Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1208 Scott Adams： Ballots Under Tables, Thumb Drive Handoffs, Grading the Experts Vs Trump. What is Real？

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. It's time and you found the right place. So far I'd say your day is going

00:00:16.140 pretty well, wouldn't you? Yeah, I don't know what happened before this but you just hit the perfect

00:00:24.380 moment. It's that moment just before the simultaneous sip. Yeah, it's that good. It's

00:00:31.020 like that fresh dew on the morning grass. And all you need to take it to the next level is a cup or a

00:00:37.220 mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen drug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:44.200 Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of

00:00:49.560 the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except, apparently, coronavirus.

00:00:56.380 It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.

00:01:04.620 Well, speaking of the coronavirus, it's raging. Now the only advantage we have this winter compared

00:01:11.600 to the spring is that we're a little bit used to it, aren't we? At least intellectually or

00:01:17.620 emotionally and psychologically, even though this winter is going to be pretty brutal. Pretty darn 0.96

00:01:25.040 brutal. Are we ready for it? Yes, we are. Now we're fatigued. We're tired. We're tired of war with

00:01:32.880 the pandemic. Well, let me ask you this. Are we going to win? Yes. Yes, we will. Team humanity will

00:01:41.920 beat team virus. Guaranteed. I can promise you that. But if things start getting uglier and uglier and

00:01:50.140 we're at the beginning of the ugly phase right now, I'll start doing a second periscope if anybody

00:01:57.060 needs it. We'll see how things go, but I'll keep that option open. All right. There's a study that

00:02:03.420 says some Oxford study says that we might be alone in the universe. What? So some smart people did some

00:02:15.200 math and they said, if you calculate the odds of this evolving into that and the odds of this being

00:02:24.140 just right and the odds of how long it takes for something like a human being to evolve and you crunch

00:02:31.040 it all up and it turns out that even if the universe is as vast as we think, chances are really,

00:02:41.200 really high there's nobody else there. What do you think? What do you think? Well, I think that that

00:02:49.700 is more evidence that we are a simulation. Because if we were simulated, there probably would be one

00:02:59.060 society per universe because that's the one you would make. I doubt you would make a universe and

00:03:05.200 then create two societies that never met or never needed to meet. Why would you do that? So that's

00:03:14.520 not proof in the simulation, but it's consistent. I would be less inclined to think that we were a

00:03:21.300 simulation if the complexity of the universe were such that there were all kinds of civilizations like

00:03:29.700 in Star Trek. That would be so massively complicated that it would be harder to believe a simulation could

00:03:36.920 actually calculate it. So that doesn't mean that future computers won't be stronger, but it all gets

00:03:44.360 us toward maybe we're a simulation. Here's the funniest story of the day. Matt Gaetz, Congressman

00:03:52.040 Matt Gaetz, is banned from New Jersey. The governor of New Jersey told Congressman Matt Gaetz that he's

00:04:01.700 not welcome in their state anymore. That'll teach you. Now, I'm going to start using, and by the way,

00:04:09.000 the reason was that I guess Matt Gaetz attended some young Republican event in New Jersey, and New

00:04:15.240 Jersey doesn't want big events, so they're mad at Matt Gaetz. And the governor lashed out at him.

00:04:22.220 And I thought, I'm going to start using that as my threat. I'm going to say to people, anybody who

00:04:29.540 doesn't make me happy? I'm going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa. You better hold back there, bud. You go one more

00:04:37.580 inch with that kind of attitude, and I'm going to ban you from New Jersey. That's right. You can go

00:04:44.460 anywhere else in the world, nay, anywhere else in the universe that you can get to. But let me tell you,

00:04:50.860 my friend, your bad behavior has banned you permanently from New Jersey. You're not getting any New Jersey

00:04:58.480 goodness. You might be sitting down there in Florida, that hellhole of Florida, and thinking

00:05:05.200 to yourself, with all the resorts and the good weather and stuff, and thinking to yourself, damn, 0.99

00:05:11.300 you know what I need? A little bit more New Jersey. But can you get it? No, not if you're banned. 0.97

00:05:18.320 Not if you're banned. You'll be sitting there in that hellscape of Florida with your good weather and

00:05:25.380 good economy and your nice people, thinking, if only the mistake I made that will ban me from New

00:05:33.940 Jersey. How am I going to get past that? Well, we'll see. We're seeing a humorous thing developing in

00:05:48.560 terms of how the press treats Joe Biden. The Jake Tapper interview with Biden was sort of laughably

00:05:55.980 soft, if you will. And of course, all of us who have watched CNN beating up on President Trump for

00:06:02.460 four years say to ourselves, that's not fair. Damn it. You're not treating Biden as harshly as you treat 0.99

00:06:12.040 Trump. But I would like to add a little bit. And of course, that's true. There's nobody who's going

00:06:19.400 to doubt that CNN will give Biden, you know, a softer treatment than Trump. So nobody's doubting

00:06:27.080 that. There's nobody on the left who doubts it. Nobody on the right. Nobody doubts it. But there is

00:06:34.920 something that you must calculate into your worldview. And that is that you, meaning you,

00:06:43.400 any person, have a lot of control over how people treat you. And sometimes that's invisible.

00:06:52.020 Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the way anybody treats us, and let's, you know,

00:06:58.040 take this out of the realm of politics, but just the way your friends treat you, your co-workers treat

00:07:03.160 your family, your spouse, the way you get treated is in very large part based on how you act.

00:07:12.580 Now, Biden has presented to the world this milquetoast, I'm a nice guy. I wouldn't cause a ripple.

00:07:22.600 You might be my worst enemy, but I think we could probably work on a deal. And if you'd like to push

00:07:29.280 me a little, well, that's okay. I don't mind a little bit of pushing. We could work something out.

00:07:36.340 Now, that's Biden's personality. That's what he's selling. He's selling that. It's not a mistake.

00:07:43.660 It's a feature. But if you sell that, the press will treat you nicer. And it's because, in part,

00:07:52.220 it's not just a Democrat versus Republican, left versus right. It is that, too. So no matter what,

00:07:58.720 even if Biden acted exactly like Trump, he'd still get a little bit better treatment from CNN. I think

00:08:05.040 we all agree on that. There's, you know, bias. You can't take it out of the system. But there is an

00:08:10.960 element that Biden is getting back what he's putting into the universe. Now, the cost of that,

00:08:16.880 I think, is his effectiveness. I think that's the trade-off. The trade-off is that if you put

00:08:24.580 a milquetoast leader into a job that sometimes takes a little bit of bullying to do it right,

00:08:32.780 you don't really have the right mix of skills. So Trump is a complete package in the same way

00:08:38.760 than Biden is. Biden is a complete package of soft, soft power, let's say. Trump is a complete package

00:08:47.680 of, let's say, more aggressive power. But you don't get the aggressive guy who doesn't cause more

00:08:56.200 pushback. The aggressive person is always going to get the pushback. The milquetoast person is always

00:09:02.220 going to get the softer treatment. So just factor that in, that, you know, Biden does get back from

00:09:10.280 the press what he puts out. But the trade-off is, I think he would be less effective as president.

00:09:18.580 There's a really interesting video by Brian Romale, R-O-E-M-M-E-L-E. If you want to

00:09:26.700 Google his account, he's a really good follow because he does a lot of science-y stuff. It's

00:09:35.020 just an interesting person to follow. And he's at Brian, B-R-I-A-N, Romale, R-O-E-M-M-E-L-E.

00:09:44.800 And he tweeted today a little test that you can do yourself where there are pictures on two sides.

00:09:55.020 So it's a split screen. And a bunch of famous people's pictures are flashed by. And you're

00:10:01.640 asked to look in the middle so that you're not looking at either picture directly. So as the

00:10:07.920 pictures of the left flash by, but you're staring between them, so you only see them with your,

00:10:12.400 with your, whatever you call that, your side vision, they start to distort. And they become

00:10:19.080 like monsters. And you're watching it in real time. And you're saying to yourself,

00:10:23.740 I don't think those are pictures of monsters. I think they're pictures of actually familiar

00:10:30.120 celebrities. And you look at them, you know, if you look at them directly, they are familiar

00:10:36.020 celebrities, very clearly. They're not distorted in the least. But if you look in the middle again,

00:10:40.920 and the two of them go by, the theory is that your brain can only handle so much processing.

00:10:48.520 And that this test is designed to overwhelm your ability to process reality. It just gives you too

00:10:55.260 much too fast. Because faces are really sticky. Like your brain really, really, really wants to

00:11:01.140 understand the face. So you put two of them and they're snapping by like that. I just saw the word

00:11:06.340 snap. So I put that into my sentence. That's how you influence me. So they're snapping by. And your

00:11:11.740 brain just gets overloaded. Now what happens when your brain gets overloaded? It can't process the

00:11:17.940 images anymore. And they start becoming monsters. And what you realize, or the thing that you should

00:11:26.120 get from this, is that your brain is not processing reality. Your brain is creating a movie for you.

00:11:34.080 And if your brain is overwhelmed, it gives you a bad movie. A distorted version of what's out there.

00:11:40.540 And if your brain is working well, and you're looking at a thing, maybe you're seeing something

00:11:45.020 closer to real. And maybe not. Right? You just know that you see it more clearly. You don't know if

00:11:50.560 it's real. So the test is just one of those ways to nudge you into understanding that your impression

00:11:58.300 of what you see and experience is really, really subjective. You know, I think we walk through

00:12:06.620 life, I've said this before, if you're a non-hypnotist, a normal person, you think, well, 90% of the time

00:12:14.200 I'm seeing things about the way they are. But maybe 10% of the time, I could get confused or misled.

00:12:20.480 That's how most of us go through life, something like that. It's really reversed. It's more like

00:12:26.620 maybe 10% of the time, you can see something true or true enough, if that's even true. But 90% of the

00:12:34.060 time, you're actually in a movie of your own making. And you could be standing right next to someone

00:12:39.160 who's in just a different movie, completely different movie. And there's no conflict with

00:12:44.400 that. They can enjoy their completely different movie. They live, they procreate, they eat.

00:12:50.280 It doesn't affect you. You can have different realities. And we see it all the time.

00:12:55.980 All right. Speaking of different realities, you might want to be talking about some of these

00:13:01.100 election allegations. That's why you're here, isn't it? But I had to prime you a little bit.

00:13:07.680 Here's a question for you. I haven't seen the answer yet. I tweeted this. Is anybody keeping the

00:13:12.540 definitive list of all of the election allegations, along with the official explanation of why

00:13:20.600 somebody thinks it's not actually fraud, followed by, and this is also important,

00:13:26.780 somebody responding to the official allegation. So you want to see, they did this. The government

00:13:33.040 says, no, no, no, that wasn't what you thought it was. But you need at least one more iteration of

00:13:38.520 somebody say, no, it really was that. Here's the evidence. Here's the link, whatever. Does anybody

00:13:43.960 have that? Is there such a definitive list? Because if there were, I don't think it would go the way

00:13:49.580 you'd want it to. Because I think you'd find most of the things on the list have been debunked.

00:13:56.520 Now, if anybody's new here, let me give you just very quickly my opinion. The election had to be

00:14:03.760 stolen because it's a situation that guarantees it. There was not witnessing in all the steps,

00:14:11.300 and there was a high motivation. There was a reason to steal. Anybody would have a reason to do it if

00:14:16.580 they thought Orange Hiller was going to come into power. That's a pretty good reason. So they had 0.90

00:14:20.800 reason and opportunity, and plenty of opportunity. We can tell that now. So what, how often does an

00:14:28.920 election get stolen when you have motivation through the roof and plenty of unobserved opportunity?

00:14:36.580 Well, it should happen every time. So you don't need evidence to know that it happened. It would be

00:14:43.240 great, and you would need that in a court of law. But if you're just being a human, and you're trying

00:14:48.020 to understand, all right, I'm just a human. I'm not a court of law. I'm not the government. It's just me.

00:14:54.180 And I'm just trying to understand, was the race stolen? The answer is yes. Yes, of course it was. 0.94

00:15:01.720 Now, when I say stolen, I mean that there was massive fraud that was big enough to steal it.

00:15:07.280 Probably not that different from every other election. That's sort of the red pill that we all

00:15:15.800 have to eat, is that if there were, if we can believe there was massive fraud this time,

00:15:21.040 it would be ridiculous to imagine it's the first time it ever happened. That would just be ridiculous. 0.87

00:15:29.340 So the red pill is that we probably have not been under a system that had fair and free elections,

00:15:35.780 maybe, maybe ever. But we're finding it out now. I think that's, that's the shocker.

00:15:42.460 But when we look at these individual claims, as I told you from the very beginning, before the first

00:15:50.960 claims were coming out, I told you 95% of them are going to be confirmation bias. Even if 5% of them

00:15:58.020 are true, and that 5% tells the whole story. Like if in the 5%, hypothetically, any of the big claims,

00:16:07.440 like the software claim, or the big trucks of ballots, or whatever, if any of those were true,

00:16:13.380 well, that's the whole story. You don't need the other 95% of them to be true, if the few big ones

00:16:18.960 are true. Now, we don't know if that's the case yet. But the normal situation is 95% of the claims

00:16:25.520 should be, in a normal world, even if the election is completely fraudulent, still 95% of the claims 0.99

00:16:34.720 should be complete bullshit. You get that, right? Somebody's saying sell out. Whoever's saying 0.99

00:16:42.280 sell out, are you just fucking stupid? Like, I don't even know, I don't even know where that comment 1.00

00:16:48.560 comes from. I mean, I don't even think that's an opinion, is it? Isn't that just somebody saying,

00:16:54.660 I think I'd like to prove how stupid I am, and a good way to do that would be in public. So I think 0.99

00:16:59.860 I'll make this comment, that you're a sell out. If you believe the election was definitely fraudulent,

00:17:05.900 you're a sell out? Is that what you're saying? I don't even understand that. All right, but let's

00:17:12.460 talk about some of the evidence. Would you say that the blonde witness we've talked about, who has the 0.98

00:17:18.940 big blonde hair, and some people said she acted like she was inebriated, other people said, 0.81

00:17:23.580 no, that's just her personality? But aside from that, has anybody seen her claims being debunked?

00:17:31.720 In the comments, tell me this. Now, you don't have to say if you believe the debunk, right? So in this

00:17:38.600 context, when I say something has been debunked, let's translate that in your head to someone has

00:17:45.420 offered an alternate explanation. It doesn't mean that's true. It just means an alternate explanation

00:17:51.580 is born offered. So in the comments, how many of you have seen her testimony debunked?

00:17:59.720 How many of you have seen it? Again, it doesn't mean it's true. Just have you seen the other story?

00:18:06.420 I'm looking at your comments. No, no, no. Nope, nope, nope, nope. I'm seeing no's. No, no, nope, nope, nope.

00:18:16.720 So, and then a yes. So what do you make of the fact that almost all of you said no,

00:18:24.980 but yet there's one person here who said yes. They've actually seen the, at least the explanation

00:18:30.640 doesn't mean it's true. Do you know what the debunk is? There's something called a poll book,

00:18:37.600 which apparently is where the official numbers are that have to match something else. Her claim is

00:18:44.040 that if her story is correct, in other words, if her version of what she saw is correct,

00:18:49.560 the poll book should be off, I guess, compared to what, the counting machine or something?

00:18:55.800 But there's a way to check. She's made a very specific claim that if you pick up something

00:19:02.920 called a poll book, that everybody knows what it is and where it is. There's an actual thing,

00:19:08.180 and you can hold that thing in your hand, and then you can look at the numbers on it.

00:19:13.760 And you won't be confused, because they're right there. They're right in the poll book.

00:19:17.900 And her claim is that if you look in the poll book, there'll be a number that is wildly different

00:19:22.960 from whatever the number is that it's supposed to match to. Simple, right? You could check her claim

00:19:30.020 in 30 seconds. It's a gigantic claim. And you could just hold that, the proof in your hand and look at

00:19:38.660 it and say, is it true or not? And it's been done. Did you see it? Yeah, because unfortunately,

00:19:49.560 I'm in a position where I'm going to have to red pill quite a few of you. I've said this before,

00:19:53.620 but until you start seeing it happen yourself, you're not going to believe this. All right?

00:19:59.540 Here's something I'll say a bunch of times, because until you feel it yourself, it just isn't going to

00:20:05.800 sound true. We are moving from a situation where CNN was, you know, 80% of all the fake news was

00:20:13.840 coming from the left. We're moving to a position where that's going to reverse. Most of the fake news now

00:20:21.680 will be from the right if Biden continues on and takes office. It has to happen. The party end of

00:20:29.140 office makes up the stories. That's the way it works. So when you say to yourself, and this should

00:20:35.940 be the place that you catch yourself, if you think that the blonde woman's testimony has not been

00:20:42.960 completely debunked already, and you're not aware of it, what does that make you feel like?

00:20:49.900 Well, it should make you feel like a CNN viewer one year ago, just picking a random time during the

00:20:58.120 Trump administration. People are signing off because they can't handle the red pill hurts.

00:21:06.140 Bye. I'm sorry you couldn't hang with us. But if you look in the poll book, you can see that the

00:21:13.380 blonde woman's testimony is completely false, according to CNN. Now, if I'm wrong, and I made 0.92

00:21:20.700 the mistake of believing CNN, which is always, you know, dicey, wouldn't that be easy to demonstrate?

00:21:26.880 You could say, Scott, you said the poll book had been verified to be okay. The blonde woman said it 1.00

00:21:34.080 wasn't. Look for yourself. Here it is. Here's a copy of the page. Where's that? Where's that?

00:21:41.500 The reason you don't see that is because the poll book apparently matches. So while I do believe

00:21:48.960 there was massive fraud in the election, because there had to be, not because of the allegations,

00:21:54.800 but because the situation was such that there had to be. So I would say that if you, you know,

00:22:02.500 the blonde woman's testimony, I'd say is completely debunked at this point, probably completely.

00:22:08.600 Because if that part of it was debunked as thoroughly as I'm claiming, in a way that you

00:22:16.160 could check, because the poll book has been looked at, right? You know, is there a story

00:22:21.980 on Fox News? Ask yourself this. Is there a story on Fox News, or even OAN, wherever you think

00:22:28.320 is on your side, if that's your side? Is there a story there that says, oh, she said the poll

00:22:34.380 book was off. We checked the poll book. Yup. Poll book was off. Have you seen that? Where's that

00:22:42.560 story? Because that's the most obvious story, right? If the election was thrown, she gave you a specific

00:22:49.740 thing to look at, there would be no ambiguity. You could hold it in your hand. There's only one of them.

00:22:56.680 And you could just look at it. Is that number matching, or is it not? It would be on Fox News if

00:23:04.140 it didn't match, right? Somebody says, do you believe CNN? No. No. If what you're hearing is that

00:23:12.780 I believe CNN, you're missing the whole point. The point is, it's not even on Fox News. It's not even

00:23:20.320 on OAN. It's not in the Gateway Pundit. It's not on Breitbart. Show me any source that you trust,

00:23:30.700 any source that looks at that poll book and that one claim that the blonde woman made. It's the 0.99

00:23:37.040 biggest claim. Find anybody in the news business who confirmed what she said, because it'd be easy

00:23:45.080 to confirm. It's just in the book, right? Just find it and send it to me. That's all. If you can't find

00:23:55.280 it, that's your red pill, right? It doesn't exist. That's why you can't find it. Now, will the news

00:24:06.660 that's friendly to your position, if you happen to lean right, is the news going to tell you, yeah,

00:24:12.580 you know, the reason we don't report on that poll book thing is that we didn't find any problem

00:24:18.400 there? It's just sort of silent, isn't it? Isn't it? I haven't seen any story on it. It's just

00:24:25.980 sort of, well, there's a claim out there. We're not going to check. So you can start to feel that

00:24:34.380 your news sources are turning on you, because that's what's happening. It really is. They're

00:24:39.360 turning on you. So you'll see more and more of that. Well, what about the other evidence? It's

00:24:47.240 not all about that one blonde woman. Not at all. What about those suitcases under the tables? Now, 0.96

00:24:55.020 when I talked about it yesterday, I said, there are just things stored under tables, which is exactly

00:25:01.560 where you store things in a room with lots of tables. That's exactly where you store them,

00:25:07.840 under the table. If you've ever done catering, somebody said this example. Now, I've done

00:25:13.960 catering. I've been an employee, you know, working where there's an event, and I'm in charge of, you

00:25:20.260 know, moving food around and making sure people get beverages and stuff. So I've been in those

00:25:24.640 circumstances with all those temporary tables, and you always store things under tables. That's the

00:25:31.600 place you store things. It's like the main, it's like the main place you put things. So there's

00:25:37.380 nothing about them being under the table per se. But my critic said, Scott, obviously, you did not

00:25:44.220 watch the whole video. Scott, Scott, Scott, you have been fooled by people who have shown you a selective

00:25:51.120 clip. Yeah, maybe that selective clip wasn't as convincing as, you know, the most convincing thing in

00:25:57.740 the world. But if you saw a little bit more of it, you'd see, you know, you'd see that they sent people

00:26:05.200 away. You'd see the whole story developing. You'd see that it's obvious that the witnesses were sent

00:26:12.180 away. And as soon as they were all really gone, and everybody was sure that there were no witnesses,

00:26:17.940 these four individuals took these things out from under the table and started counting like crazy for

00:26:23.820 hours and hours. Now that's the story that you've seen, right? So that's the full video. So today,

00:26:31.120 because people said, Scott, you could be misled, unless you watch the full video, I watched the full

00:26:37.180 video as it was presented and described by Rudy Giuliani's people. Now, another person who watched the

00:26:46.020 full video, the same one I did, was the guy who was in charge of election systems in Georgia. And he did

00:26:53.260 it with an investigative reporter. And the investigative reporter stood there with the

00:26:58.380 Georgia official, watched the entire video from beginning to end. And the Georgia officials said,

00:27:06.740 yeah, it looks fine to me. I didn't see a problem. And indeed, one of the stories is that the ballots

00:27:14.280 that were below the table, if you had watched even more than Giuliani showed,

00:27:19.980 heard. So you think, okay, with that little clip doesn't tell you much, you got to watch a bigger

00:27:25.660 clip, Scott, you've got to see the whole thing. So I watched that. That's probably what you watched

00:27:31.840 too. That's the whole thing. Except it's not the whole thing. There's a larger whole thing. And the

00:27:41.120 claim is, and I haven't seen it myself, but the claim is that if you go even larger, you can see where

00:27:47.400 those ballots came from, the ones that are under the table. Do you know where the ballots came from

00:27:52.580 that are under the table, according to the official account? The ballots that were under the table came

00:27:59.400 from, and I know this is shocking, the top of the table. That's right. There were ballots that had been

00:28:06.760 on top of the table that somebody put below the table. And it's there on video. Now, does that change

00:28:15.900 your mind? Now, the first time I saw the video, I was fooled the same way the Covington Kids video

00:28:23.060 fooled me. First impression is that these roller bags look like actual consumer luggage. If you had told

00:28:32.340 me the actual consumer luggage filled with ballots was under those tables, that I'd be so with you,

00:28:39.680 the people who say, oh yeah, this is proof. If there was consumer luggage filled with ballots,

00:28:45.360 I would just say that's the end of the story. All right. There isn't any scenario in which consumer

00:28:53.040 luggage should be in that room filled with ballots under a table with other ones, right?

00:29:01.520 So had it been consumer luggage, I wouldn't even need to hear any more evidence. I would just shut

00:29:08.020 down. I'd say, oh, I don't need to hear anything else. I don't want to hear that you ran out of

00:29:12.800 containers. I don't want to hear it. There's no way I'm going to believe anything about this story

00:29:18.900 if those ballots were in that room in consumer luggage. But they weren't. They were just in regular

00:29:26.420 ballot carriers. Some of them have wheelies. It's just the official way that they keep ballots

00:29:31.360 it's the actual container. Now, if you take that away, you take away a lot of my bias that I brought

00:29:38.440 to the first viewing of the video. Because people said it was luggage and then my brain translated

00:29:44.640 it into luggage and then I saw it even though it wasn't there. I saw something that wasn't there

00:29:49.340 because people had primed me to see it, just like most of you. Now, here's the official account.

00:29:57.720 Let me ask you, how many of you who believe that that video shows an obvious fraud, how many of you

00:30:05.360 have heard the official explanation? In the comments, tell me how many of you have heard

00:30:13.020 the alleged debunk? Now, I won't even say the debunk is true, because I don't know, but just have you

00:30:20.580 heard it? Because remember, the knock against CNN is not always just that they're wrong, but they don't

00:30:29.440 tell the news. They just ignore the news. Is there a gigantic piece of news, which is the official

00:30:36.300 explanation of this video of these containers, have you not heard it? Because pretty much everybody

00:30:44.980 on this periscope is a consumer of news. You know, the people who are going to watch this

00:30:50.520 are not the people who are just casual consumers of political news. You're mostly people who really

00:30:56.600 watch this stuff. And I'll bet you, you've never seen the official story. Ask yourself if that's okay

00:31:04.280 with you, because you shouldn't be, because you're being CNN. It's just, it's by your side now,

00:31:10.800 all right? Here's the official story for those of you who have not seen it. I'm not claiming I agree

00:31:16.620 with it. I'm not telling you it's true. I'm just going to tell you, you probably didn't see it. Here it

00:31:22.560 is. The official story is that no witnesses were sent home. So the most important part of the story

00:31:29.920 is that the ballot counting witnesses were sent home. The official story is, no, they weren't.

00:31:37.960 Now, the counter to that is, but you saw it yourself. It's right there on the video. You can watch the

00:31:45.080 woman give an announcement. You can watch most of the people leave, and then you can watch four people

00:31:50.420 stay and continue counting votes that they pull down from under the table. So who's telling the truth?

00:31:57.980 Was there somebody who said, hey, witnesses, you all need to go home? Or did it not happen?

00:32:05.120 I don't know. But isn't that the only thing that matters? Have you seen the woman who was accused

00:32:14.980 of telling people they should go home if they're witnesses? Not envelope cutters, because the official

00:32:21.880 story is that the only people sent home were the envelope openers, because they had opened all the

00:32:27.200 envelopes, so there was nothing else to do. So if you're just an envelope opener, you're not a witness.

00:32:32.960 You're just an opener. You go home. Now, was anybody else told to go home who was a witness?

00:32:42.820 Show me an interview with a person who claims that they personally heard somebody say,

00:32:51.800 witnesses, go home. Now, that is the report, right? The report is that that's exactly what happened.

00:32:59.260 Have you seen that person? I would say that the credibility you should put in any personal

00:33:07.060 account of somebody saw something is kind of zero. If you've not been around law enforcement and you

00:33:15.780 know how unreliable eyewitnesses are, if you only have one eyewitness to anything, any kind of crime,

00:33:23.540 how reliable is one eyewitness to anything? And the answer is really unreliable if it's just one

00:33:32.860 person, right? So you would want multiple people hearing the same thing. At a minimum, you'd want

00:33:38.860 multiple witnesses. And then you'd also want some other kind of confirming thing, because even multiple

00:33:44.720 witnesses could be lying. So here's the thing. If it comes down to, the only question is, did somebody

00:33:56.760 tell the witnesses they had to leave? It feels like that would be pretty easy to demonstrate,

00:34:03.140 wouldn't it? Because there were so many people in the room, and I don't think that they're that hard

00:34:08.020 to find. Could the news organizations not say, all right, all right, look, there were 12 people in

00:34:14.080 the room when this allegedly happened. We have their names. We know where they are. Now, somebody's

00:34:21.860 saying that there were affidavits. You want to see the person being interviewed, don't you? And you want

00:34:28.000 to see a few of them and see if their stories are the same. Because the minimum that I would require

00:34:35.580 is to see multiple people in the room say, yeah, they used the word witness. They looked right at

00:34:42.400 the witnesses, and they said, you witnesses are going home for the night. Now, if I hear that

00:34:48.480 from an actual person as opposed to an affidavit, and there's more than one person who said, yeah,

00:34:54.480 yeah, that's exactly what happened. It was witnesses. It wasn't just cutters. It wasn't just envelope

00:35:00.300 cutters, Scott. I know that's the official story, but I heard it with my own ears. It was witnesses.

00:35:05.200 Go home. Several of us heard it. Now, if that could be, the affidavits don't mean anything to me,

00:35:12.420 honestly. They really don't. I'd need to hear them say it in person. Because we do know,

00:35:20.300 we can say with some confidence that a lot of the affidavits are not necessarily lies,

00:35:26.420 but misinterpretations. Let me give you an example of how people could have honestly done an affidavit

00:35:34.020 to say that they heard it, and it didn't happen. Because one of the ways that you could be honest

00:35:40.260 on an affidavit is by telling what you thought you saw or thought you heard. But you could be wrong,

00:35:46.780 and you're still telling the truth of what you thought you heard, right? So affidavit doesn't

00:35:53.020 mean that the person who did it interpreted what they saw correctly. It only means that was their

00:35:58.240 impression. So imagine, if you will, here's just a scenario so you can just imagine why there could

00:36:04.040 be a different explanation. Imagine, if you will, the envelope cutters are done. The people counting

00:36:10.800 the votes know that there's a law that says that you can't leave with uncounted ballots. Apparently,

00:36:16.700 that's a law. So it wasn't legal for everyone to leave the room. It wasn't legal. So somebody,

00:36:24.740 the four people who stayed, were doing what the law required, which is staying until the votes are

00:36:30.780 counted. And that's what the person who organized and was in charge of the voting system in Georgia

00:36:35.860 said. That's what he watched. He watched people doing what the law requires, which is you can't leave

00:36:43.060 that room unattended while there are uncounted votes. You've got to stay there until they're done,

00:36:47.800 which is what he watched. Now, so the question of whether the witnesses were let go is an important

00:36:54.820 one. Now imagine, if you will, that the woman who gave some kind of an announcement on the video 0.92

00:37:00.380 before people left, imagine that she said, hey, everybody, hey, everybody. And imagine that she

00:37:06.720 knew she was talking to only the envelope openers. And that behind her were the three other people who

00:37:13.520 would be counting votes. The people who would later be counting votes already know that they're going

00:37:19.000 to stay. There's no ambiguity among the vote counters, because the vote counters know the law.

00:37:25.220 They have to stay. They can't leave while there are uncounted ballots. And so the person giving the

00:37:30.340 announcement speaks to the rest of the room and says, okay, we're done here. Everybody, everybody,

00:37:38.660 notice the word, everybody, everybody, it's time to go home. We're done here. Done for the night.

00:37:46.020 Thank you, everybody. You're done for the night. The envelope cutters hear everybody's done for the

00:37:51.900 night. They do not know that there's a Georgia law that says you can't leave these ballots there.

00:37:57.400 But the ballot counters do know that, because that's what they were trained in. The ballot counters

00:38:02.140 were trained to be ballot counters. The envelope openers were just trained to be envelope openers.

00:38:07.680 They don't know the law that might apply to the counters. And the envelope openers hear everybody

00:38:12.680 go home. What is their interpretation of what happened? Well, their interpretation would be,

00:38:20.100 and I'm not saying this happened, by the way, I'm giving you an imaginary scenario in which you could

00:38:24.480 imagine that everything you saw had a normal explanation. So the people hearing it, like any

00:38:29.820 large organization, they all interpret it differently, right? If you give any instruction to a group of

00:38:37.340 people, you know from living in the real world that if you ask that group of people five minutes later

00:38:43.560 to explain what they just heard, it will be different. So some of those people might have heard

00:38:49.720 everybody go home, including the witnesses, because we're done for the night. Other people might have

00:38:55.760 understood the context and might have thought, oh, we're done with this part, so we'll go home,

00:39:02.380 but some people will probably stay, because their part is not done. Now, here's the claim. Those of

00:39:10.800 you who are still quite firmly convinced that there was a woman who sent witnesses home,

00:39:18.500 you would have to address this. So the official story is that the deputy chief investigator for the

00:39:27.420 Secretary of State's office was present, at least beginning at 12.15 a.m., when there was still a

00:39:32.920 lot of counting going on. And according to... there was somebody else who was there.

00:39:43.840 And he said that the guy who overlooked it said the vote result was not unusual. I don't know about

00:39:50.660 that. All right. So there was at least somebody there witnessing. I don't know if that's true.

00:39:56.700 You have to be a little skeptical of that, too. Address this. Regarding cheating. Official stories are

00:40:08.800 usually BS. That's true. The official story, I don't think you should assume, is usually true.

00:40:13.580 So, again, the people in the comments who are saying that I'm excusing the fraud, are you missing

00:40:24.960 the whole point that you don't need these examples? The fraud happened. It had to happen because that

00:40:31.400 was the situation. There was no way it couldn't have happened. The trouble is that if you're looking

00:40:35.760 at a specific piece of evidence, it's far more likely it's confirmation bias for a specific piece

00:40:41.860 of evidence. That doesn't mean anything about the whole. All right. So I would say that if you want

00:40:48.920 to believe that this is evidence of what it looks like, you're going to need to get some people on

00:40:55.640 camera who are being interviewed by real journalists, and more than one, to ask them what they heard and

00:41:02.940 saw at the moment of the announcement. Because there's no requirement that witnesses be there. Did you

00:41:08.340 know that? There's no legal requirement that any witnesses are there during the counting. It's just

00:41:13.180 an option. So if somebody had wanted to stay, what would happen? Was there anybody who was a witness

00:41:20.720 who said, hey, I'd better stay because as a witness, I know that you have to count all these ballots?

00:41:27.280 I'd wait to hear that before I knew anything about it. All right. Then, on top of it all,

00:41:36.940 there was the handing off of the thumb drive. Two of the same people involved in the four who were left

00:41:44.520 and counted votes. There's a mother-daughter combo, apparently, shown on video. And if you've seen the

00:41:53.220 video, you see that the mother seems to surreptitiously hand something small to the daughter

00:41:59.640 who sort of palms it and looks around, you know, holds it close to her and looks around. And there's

00:42:07.620 another gentleman who walks up to the table looking suspicious. Of course, you know, your mind is what's

00:42:12.880 making you think it's suspicious, right? Because it might be suspicious. I'm just saying that it looks

00:42:18.260 suspicious. That's all you know. And the guy there stands by the table. And then after a while,

00:42:24.240 the guy yawns. He's like, ah, ah, ah, ah, just got to yawn. And you see the woman who had the item in

00:42:34.280 her hand appears to, but it's on the other side of the gentleman, so you can't be 100% sure,

00:42:40.260 stick something in his pocket. Now, if it was one of the USBs that had been apparently missing,

00:42:50.480 at least in some of these elections, there are alleged USB sticks missing. Was this one of them?

00:42:56.760 Was it being given to a Confederate to go off and reprogram and add or change votes before it was

00:43:02.720 put in the official system? We don't know. Let me ask you this. Is there any other explanation

00:43:09.820 for what you saw on that video? Is there anything else that that could have been? Any thoughts?

00:43:20.760 Is there anybody who has a good enough imagination who could imagine what that was?

00:43:28.540 Can you? What would be some other thing that somebody wouldn't want other people to see

00:43:36.680 that you would surreptitiously kind of want to hand to one person who might put in the pocket of

00:43:44.040 another person? Is there anything else that could fit in that category? Yeah, the answer is drugs and

00:43:50.780 money. Drugs and money. Somebody said a tampon, but given that the... Nobody would hide a tampon. I mean,

00:43:59.700 it's 2020. You wouldn't act like you... If it were a tampon, you wouldn't act like it was a crime of the

00:44:06.500 century. It's 2020. And you wouldn't hand it to a guy to take to somebody, right? So I would say

00:44:14.380 tampon could be ruled out based on what you saw because the guy was involved and that doesn't make

00:44:18.840 any sense. Now, is it my opinion that it was not a USB drive? No. It is not my opinion that it was drugs or

00:44:31.780 money. It's my opinion that this is exactly the kind of thing that could fool you. You don't know. You don't know.

00:44:40.740 It could fool you. You don't know. Now, I would say that my own... Oh, somebody said a doobie. Oh, that was...

00:44:50.840 Yeah. Actually, a joint would be a... Yeah, that would be... A joint would be exactly what you would do if the

00:44:59.800 cameras were on and your friend came up and said, hey, you got... You have a joint? I've been here a long time.

00:45:06.340 So I guess if you had to compare these two possibilities, what are the odds that somebody

00:45:14.940 would hand somebody a joint without wanting somebody to see that it happened versus a USB drive?

00:45:23.360 Which one of those is more likely in your opinion? What is more likely? Let me ask you this.

00:45:32.660 How many of the pole employees do you think were stoned during that evening?

00:45:40.180 So let's turn it around a little bit. So I don't know how many people end up working at these pole 0.94

00:45:45.220 locations. Is it dozens or is it hundreds? I don't know the number. But let's say there's multiple dozens

00:45:50.880 of people who know they're going to be working all night at a mind-numbing task, which is just

00:45:59.160 same thing over and over again a million times. At the same time, a population which probably has

00:46:07.360 access to marijuana and enjoys it at some level. What percentage of pole watchers in any of these 0.80

00:46:15.080 inner cities, what percentage of them do you think were stoned during the counting and the witnessing?

00:46:21.540 What would you think? 20%? I would say at least 20% were stoned if it was a normal cross-section of

00:46:30.960 Americans. Probably 20%. Because you wouldn't catch me doing that work without being stoned. Let me put 0.68

00:46:36.940 it this way. If I had volunteered to be an election witness and I knew I was going to be there for 12

00:46:45.760 hours overnight or something. Yeah, I'd probably head out to the parking lot for a few minutes and

00:46:53.020 take the pain away. Pretty sure I would have. So if you put me in that group, that would be at least

00:47:00.080 one stoned person at midnight. I don't know how many others were, but some of them were. So if you ask me,

00:47:09.180 does it look suspicious? Yeah. Yeah. It looks really, really suspicious that somebody handed off

00:47:17.020 a small object to someone who handed it off in the context of an election counting room. It could not

00:47:24.360 look more suspicious. But you know what else looked like that? Covington kids. So don't believe

00:47:33.140 videos. Don't believe your own eyes. You can be fooled. Doesn't mean you're fooled, but you could be.

00:47:39.180 All right. Here, I guess there's a lawsuit with stronger claims based on the numbers. And so

00:47:47.380 Trump and joining with one other Georgia citizen filed this lawsuit. And here are all their claims

00:47:54.400 of the various things they found. They found, so they're not making a claim about the voting machine

00:48:02.720 software. They're not saying that that's good. They're just saying we're going to make more ordinary

00:48:08.740 claims in this lawsuit. So here are all the categories of things they say they found.

00:48:14.400 People who are not registered to vote, who voted. People who registered too late after the deadline,

00:48:22.480 still voted. People who registered but weren't old enough to vote, and still voted. Convected,

00:48:30.620 convicted, not convection, convicted felons that were ineligible to register a vote, apparently voted,

00:48:40.680 including people at correctional facilities. The other allegations are that people voted more than

00:48:48.280 once. Allegations that the names of people who are no longer alive. I always think that's the least

00:48:55.920 important one, because there will always be a few of those, but I just don't think there'll be big numbers

00:49:01.900 of dead people. There's also claims of people who, the way they worded it is funny, reside within post

00:49:09.840 office boxes, because you have to have a real address, not a post office box. There are people who registered

00:49:15.460 and voted in more than one state, and that's not legal in either state in some cases, and moved to another

00:49:22.380 state without re-registering as required by law. And the claim is that the number of votes affected by

00:49:32.140 all of these categories exceeds the amount it would take to change the election. Now here's an interesting

00:49:37.880 legal fact. If you find out that, let's say an election is only off by 100 votes, hypothetically,

00:49:44.960 and then you find that there's some problem or some ambiguity with 101 votes, well, that would be

00:49:55.260 enough to change the outcome. Technically, I guess, you know, 51 votes changed to the other would be

00:50:00.700 enough to change the outcome. But you don't need to know what the mix of those votes that weren't

00:50:09.340 counted or whatever, you don't need to know the mix. You only have to know that there's enough of them

00:50:14.440 that if 100% of them went to one candidate, which of course could never happen, that it would have changed

00:50:20.580 the outcome. So apparently, this satisfies the legal requirement that the court doesn't care to look at

00:50:27.140 something that's too small to matter. So it's big enough to matter. And this, remember I told you that there

00:50:33.340 would be weak claims and strong claims. I think this is the first lawsuit with strong claims.

00:50:40.320 I'm not positive about this. But my sense of it is that this is the stuff I was waiting for,

00:50:47.240 the things that I'd heard rumors of. So it's the data analysis where you can actually look at the

00:50:53.060 names and stuff. And I think that these allegations are based on data, as opposed to looking at actual

00:51:00.740 specific, looking at an envelope. And I think the purpose of this is to either inject enough doubt

00:51:09.460 that the legal process can maybe change the outcome or to get an audit. So it might be that

00:51:18.980 they're just going to show that the data suggests all these things happened. They can't prove, prove,

00:51:24.280 prove it. It's just in the data. But to prove it, if you looked at the actual envelopes and stuff,

00:51:30.320 maybe you could. So I think that they're just trying to get a good audit going here.

00:51:34.220 But it would be good enough if they won politically as well. So those are what I would

00:51:39.620 call the strong claims. I believe also that it is guaranteed that any software-based election system

00:51:47.700 is compromised. I don't know how much, and I don't know by whom, and I don't even know if it was the

00:51:55.280 Republicans who compromised it or somebody else. Maybe multiple people compromised it.

00:52:00.120 It's a guarantee that an election software system will be compromised eventually. Maybe it hasn't

00:52:09.040 happened yet, but that would seem unlikely to me. But I don't think you need that because these claims

00:52:14.980 are so many and it's so big. You know, you might even, what would be the word you would use

00:52:21.140 for a collection of claims in which there was, let's say, numerous examples of fraud. What's the

00:52:31.140 word? It starts with a W. I think there's a spread in the word. Yeah, yeah, there's some word

00:52:38.600 for a whole bunch of different frauds that if you added them up, they would be so large that it would

00:52:47.480 change the result. Widespread. Widespread. That's the word? Yeah, widespread.

00:52:56.880 So I would not be surprised to see the official story go from, it's baseless. There's no evidence.

00:53:07.320 It's been proven that there was no fraud. Okay, it's not proven that there's no fraud,

00:53:11.120 but it's totally baseless. All right, so there are allegations. You could argue that the allegations

00:53:17.460 provide a base to look into it further. So maybe not baseless, but certainly there's no widespread.

00:53:26.120 Okay, you got the Georgia lawsuit. There's a lot of examples in that and they would add up to a very

00:53:31.860 large number. So it's not exactly widespread, but it's not proven. It's not proven. Okay, it's not

00:53:41.700 proven yet. Okay, they've proven it. You can almost feel where this is starting to go. I'm still

00:53:51.420 predicting that Biden will take the job no matter what the votes were. I think at this point, the votes

00:53:57.440 kind of don't matter, unfortunately. All right, what about China?

00:54:07.820 Pompeo says that the United States terminated five China propaganda programs this week. I don't know

00:54:15.860 what they were, but there were five identifiable propaganda programs in the United States from

00:54:21.900 China. Did China change the election with their five propaganda programs and God knows what and

00:54:29.220 who knows what they've invested in in terms of election machines? I don't believe any of that

00:54:36.040 stuff. But let's see what else China's been up to. So they may or may not have influenced our election 0.82

00:54:43.100 outcome. Well, that's pretty bad, right? Is there anything else they're doing? Well,

00:54:47.940 according to Kyle Bass and various reports, China is working with the cartels via China's banks that

00:54:58.300 the government controls, essentially, to launder money for the cartels in their moving of fentanyl to

00:55:04.820 the United States, which is killing, I don't know, 50,000 people a year in the United States, whatever the

00:55:09.540 number is now. So, okay, so they're attacking our election system via this propaganda, at least.

00:55:17.940 Who knows what else? They're attacking us with drugs, which are killing 50,000 people. And

00:55:24.600 they're doing it both by supplying the fentanyl and then by supplying the money laundering so that

00:55:30.600 the fentanyl business is a good business model for the cartels. Anything else they're doing? I wonder

00:55:37.140 if they're doing anything else. Yeah. Well, of course, spying is what they're doing. So

00:55:50.540 China, I feel as if we almost have to stop saying that we're worried about getting a war with China

00:56:00.280 when you're in a war with China. I feel as if the way large countries that have nuclear weapons,

00:56:10.200 the only way they will fight in the future is with this propaganda and persuasion because it's a better

00:56:16.160 weapon. It's not that it's the only weapon you're left with. It's just a better weapon. If you're

00:56:22.900 going to attack China, do you want to do it with a nuclear weapon? Because you'll die five minutes 0.99

00:56:28.940 after you, well, whatever. I mean, they're going to kill you too. So a nuclear weapon, ironically, 1.00

00:56:35.500 is the weakest weapon you could have because it guarantees that you die at the same time if you

00:56:40.840 use it against the nuclear power. But what if you use persuasion against another nuclear power?

00:56:47.740 Are you just as likely to die? Actually, you're unlikely to die. And if your persuasion works,

00:56:54.400 you can actually conquer a country. It's been done. It's been done. It's doable. It's way more doable

00:57:01.380 than you think. And then on top of that, I would add this, that the social media and, you know,

00:57:07.380 the ubiquity of communication now makes persuasion as a weapon, a super weapon where persuasion has

00:57:17.360 always been a weapon. And it was always the mass media, at least in modern times. So it was always

00:57:22.140 powerful. But the power of persuasion in 2020, it is really weaponized beyond what it was in the 60s

00:57:30.200 and 70s. And it was really strong then. So yeah, why would you use your worst weapon, which is a nuclear

00:57:38.240 weapon? You would use your good weapon. So of course they are. And we are in a heated war with China

00:57:44.800 right now. It's just a persuasion war. But it's a war. It's a war that could topple one of the two

00:57:52.160 countries and probably will. You know, the likely outcome of the war is that one of these countries will

00:57:58.720 be pretty crippled. We'll see if it's us or them or both. The Bay Area is closing down. My county is

00:58:08.340 closing down Sunday, I guess. So everything fun will stop. We can't even eat outdoors. You can't

00:58:16.460 visit anybody, blah, blah, blah, blah. We'll get through it. It just won't be fun. The Trafalgar Group

00:58:24.320 says that Georgia voters, 53.2% of them think that the election was compromised. That's right.

00:58:34.540 A solid majority, 53% seems pretty solid. A solid majority of Georgian voters don't think they had

00:58:44.920 an election that was fair and, you know, credible. A majority. A majority. That's a big deal.

00:58:56.640 A majority of the state doesn't think it was legal. Now, if you are a representative of Georgia

00:59:03.500 and the majority of your state thinks the election didn't happen in the sense that there was no fairness

00:59:10.960 to the election, what do you do? If you represent your state, now you don't have to go with the

00:59:18.820 majority. That's what the republic is all about, right? The representative can disagree with the

00:59:23.560 public if the representative honestly thinks that doing so is better for the state. But can you do

00:59:31.040 that? 53% of your citizens say, I don't think this was a real election. And then you can certify it

00:59:38.420 when the majority of your state when the majority of your state thinks it wasn't credible. A majority.

00:59:43.280 I don't know if you can do that and still keep your job. Maybe you can. All right. And only 40%,

00:59:52.700 what, 38% said it wasn't. So you got 9% who are unsure, but only 38% of Georgians think their own

01:00:03.580 election was fair, 38%. How do you certify that? All right. And then on top of that, Rasmussen says

01:00:15.540 Trump got a 50% approval, job approval rating in November. How do you lose, how do you lose an election

01:00:22.580 for re-election with a 50% job approval in the month of the election? Does that happen? How often do

01:00:33.900 you lose with a 50% approval rating on election day-ish? That's pretty unusual. Certainly room for

01:00:43.380 question. All right. Now let's do something fun. I know you don't like me disagreeing with you a lot,

01:00:50.020 so let's go to something that you'll like a lot better if you're Trump supporters, and I know some

01:00:55.740 of you are. I'd like to give a little scorecard here to the experts versus Trump. Who has done a

01:01:03.260 better job, experts or Trump? And the way I'm going to score this is with these three markers. Orange

01:01:10.020 means that President Trump was right and the experts were wrong. That would be orange, of course.

01:01:15.940 Green means it's a tie. Either the experts were wrong and Trump was wrong, or they're both right.

01:01:24.320 So it's a tie if it's green. And then blue would be the experts were right and Trump was just wrong.

01:01:31.720 So let's see how they do. Because we've all been taught that you should listen to the experts. And I

01:01:36.500 think that the twist I would put on listen to the experts is this. You should listen to the experts

01:01:42.760 first. That's it. So that add the word first. After you should listen to the experts first.

01:01:53.540 Then you need to make a decision. And that may be different. But you should listen to the experts

01:01:58.500 first. Right? You don't want to make a decision and then listen to the experts.

01:02:03.140 All right. So let's take a look at some of the things. Now, this is not science. There's a lot of

01:02:08.420 subjectivity to it. The thing you should get out of this next expert, this next exercise, is the way

01:02:14.580 of thinking. So, you know, you might put a different judgment on some of these calls that I'm going to

01:02:20.020 make, some of these grades. Don't worry so much about that. Think of it in terms of the style of

01:02:25.840 looking at it. So how did the experts do on the question of masks? Were the experts right or was

01:02:33.560 Trump right? I'm going to grade that one a tie because the experts said masks were bad or unnecessary

01:02:41.340 before they said they were good. Trump largely went with the experts. Some people say he could have

01:02:48.680 been more aggressive about pushing it. But would you agree that nobody was bathed in glory when it

01:02:55.520 comes to masks? Whether you think that the masks are bad or good is irrelevant to this question

01:03:01.360 because the experts were on both sides of it. At one point they said no. At another point they said

01:03:06.840 yes. So at the very least, they were half wrong. And Trump, I would say, was somewhere in the same

01:03:13.800 range. Trump was more compatible with the experts than not. So I'd say that's a tie. So if you're

01:03:21.180 saying listen to the experts, yeah, okay. It wasn't any worse than listening to Trump. It was a little

01:03:27.360 give it a tie. Closing travel. Who wins on that? I'm going to give that to Trump. Closing travel.

01:03:35.500 He did that before the experts were completely on board. Yeah, there were some experts who were

01:03:39.880 early. There are always going to be experts on every side of everything. It's just the way it is.

01:03:45.200 But I think you could give that to Trump. His instincts were right. How about closing schools?

01:03:50.840 Trump was blamed for being a bad guy. But now, as more information comes out,

01:03:57.280 solidly Trump. Because the experts have now come around, Dr. Fauci, etc., have come around to the

01:04:04.760 closing schools. It shouldn't have been as aggressive as it was based on the data. So I'll give that to

01:04:10.800 Trump. How about the question of the, remember the initial, it was two weeks to flatten the curve?

01:04:17.000 And the experts said, all we need is a couple of weeks. If you'll just bear with us for a couple

01:04:24.600 of weeks, we'll shut down. We'll be good. Was Trump on the same side as the experts? I think so. I think

01:04:31.180 he was. So we're going to give this one a tie. I think that Trump and the experts were completely wrong

01:04:38.660 about a few weeks of closing down being a solution. Turns out it wasn't even close.

01:04:46.260 But they were both on the same side. They both said, let's try this. It didn't work.

01:04:50.660 Right? It's a tie. How about the timing of the vaccine? The experts largely said, that's going to

01:04:56.880 take years. Trump said, no, you're going to do it faster. Watch this. Trump gets the win,

01:05:03.080 unambiguously. This one's a clean win for Trump. No doubt about it. How about remdesivir? What did

01:05:11.500 the experts say about remdesivir? The experts said, we think this remdesivir works, at least for

01:05:17.420 critically ill people. What did Trump say? Trump believed the experts. He was sort of on the same

01:05:23.840 side. He thought, he said this in public, hey, I think this remdesivir is looking pretty good. Turns out

01:05:29.560 it doesn't work. It's a tie. Trump thought it worked. The experts thought it worked. That's

01:05:36.160 where he got it from. He didn't make it up out of his own head. He believed the experts. They were

01:05:40.920 wrong on that. How about the death estimates? Have the estimates of the number of people who died,

01:05:48.460 do you think the experts were more right or Trump? This one's a little dicey because we saw some

01:05:55.700 reporting that suggested that what Trump was saying in public was more rosy than what he was

01:06:02.080 saying, at least to some, who was it? The Watergate reporter, I forget his name. But he did say

01:06:12.100 privately, at least to a reporter, which isn't really private because he would expect that to be

01:06:16.080 reported. But Trump seemed to be on both sides a little bit. You know, what he said publicly a little

01:06:23.300 bit differently than what he said privately, maybe? But what about the experts? The experts said it might

01:06:30.580 be between 200,000 and 2 million, right? Were the experts... Woodward, thank you. So Trump did tell

01:06:37.580 Woodward he thought it was bad. At the same time, in public, he was sort of underplaying it a little

01:06:42.220 bit, some people say. Who was right on the death estimates, would you say? Because it's a little

01:06:48.680 it's a little murky. But who would you give this one to? Would you say a tie? Or would you say the

01:06:54.400 experts got this right? I would say the experts got this right. It's a little unclear, but I'm going

01:07:01.360 to give this one to the experts. Because the experts did say between 200,000 and a few million in the

01:07:07.500 United States, will that be where we come out? I think so. I think so. The experts said if you do

01:07:14.780 nothing over 2 million, if you're aggressive, maybe you can keep it down to 200,000. I think

01:07:20.940 we're going to be in that 400,000 range. I'm going to compliment the experts on this one. Now, would you

01:07:28.140 agree that nobody's been rougher and more critical of predictions of anything happening in the future

01:07:35.100 than I have? I universally mock anybody who thinks they can predict the future with their numbers and

01:07:41.480 models, right? But it must be said that they nailed it. They nailed it. I don't think you like that,

01:07:51.220 right? Because people are feeling bad about the experts in some sense. But I would say that,

01:07:57.740 and let me give you some context. I used to do lots of financial estimates for a living. It was what I

01:08:03.160 did for years and years. So I would have to guess what the budget would be or what the real number

01:08:09.680 would be compared to the budget. And I was always predicting. As a predictor, you learn that if

01:08:15.720 somebody says something is between this gigantic range, that that's useful if it makes you act a

01:08:21.920 certain way. So the only usefulness of the estimate is not to be precise. The point of an estimate is to

01:08:29.860 tell you to act a certain way. So if the experts gave us an estimate that caused us to act in the right

01:08:39.000 way, the experts got it right. And I think they did. They caused us to be really serious about it.

01:08:45.840 And I would say that was the right answer. How about hydroxychloroquine?

01:08:52.820 Here again, what did the experts say? Well, in the beginning, the experts were a little bit mixed.

01:08:59.460 There were a smaller number of experts who said, you know, Zelenko and the doctors you saw on TV,

01:09:04.280 etc., who would say, yeah, there's enough evidence to think this works. President Trump was very pro-

01:09:11.120 hydroxychloroquine. Time goes by. What is our current understanding of hydroxychloroquine? Well,

01:09:18.460 I would say that the experts as a, I don't know if it's consensus, that's the wrong word, but a majority

01:09:26.400 would say it doesn't work as of today. That would be the, still the majority. But I'm going to throw

01:09:35.040 you a little bit of a curve here. I give this one to Trump. And this requires some explaining. I do not

01:09:44.420 believe that hydroxychloroquine is likely to ever be shown to be like a kill shot that we missed.

01:09:51.560 I don't believe. So that's just my guess. And, you know, I'm, I'm not in very strong territory here,

01:09:58.860 but based on the fact that we've gone this far without knowing for sure that it works,

01:10:04.400 suggests to me that it either has a weak effect or it doesn't work. Far more likely. I'd give it

01:10:11.240 no more than a 10% chance, 20% chance that, that we missed a boat here. Now, why did I give it to

01:10:20.420 Trump? At the same time, I'm saying he was positive about it, but it doesn't look like it works.

01:10:26.780 Wouldn't that be the opposite, right? And here's why. This was a risk management decision.

01:10:34.600 This was not a science decision. It was a risk management decision. There was enough

01:10:41.000 information to suggest it might work. And if it did work, it would have been hugely important to the

01:10:49.460 entire world. And if it didn't work, we'd probably know pretty soon if we went wild with using it,

01:10:56.400 we'd know pretty soon if it didn't work so we could discontinue it. But maybe a few people would

01:11:02.440 die, but probably hardly anybody. So even though Trump probably, this is my guess, will be shown

01:11:10.220 not correct in his, let's say his instinct or his gut feeling that this was going to be a big deal,

01:11:16.400 I think he's not going to be right about that. But he was 100% right that we should have tried it

01:11:23.860 anyway. So this is sort of a weird definition of what it means to be right. You know, the decision was

01:11:31.340 right and science was wrong, unambiguously wrong. But science would have had the right answer maybe

01:11:38.040 by luck. They may have had the wrong, wrong decision and locked into the right, right result.

01:11:43.900 That's possible. So you could argue about this one. But let's look at the list here. So let's say,

01:11:49.760 let's ignore the ties. And that gives us, wait a minute, correct me if I'm wrong. But we've got sort of

01:12:00.880 a pattern here happening. It looks to me like the experts are not so dependable. Because the only one

01:12:12.900 that the experts were unambiguously right about was the death estimates, at least of this list.

01:12:20.440 Now, of course, the reason this is misleading is I've cherry picked the categories that I'm going to

01:12:24.940 look at. For my critics, you are absolutely correct. If I had included more things, maybe this would

01:12:31.580 start to look differently, etc. There's one point I want to make. And that's it. Just one point I want

01:12:37.100 to make about this. Don't believe the experts. Here's a rule that's better than just believe the

01:12:45.680 experts, or believe the science or follow the science. And it goes like this. It depends who

01:12:50.980 you are. It depends who you are. If you're somebody who has been listening to experts for decades, let's

01:12:59.540 say a Trump. If you are an expert on bullshit, because you create lots of it yourself. If you're 0.99

01:13:06.100 an expert on what it looks like to lie, because maybe you've got a little experience there too.

01:13:11.420 If you lived in this world where you're continually the one who has to make the decision,

01:13:17.620 okay, the experts say we can't build this building here, but we're going to do it anyway. And then it

01:13:23.560 works out. The experts say if you do this, you'll get sued. Well, you do it anyway. Then you don't get

01:13:29.160 sued. Trump has a very long track record of calling bullshit on experts. I also have a very long track 0.99

01:13:39.560 record of calling bullshit on experts. So if Trump or somebody like me, it doesn't have to be me, 0.97

01:13:48.040 somebody who just has a similar amount of experience decides to not go with the expert,

01:13:54.960 that can sometimes be a smart thing. I've told you lots of anecdotal stories before of times when I

01:14:04.420 have gone against the experts and it worked out really well for me. And I would say that I wouldn't

01:14:10.640 let everybody ignore science. If you are young and you're 25 and you haven't lived a life where you've

01:14:19.240 seen how often the experts are wrong and you've not developed an instinct to spot it, to pick up the 0.87

01:14:26.800 signs when the science is bullshit, maybe you're better off just following the science. Your odds are 0.86

01:14:33.560 probably pretty good if you do that. If you are very experienced, very experienced, and I put myself in

01:14:42.260 this category, I would say I am a very experienced person in this world. It's not a compliment. It just

01:14:49.660 means I'm old. Right? So I'm not saying I'm better than you. I'd rather be young than experienced. If I

01:14:57.040 could trade and be 25, I might do it. Right? So it's not like a great deal that you have experience. It

01:15:03.540 just happened. Let me give you some other example. I'm just going to pick some names that maybe you would

01:15:08.460 be familiar with. And I want you to answer this question. Should this individual trust science

01:15:15.560 or should this individual trust their own judgment if it disagrees? All right? I'll just name some

01:15:22.520 names. Ilan Omar. If science says something, should she follow science? I'd say yes. Because I don't know

01:15:37.380 her background, but she's young. And I would imagine she has not had a whole bunch of experience

01:15:42.820 of seeing the experts be wrong and seeing her own intuition be right. So for her, I think she should

01:15:50.800 follow the experts, follow the science. How about Mike Cernovich? Say Mike Cernovich has an opinion.

01:15:58.380 Most of you know him, so I'll use him as my universal reference. It's amazing how many examples

01:16:04.880 Mike Cernovich fits into. I don't know what's up with that, but he fits into lots of analogies.

01:16:12.120 If Mike Cernovich said, I don't believe this science, whatever the science is, we don't even need to know

01:16:18.100 what the category is. Mike Cernovich says, I don't believe this science. Who do you go with? The science

01:16:24.600 or Mike Cernovich? Well, if you've been paying attention, I'd say if you go with the science

01:16:33.760 over Cernovich, you're taking a pretty big chance. Doesn't mean he's right every time. Nobody's right

01:16:39.600 every time, right? But look at that contrast. Would you trust a young person with maybe less

01:16:47.600 less of a skill stack? How about Alyssa Milano? I always say good things about Alyssa Milano because

01:16:55.180 I think she's a sincere person who's trying to make the world better. Maybe not the way you'd like to

01:17:00.740 see it, but she's sincere and she's trying and she's putting in the work. I have only good things to say

01:17:05.160 about her. If she disagreed with the science, whose side would you take? I think I'd take the side of

01:17:13.660 science in that case because I don't have any knowledge that would tell me that Alyssa Milano

01:17:20.560 has a deep talent stack where she could maybe use her intuition and her experience to override what

01:17:28.040 the experts are saying. I'm not sure I would trust her to do that. How about, let's see if I can think

01:17:34.080 of somebody else here. How about, gosh, give me another name. Throw out a name that we would all be

01:17:41.900 familiar with and tell me if you think that that person should follow the science or maybe use

01:17:48.140 their own judgment. Tim Poole. Now, Tim Poole is young, so he's got that. Oh, okay, Elon Musk. There

01:18:00.260 you go. Elon Musk. Let's say Elon Musk disagrees with some science. Now, I think we've seen examples

01:18:09.300 where Elon Musk disagreed with science and science was right, right? I mean, those exist. That's a real

01:18:16.080 thing. But take Elon Musk's talent stack and ask yourself, if you get in a debate between standard

01:18:25.980 understanding of science and what Elon Musk says looks more logical to him, which way are you going

01:18:32.020 to go? Seriously, which way are you going to go? Would you put your own money on the science? Or would

01:18:40.000 if it was your own money and you had to bet, would you bet on Elon Musk if he disagreed with science?

01:18:47.820 Because that's a tough one, right? But you see my point. The only point I'm trying to make,

01:18:54.200 Joe Rogan, another good example. I feel like he would be somebody who could pick up some bullshit 0.99

01:19:00.020 pretty easily. Right. Yeah, these are good examples. So here's another one. Peter Thiel. 1.00

01:19:07.600 Do you think Peter Thiel can spot bullshit? Yep. How about Warren Buffett? Warren Buffett. Do you 1.00

01:19:17.380 remember what Warren Buffett said with all those derivatives and those financial instruments of

01:19:23.300 mass destruction? Warren Buffett said, uh, this is all bullshit. He was right, right? The whole financial 1.00

01:19:30.900 market was wrong. And Warren Buffett was right. If Warren Buffett tells you that there's some pieces

01:19:37.780 or if Bill Gates, if Bill Gates tells you there's some science that's wrong, who are you going to

01:19:43.300 believe? Would you just dismiss Bill frickin' Gates if he disagreed with some element of science? I

01:19:52.960 wouldn't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't assume he's right. But I sure wouldn't dismiss it. So my point is this.

01:20:00.700 The point is, don't take the bumper sticker advice that you should follow science or not follow

01:20:08.180 science. It depends. It depends. If you're a person with lots of experience and you have a track record

01:20:16.040 of going against the science and winning, and I certainly have a long track record of that,

01:20:22.180 maybe you take that into effect. I would argue that history will look very kindly on Trump

01:20:30.460 and that the longer time goes by, the better Trump will look. And I think that that's just going to

01:20:37.740 go on and on and on. And I think that his best days are actually ahead of him, which is weird,

01:20:44.180 isn't it? Because all of the day-to-day, you know, the fight, you know, once that is behind us,

01:20:51.460 you're just going to remember that he did stuff like this. You're going to remember that he did this,

01:20:56.640 you know, Operation Warp Speed and it looked impossible. You're going to see that he did

01:21:01.860 something in the Middle East that looked impossible. You're going to see that he got elected

01:21:07.120 and it looked impossible. You're going to see that he cut all of these regulations that people said,

01:21:13.880 if you do that, it's the end of the world. And he was right. And it's just on and on and on.

01:21:20.400 You're going to see all these cases where all the experts were against him.

01:21:23.680 And he was right. Now, will there be some cases where it goes the other way?

01:21:28.860 Yeah. Yeah. There'll be some of those cases. That's of course. There'll be cases where he's

01:21:33.140 wrong. Yeah. North Korea, experts said, don't do that. That worked out. History is going to

01:21:39.760 freaking love this president. And honestly, and I said this from the day he got elected, I said this,

01:21:48.080 and I continue to say it. He's not the perfect person to serve two terms. I prefer it. If I had

01:21:58.320 a choice, I'd rather a second term of President Trump. I worry about Biden, especially if they got

01:22:04.460 the Senate that I think that'd be a pretty big problem. But he's a transformational kind of

01:22:10.660 character. And I feel like the system can handle one term of somebody that powerful. You just sort

01:22:18.520 of need a break after one term. And maybe the country got a tremendous amount of value. And Joe

01:22:25.900 Biden is going to run into a wall. And the wall is going to be that Trump did stuff that looks like it

01:22:31.580 works. Somebody has prompted me to talk about Ellen Page. So Ellen Page has some kind of interesting

01:22:40.300 gender thing going on. There's a story about, I forget, either she's designating herself as what,

01:22:48.900 masculine as opposed to lesbian or something. So she's got her own opinion of how to talk about

01:22:55.940 herself. My take on all of the gender stuff, the trans stuff, etc. I probably am not compatible with 1.00

01:23:05.580 most of your opinions. I'm extremely pro-LGBTQ and pro-trans. And I'm pro-them, not just okay,

01:23:18.100 not just, hey, they should have equal rights. I'm pro. Because I like living in a world where people can

01:23:25.240 sort of plot their own path. And, you know, they don't get stuck in buckets. And, you know,

01:23:31.340 I don't have to be like you. And if you were born with a different situation, you've got different

01:23:36.060 preferences. I want to live in a world where you can do what you need to do. You make your choices,

01:23:41.320 I'll make mine. So I'm assertively, aggressively pro-anybody who wants to be different and is trying

01:23:50.200 to figure out how to make it work. I love you extra, whenever that's the case.

01:23:58.580 All right. That's all I got to say about that. And I will talk to you tomorrow.

01:24:03.800 All right. Those periscopers are gone, YouTubers. 1.00

01:24:16.640 Let's see. Your comments are going by so quickly. Let me see if I can see a few.

01:24:21.960 It's the end of man. I don't know. Do I really have coffee in my cup? Yes, I do.

01:24:28.060 Why do you think Biden will take office? I think Biden will take office because the courts

01:24:36.000 don't just look at the law. The courts also look at stability. And even Alan Dershowitz,

01:24:44.340 I think, agreed with this general statement. It's not a statement about a specific case or anything.

01:24:49.660 But in general, the Supreme Court and the higher courts are going to look at what's good for society,

01:24:54.600 even though that's not their job. Right? It's not the job of the Supreme Court to tell me what's

01:24:59.820 good for me. It's their job to tell me if something's constitutional or not. But the reality

01:25:05.040 is that they do both. That they're humans living in a human system and they act like humans.

01:25:11.660 And that's why you don't want robots to do that job. I want a Supreme Court that will break its own 0.99

01:25:18.420 rules. I know you don't, but I kind of like it. And when I say break its own rules, I mean only in an

01:25:27.520 emergency. Only if they have to. Not in the normal course of business, of course. But if it's to save

01:25:35.620 the country, if it's the difference between the country collapses and it doesn't, I want the Supreme

01:25:41.100 Court to keep the country together. That's the higher mission. And I would not push back too hard

01:25:50.220 on anybody who disagrees and says, you know, it's just the Constitution or nothing. You know, there's

01:25:55.900 no wiggle room there. I have sympathy for that opinion, but I still appreciate humans acting like

01:26:02.160 humans, which is sometimes you've got to bend the rule. So rules are rules. No, I don't. Well,

01:26:12.300 you know, again, I appreciate an impulse to want to follow the rules and everybody be in the same

01:26:19.660 rule book, unless it's going to destroy the whole country, in which case maybe you've got to be

01:26:25.040 flexible. All right, that's all for now. And I'll talk to you tomorrow.

01:26:32.160 Thank you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 05, 2020

Episode 1208 Scott Adams： Ballots Under Tables, Thumb Drive Handoffs, Grading the Experts Vs Trump. What is Real？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript