in a prediction form.
00:49:19.720 Let me put it in decision form, because this is different.
00:49:23.040 It's one thing to predict.
00:49:25.360 It's a decision that I will personally help you throw those fucking machines in the ocean if this happens again.
00:49:35.520 Like, that's a promise.
00:49:37.420 It's a commitment.
00:49:39.400 I will help you throw them in the ocean.
00:49:42.380 That's it.
00:49:43.380 So, to my government, you don't have to wonder if it's going to happen.
00:49:49.260 You don't have to wonder.
00:49:51.420 It's a decision.
00:49:52.180 We have decided that we won't put up with it.
00:49:57.860 That's very different.
00:50:00.060 Very different.
00:50:02.400 Somebody says, weak talk.
00:50:05.240 Big talk from a weak old man.
00:50:07.840 Goodbye, Frank.
00:50:09.480 It was nice removing you.
00:50:14.220 All right.
00:50:14.940 That's all for now.
00:50:16.360 And I will talk to you later.
00:50:18.880 All right, YouTubers.
00:50:24.860 Periscope is off.
00:50:26.980 Somebody says now is the only option.
00:50:29.100 Well, you know, I've heard the arguments that if the Democrats get control, they'll consolidate control and add states and all that.
00:50:37.660 But I think we have to wait for the Georgia election.
00:50:41.480 If the Georgia election looks reasonable, you know, and as predicted, you get two more Republicans and the Senate is held, I don't think that's revolution time.
00:50:54.200 I think that's fix your problem time.
00:50:59.200 But there is a time when you have to treat it differently in the future.
00:51:03.640 But I don't think we're there.
00:51:08.900 What would you do about the fraudulent mail-in votes?
00:51:11.980 Well, we're going to try to audit them.
00:51:14.080 But I think audit will be impossible.
00:51:18.520 Do I think I could ever write another thought experiment book similar to God's Debris?
00:51:23.840 Well, God's Debris has a sequel.
00:51:25.500 I don't know if you know that.
00:51:26.520 It's called The Religion War.
00:51:27.800 But it's a very different kind of a book.
00:51:31.020 So the answer is I'm not thinking about that because God's Debris was sort of a lifetime of thoughts compressed into a tiny book.
00:51:42.460 But you almost have to live a second lifetime to get that many thoughts that can be put into a book.
00:51:49.940 Why don't the math anomalies count?
00:51:58.300 They don't count because in many cases there's just an obvious explanation for them.
00:52:04.580 There are some that don't have an explanation and they do count.
00:52:08.400 So you can't say the anomalies count or don't count.
00:52:11.860 But you can say that most of them have some other explanation.
00:52:16.460 Some of them are pretty strong.
00:52:19.940 So the anomalies I would worry about are in the mail-in votes.
00:52:26.280 Those are the ones that will be the big ones.
00:52:30.020 If the election was stolen, the whole world loses.
00:52:34.420 Maybe.
00:52:35.320 I don't know.
00:52:36.600 Maybe not.
00:52:38.160 All right.
00:52:39.260 That's all for now.
00:52:40.200 I'll talk to you later.