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

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,

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript