Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1219 Scott Adams： Forensic Audit of Voting Systems, Hypnosis to Change Sexual Identity, The Great Reset

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. Best time of the day

00:00:10.180 for most of you. And if you'd like to enjoy it to its fullest extent, I mean really, really enjoy it,

00:00:18.960 all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a sustain, a canteen jug, a flask,

00:00:23.120 a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the

00:00:30.900 unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything except

00:00:35.900 solar wind software better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Happens now. Go.

00:00:41.140 Ah. Somebody says, where is YouTube? YouTube is live. It's live at the same time.

00:00:55.960 So I hope your week is going better than mine. If I seem a little down, I'm not having the best week,

00:01:05.560 to say the least. But I'm going to try to raise my spirits for you.

00:01:14.240 So there's a story that there's a filter that's made for astronaut urine that could soon be providing

00:01:22.620 drinking water to Earth. That was the headline in CNN. So it's some kind of a amazing filter that you

00:01:29.700 can put urine into it. Astronauts have been using it and it just turns it into a clean drinking

00:01:35.360 water. But I have some questions. When it rains, will you be able to tell how much is the regular

00:01:45.860 rain and how much is coming from the International Space Station, if you know what I mean? I feel like

00:01:53.500 we need to know that. Sweden has disappointed us quite a bit. Poor little Sweden early on in the

00:02:03.000 coronavirus seemed to be some kind of a weird exception that made it look as though all of our

00:02:08.560 worst fears were exaggerated. Because Sweden didn't lock down as aggressively as other places and

00:02:18.240 even though their death rate was high, they seem to have gotten through the first wave not too badly.

00:02:25.920 But it turns out that the second wave, not so good. And Sweden is getting crushed in terms of rate of

00:02:34.320 infections compared to Europe. So can we say now that Sweden was a mistake? Are we at a point where even the

00:02:46.520 skeptics will say, okay, lockdowns work? And okay, I guess the social distancing and the masks might make

00:02:57.820 a difference? I'm looking at the comments. Not yet. We're not ready to cave on that yet. Well, how about

00:03:07.500 the fact that nearly 300,000 Americans will die from coronavirus? Are you willing to give me that it's not

00:03:14.860 just the flu? Anybody? Anybody? Anybody who thought it was just the flu? Any revised opinions after 300,000

00:03:24.580 people dead? Or are you still on the view that they were all misdiagnosed and they died of something

00:03:30.620 else? Well, we know that if you've seen around on Twitter, there were some tweets going around saying

00:03:39.180 that the net death rate was actually down. And it turns out that the way you arrive at that,

00:03:47.760 at that conclusion that the net death rate is down, is by using the wrong data in the wrong way.

00:03:56.980 But if you don't do that, the death rate's way up and it's coronavirus. But you've probably seen that

00:04:03.360 tweet did not pass the fact-checking. It took about a minute to get debunked.

00:04:10.740 President-elect Joe Biden gave a speech. Was there anybody dumb enough to watch it? 0.99

00:04:17.860 Imagine the last time you heard, you know, President Trump was going to give a speech. 0.99

00:04:22.860 Didn't you automatically say to yourself, oh, I wonder where I'll be. Maybe I'll listen to that.

00:04:28.280 Could be interesting. But what did you say when you heard that Biden was going to give a speech?

00:04:35.400 Did you say to yourself, well, that's appointment TV. I'd better set my alarm. I'd better get over

00:04:42.200 there and listen to that. Well, I do this every day, talk about politics, and even I couldn't get

00:04:48.080 interested in his speech. I thought, well, if anything happens, I'll see it on the highlight clip.

00:04:53.540 But apparently one of the things that happened is he was clearing his throat a lot, and he said that

00:04:58.320 he's battling a slight cold. Now, does that sound true in the age of coronavirus and in the age of

00:05:10.700 everything else? Well, let me ask you this. Joe Biden has been socially distancing and wearing masks.

00:05:19.240 How did he get a cold? Where'd the cold come from? I mean, I'm just kidding. But if he was really

00:05:28.660 socially distancing, does Jill Biden have a cold? Because if he didn't get it from Jill Biden, 0.98

00:05:36.120 what's he doing when we're not watching? Maybe he only goes down into the basement for his videos.

00:05:42.620 I don't know. But I'm glad he doesn't have coronavirus. But how do you catch anything

00:05:49.080 if you're socially distancing? You'd have to work at it, I think. But he pulled it off. And when I say

00:05:56.420 that Joe Biden has a bit of a cold, I mean possibly dying. Same thing. You give a guy that age a bit of

00:06:06.420 a cold, start writing the obituary, because he's at that age where he could be taken out by normal

00:06:14.220 respiratory problems. But we hope it's just a cold. Quite a coincidence. He has a raspy throat

00:06:22.500 during a coronavirus situation. I got to say, I don't know I've met anybody who's had a cold since

00:06:28.000 the coronavirus started. Let me ask you, have you seen a lot of colds in your house since the

00:06:34.880 coronavirus started? I believe I haven't seen any. I've seen some allergies.

00:06:44.900 Somebody says he got it from sniffing hair. In the big news, you may have heard that Pornhub

00:06:51.460 is deleting all of its unverified content. I think the idea there is that they're cracking down on

00:06:59.280 sex trafficking and underage stuff. So there's probably a good base for that. But

00:07:05.620 there was a tweet on this topic from Steve Hassan, PhD. And he's an expert on cults. He writes books on

00:07:15.020 cults. And he said this about Pornhub. He says, I hope they are deleting all hypnosis videos.

00:07:21.820 What? I watched two videos, says Steve Hassan, to convince people they were another gender.

00:07:33.580 What I saw was highly sophisticated mind control. Detransitioners pointed me to them. So according

00:07:40.580 to Steve, there are videos on Pornhub, or unless they've been taken down, that would convince people

00:07:49.800 they were another gender. Do you think... Now, the first thing you have to ask is,

00:07:58.920 Steve Hassan is an expert. He's written books. He's a PhD. Written books on cults and cult

00:08:05.440 indoctrination and getting out of cults. But is he a hypnotist? I don't know. I don't believe he's a

00:08:13.820 trained hypnotist. But I am. So if I were wondering about this question, I would ask me,

00:08:22.000 is that possible? Can you change somebody's gender with hypnosis? And if you could, could you put it in

00:08:31.320 a video and put it online and it just changes people's genders? The answer to that is nope.

00:08:39.260 No, no, you can't. You can't change people's gender. Or, in other words, you can't change 1.00

00:08:45.980 people's mind about what their gender is. That's not a thing. What you can do is if somebody was

00:08:55.280 interested in doing that, those videos would probably make a difference. But you have to start

00:09:01.080 out wanting to do it. Nobody wanders into the site and says, hey, I wonder what this is. Let me

00:09:08.820 click on this and just sample it for a few minutes. I'm just curious. I certainly don't want to change

00:09:13.140 by, I am now a woman. Okay, that's not happening. But it is true that people might want to fantasize

00:09:24.900 about that or make it happen anyway. Those videos might make a difference. But no, you will not be

00:09:32.460 accidentally hypnotized to be another gender. Let me say that with complete certainty. That's not a 0.95

00:09:41.560 thing. Now, you can change people's preferences. So if they wanted to indulge in this content,

00:09:48.600 they could change their preference, and then anything's possible. But the nuance of knowing

00:09:57.080 that it can't change you unless you wanted that change is pretty important. All right.

00:10:04.500 I saw online that the New York Times has not covered the story of Representative Swalwell and the

00:10:11.840 the alleged Chinese spy that he allegedly had a close relationship with. And I'm thinking to myself,

00:10:20.320 how in the world does the New York Times just not cover it? Maybe that could be not true. So somebody

00:10:27.620 might fact check that and say, oh, they covered it. So I guess I shouldn't assume that's true just

00:10:32.220 because I saw it on Twitter. Here's something you don't see in the news. What is the thing that's most

00:10:40.240 holding up the coronavirus relief kind of packages in Congress? And the answer is it's over. The

00:10:47.380 biggest issue seems to be the question of whether businesses would receive some protection from being

00:10:53.600 sued should they not do things right with coronavirus. The Democrats want to change nothing and allow

00:11:01.060 people to be sued. The Republicans say you can't ask people to open up business in a pandemic at the

00:11:07.800 same time they can be sued if anybody gets a virus. So here's what's missing.

00:11:15.460 Where are the news programs where people who understand both sides of that issue,

00:11:21.200 just the liability issue, where are the news programs where those people are on and they're

00:11:26.120 being interviewed and the person interviewing them, let's say on CNN or even Fox, here's the argument.

00:11:33.940 argument. Because I keep waiting to hear the argument. I have a bias, because I used to own small

00:11:41.180 businesses. So my bias is I'd like to see protection so they can't get sued. To me, it makes perfect

00:11:47.780 sense. But if there's some gigantic problem with that, that's holding things up, my question is this,

00:11:56.680 why are we not seeing that debate? Why are we just, we're just saying it exists? Well, that's what's

00:12:05.100 happening. Congress is having that debate. It exists that they disagree. I feel like we need to get

00:12:12.260 involved with this, right? Are you telling me that the public should not be pushing Congress for this?

00:12:17.700 Because here's the problem. I don't think Congress is the right entity to make that decision. Congress

00:12:24.140 is the right entity to make lots of decisions. It's designed that way. But when it comes down to

00:12:29.160 this question of personal risk, I just don't know that Congress can do it, because they don't want to

00:12:36.100 make a mistake, right? So it's a situation where whichever way you go, it's going to be a mistake.

00:12:41.720 If you say that the small businesses are protected, it's going to look like a mistake, because sooner or

00:12:48.220 later, somebody is going to do something so egregious that you wish they had been sued.

00:12:53.480 But if you go the other way and say, all right, you can sue, it's going to happen. And then small

00:12:59.460 businesses will be put out of business for largely things that they probably couldn't control.

00:13:04.300 So you've got two ways to lose. And there are only two options. So how can we expect Congress,

00:13:12.520 who needs to get reelected, to sign up for either thing, either to keep it the way it is, or to sign

00:13:18.720 up and put their name on changing it? Because both of those things could cost them their job.

00:13:24.200 So it turns out that Congress is just the worst tool for this decision. But the public isn't.

00:13:29.660 The public, if we had, let's say, a 75% opinion that businesses should be held faultless,

00:13:40.840 I think Congress would have to do it, right? So have you seen any polls on whether Congress should go

00:13:49.820 with limiting the liability or not? Have you seen a poll on that? I don't know if there have been

00:13:56.360 polls on that, but I haven't seen one. Wouldn't you like to know if 75% of the country was on one

00:14:02.800 side or the other? Because if 75% of the country is on one side, I don't know which side it would be,

00:14:08.620 actually. Then we should be pushing Congress to just do what we need them to do, instead of having

00:14:15.100 them try to make that decision. Never work.

00:14:17.060 So Amazon, turns out they bought a startup with a self-driving car. I don't know why Amazon's

00:14:28.480 getting into the self-driving car business, but I'm sure it's strategically smart because they tend to

00:14:35.080 be. And this one's different because it won't have steering wheels and it won't have any way for a

00:14:40.860 human being to control it. It'll just be a pure self-driving car. So if it goes where it's not

00:14:48.120 supposed to be, you can't take the steering wheel. And it would be like a taxi. The company name is

00:14:54.140 Zoox, Z-O-O-X. And here's what's interesting about this. If you told me that Amazon should stay

00:15:02.980 out of the hardware business, I would have said yes about that. I would have said, yeah, Amazon,

00:15:08.980 stick to your selling stuff online. You're pretty good at that. But then they invented their digital

00:15:16.880 assistant, the A-L-E-X-A, that I won't say out loud because I have them in the house. That piece of 1.00

00:15:24.740 hardware impresses me every single day. It is sensational compared to, let's say, S-I-R-I on your phone.

00:15:34.100 That's just sort of a, I don't know, a novelty or a toy. But Amazon's version of the digital

00:15:42.740 assistant, and maybe Google's too, I haven't used that. But Amazon's version is really, really good.

00:15:49.360 So much so it's like having a Star Trek computer in your home. I talk to it all day long. I order

00:15:54.920 things through it. It's transformational. So if you tell me that Amazon isn't the right company to make

00:16:01.940 a self-driving car, I say to you, they might be. They might be. I mean, I wouldn't bet against them

00:16:10.140 after seeing the Alexa. And maybe their play here is that if the car is self-driving,

00:16:17.820 you need to do something while the car is moving. And what are you going to do while the car is doing

00:16:24.020 its thing? Well, you're going to read, right? You're going to look at some content. You're going to watch

00:16:28.980 a movie. Maybe you get it from Amazon. So there's probably some way for them to tie this car to

00:16:35.200 their service. And this is why I predict that inevitably you're going to see these big companies

00:16:41.860 building homes. Because if a big company such as an Apple or a Google could build a home,

00:16:49.440 home, and the only catch, let's say it's free, they'll build you a home and it doesn't even cost

00:16:55.400 you anything. It's just free. And the only catch is that all of the services that support the home

00:17:00.980 have to be bought from them. So you'd have to get your energy from them, your Wi-Fi, your insurance,

00:17:07.720 maybe. So you just have to get all your services from whoever gave you the shell of a home,

00:17:13.340 and then they could give it to you for free. And I think that might be what's happening with this

00:17:17.460 taxi thing. Rasmussen is reporting. They did a survey and they found that 52% of likely U.S. voters

00:17:26.840 think that many news organizations ignored the Hunter Biden story to help his father's campaign.

00:17:34.720 So that's over half of the likely voters believe that the media rigged the vote by what coverage they

00:17:44.360 did, especially on the Hunter Biden thing. Over half of the country thinks that the media rigged

00:17:50.720 the election. Think about that. And only 32% disagree with that. So here's a, I don't know if this is new

00:18:02.560 or a story or not, but a bipartisan, and that the bipartisan part is important, energy package just got

00:18:09.160 attached to the omnibus spending bill. So omnibus means it's a big comprehensive spending bill, and they attach

00:18:16.720 to it this little energy package that has provisions to boost, and here's the fun part, I'm just quoting from

00:18:23.300 this tweet, to boost green technologies such as advanced nuclear power. So with no, no caveats,

00:18:33.400 people are talking about green technology being advanced nuclear power. So the administration is putting this in the

00:18:43.740 bill, it'll probably get passed, and they're also looking at energy storage and carbon capture. Now if you read my

00:18:50.040 book, Loser Think, you know that carbon capture is a big deal, and there are a whole bunch of ways to do it where you can

00:18:56.460 turn it into products and goods, so you don't just capture and bury it, you can capture it and use it in a variety

00:19:03.360 of ways. So it feels as though the Trump administration, assuming Trump is still there to sign off on this

00:19:10.520 thing, was doing maybe some good stuff on advanced nuclear power, at least funding the research, and maybe Biden

00:19:20.520 will do more of it. But it looks like, here's the biggest news in the world. The biggest news in the

00:19:25.720 world is that you can write a tweet and say, green technology such as advanced nuclear power. You can

00:19:34.860 write that sentence in a tweet in public, green technology such as advanced nuclear power, and

00:19:42.460 people will just read it and go, yeah, that sounds about right. Do you know how big a deal that is?

00:19:47.100 That's, that's, that's the bigger deal than anything in the news today. You know, even if our elections

00:19:55.260 were stolen, and I don't know, this is like the biggest deal in the world. Because the climate change

00:20:02.680 Green New Deal thing, even if you don't think it's exactly as scary as the proponents of that view do,

00:20:10.080 you'd have to admit it's a gigantic issue. Whatever you think of it, it's gigantic, it's going to

00:20:15.820 determine the fate of the earth, etc. And now the biggest problem looks like it's solved. The biggest

00:20:24.980 problem was psychological. Simply, simply understanding that advanced nuclear energy was a green technology,

00:20:34.660 and, and, and, what else? It's a green neck nuclear technology, and the only technology

00:20:45.000 that a lot of smart people say could do anything about climate change in the long run, because the

00:20:52.560 other, the other technologies have their hiccups and problems and limitations. It's a big deal.

00:20:58.020 All right. Um, I would say the most impressive thing about our election system

00:21:06.260 is how amazingly poorly designed it is. Because think about a system where the system, you know,

00:21:15.060 by its nature, is subject to massive different ways to do fraud. So it's not even like there's just

00:21:23.000 one way to do it. There might be a dozen or 25 different ways to, to cheat in an election. So

00:21:31.080 you've got a system that's like amazingly transparent. I'm sorry, it's amazingly got, it's got holes in

00:21:39.080 it everywhere. So it would be easy to cheat if that's what you want it to do. You might get caught,

00:21:44.060 but it would be easy to do the cheating. And at the same time, we have a system which guarantees

00:21:52.860 there'll never be enough time to look into any allegations of cheating. So this is by design.

00:22:00.520 You know, our system, including the Constitution and all the ways we vote, these are systems.

00:22:05.700 And by design, this is the, the freaky part. It's not an accident, but meaning that we know we did it.

00:22:13.400 It's, it's, it's an accidental outcome, but we designed it. And it's doing exactly what anybody

00:22:19.800 who looked at this design would say, oh yeah, that's, that's guaranteed to happen. And here's,

00:22:24.060 here's what it is. We're guaranteed to have fraud because there are so many ways it's possible.

00:22:29.700 And the, the upside potential for getting away with cheating on election is gigantic. So if you have

00:22:36.140 a situation where it's possible and the upside potential is through the roof, it's going to happen

00:22:41.680 every time. Guaranteed. But normally you'd still be okay because eventually you're going to catch it.

00:22:50.700 And once you catch it, the people who might do it next time are going to say, wow,

00:22:54.680 they always catch this. Why would I do it again?

00:22:59.920 But we've designed a system with a compressed window and, and our courts don't want to get

00:23:07.200 involved because our system keeps the courts, you know, a little bit of a distance from what

00:23:11.820 the states want to do in their own state. So you don't really have a court that's designed to handle

00:23:17.180 the problem. You don't have a timeline that's long enough for the judicial system to handle it

00:23:23.380 and produce a penalty that would make a difference for the next time. And it's guaranteed fraud.

00:23:28.820 It's really a perfect design if you didn't want to have a fair election. Let me say it in a different

00:23:38.220 way. If you were going to start from scratch to design a system that is guaranteed to have

00:23:44.500 massive fraud, guaranteed, no way around it, guaranteed, how would you design it? Just like this.

00:23:51.960 You'd make it complicated. You'd make sure that there were not lots of ways that you could be

00:24:00.480 detected if you cheated. And you would make sure that it's not transparent. So you don't have

00:24:06.620 witnesses in all the different places that you could cheat. And then you'd make sure that there

00:24:10.900 was not enough time to find fraud. That's how you design it. You would make it like that from

00:24:18.520 scratch. Exactly like the system we have. It's designed, maybe accidentally, but I'll say the

00:24:26.620 design is such that the fraud is essentially guaranteed by the design. You couldn't not have it.

00:24:36.640 Jim Cramer of CNBC. You all know Jim Cramer, Mad Money. And I guess he's going to have a guest on

00:24:43.940 the show, or if unless it already happened, Michael Mina, who is the biggest name talking about these

00:24:50.060 rapid, cheap coronavirus tests. The part that the public and maybe the government fails to understand

00:24:57.520 is how less sensitive tests or less specific tests could get you a better result than more accurate

00:25:06.900 tests. And the reason that people can't understand it is that people are not good with statistics and

00:25:12.580 probability and risk management. All right, we're just not good at it. So if I say to you,

00:25:19.560 why don't we introduce these tests? They're less, less accurate than the other tests we already have.

00:25:26.580 You're kind of done with the conversation, aren't you? We have good tests. And you're saying you'd like

00:25:33.620 to introduce some tests that would be widespread and not accurate. Isn't that the worst of everything?

00:25:40.800 It's widespread and not accurate? I mean, what could be worse than that? And the answer is,

00:25:47.820 you don't understand risk management or statistics or decision making, if that's your view. Because

00:25:55.240 here's the real reason that the less sensitive tests are the way to go. You could test yourself

00:26:01.840 every day. If it misses it once, it picks it up the next day. You spent $5 instead of $2.50.

00:26:09.120 People who wanted to test could do as much as they want. 80% of the time, they'd get the right

00:26:15.200 result. Although I've heard some rapid tests that might be in the high 90s accuracy. Don't know about

00:26:21.480 that yet. And the point is, if you have enough inaccurate tests, it's way better than having

00:26:28.480 not enough. Wait three days for your response. Accurate tests. Now, why is it, and this is the

00:26:37.720 mystery that I've been wondering, why is it that the administration has not, they of course know about

00:26:44.820 the idea, because I can vouch for the fact that the idea has reached the administration. I guarantee

00:26:51.420 that. So they've heard the idea. What they haven't done is said, we don't like the idea because of X.

00:26:58.620 Apparently, the FDA has some problem with these tests that I don't quite understand. Maybe it has

00:27:04.700 something to do with reporting requirements, etc. Not a good reason. But if the government knows about

00:27:12.760 these tests, what are the two possible reasons that they are not implementing them? Number one,

00:27:20.660 that this Harvard-trained expert and all the people he's talked to are wrong about the thinking.

00:27:28.080 That would be one reason not to do it, right? That Michael Mina is just wrong. He's thought of it

00:27:33.520 wrong. He did the risk management wrong. He's not wrong about how accurate the tests are, or how much

00:27:38.400 they would cost. But one reason not to do it is he got something wrong. What is it? We haven't even

00:27:47.520 seen a counter-argument. To my understanding, there has never been a counter-argument. There are simply

00:27:57.360 people who don't understand it. Now, here's the powerful part of this. Jim Cramer is not normal

00:28:04.180 people. The reason he has this gigantically successful show is that Jim Cramer has a special

00:28:11.240 skill that he brings to the show, which is risk management. Statistical understanding, on top of

00:28:20.540 lots of financial and TV things. He's got an amazing talent stack. But a big part of the talent stack is

00:28:27.400 that he can look at a complicated situation with lots of risks and possibilities, and he can analyze that

00:28:34.360 better than you can. That's why you watch him for his stock picks. And I think he's probably the exact right

00:28:42.200 person on the exact right topic. Because if you're in the administration, and you see Michael Mina talking

00:28:50.180 him by himself, you might say to yourself, well, I don't know, nobody's mentioning it lately. Maybe it's

00:28:55.480 not a thing. But if you see Jim Cramer talk to him and endorse it, I don't know if he will, but let's say

00:29:01.120 he does. You'd say to yourself, oh, I don't know much about Michael Mina. But I've been watching Jim

00:29:07.820 Cramer forever. And if he says this is a way to go logically, just common sense, logically, risk

00:29:15.400 management, statistically, if he says this makes sense, suddenly, I take it seriously. So there might

00:29:24.660 be something very important happening here. And it has to do with the fact that Cramer can put a seal of

00:29:31.080 credibility on exactly this kind of thing, even though he's not a medical guy, because it's not really a

00:29:36.940 medical question, ultimately. So we'll see if that makes a difference. I don't know, maybe he's

00:29:42.520 already been on the show, could have already happened. Let's see, let's talk about the Great

00:29:49.600 Reset. I didn't want to do it, but I decided to Google it this morning, and look into it. And the

00:29:56.960 Great Reset is basically two words for what people already wanted to do. And what people already wanted

00:30:05.740 to do, and of course, not all people, but the people who use this phrase, what a lot of people

00:30:12.020 wanted to do globally, not just in this country, is have more socialism. So if I could simplify the

00:30:20.540 Great Reset, it is, hey, let's introduce more socialism in more countries. The idea being to

00:30:27.700 help the people at the bottom strata. That might require taking money from the richest. But there are a

00:30:34.120 number of ways to do the Great Reset. The details of the Great Reset are less important than the fact

00:30:39.860 that the people who want more socialism are saying, hey, let's use this crisis as an opportunity.

00:30:48.880 Now, there are two things that they want to use as their opportunity. Hey, it's a coronavirus. Let's do

00:30:54.280 more socialism. But also, hey, it's climate change. Let's do more socialism. Now, the coronavirus did

00:31:06.100 cause more socialism in the United States, right? We just printed money and started sending it out. So

00:31:11.220 that's as socialist as you can get, in my opinion. But let me ask you this. If you take away the words

00:31:20.060 Great Reset, just the words. What's different? Do you think that the people who wanted socialism

00:31:27.360 were not looking for every excuse to say, well, we got a solar flare, so I think we need more

00:31:34.940 socialism? It looks like there's going to be a war, so a little more socialism. It's going to be a

00:31:42.040 virus. How about some more socialism? Climate change? I want a little socialism. So I don't

00:31:50.840 think there's anything different. It's just a word put to what people wanted. Now, is it true that the

00:31:58.060 coronavirus will accelerate that? Yeah, because it happened already. We saw people just checks being

00:32:03.080 mailed down. And people getting free health care, at least in part, free vaccinations. So yeah,

00:32:10.120 we're way more socialist than we were a year ago. So saying that there's something that will cause

00:32:17.240 more socialism is different from saying, I've got a plan. Watch me release this virus so I can have

00:32:25.060 some socialism. But it's not really the socialism I want. It's really the power. But here's the problem

00:32:33.860 with the theory that the real point of the Great Reset is power. Yes, socialism consolidates power.

00:32:42.020 It does have that element to it. It gives the government more power. But for whom? If there

00:32:49.680 were somebody running for office and also wanted the Great Reset, you could say, ah, they're saying it

00:32:55.420 because if that Great Reset happens, you know, they're going to get elected because they're associated

00:32:59.800 with it. But how would Klaus Schwab benefit from, you know, one of the guys pushing the Great Reset?

00:33:08.000 How would somebody who's not running for the highest office benefit? Yes, there might be more control,

00:33:16.740 but the people who would have the control are not the people promoting it. So why are people promoting

00:33:22.360 more control for other people? That doesn't even make sense. So if you dig even this much into the

00:33:30.660 Great Reset, it looks like they're just putting words on things that are going to happen anyway,

00:33:35.200 because society changes. All right. Here's Banzai Sharma had a long tweet thread that I retweeted,

00:33:44.880 and you should look at it. And it starts out by saying the biggest real problem with our voting system

00:33:49.560 is not only that we've got these voting machines in almost all of our states, but with relatively few

00:34:01.100 exceptions, I guess. But we have a system that's not only universally, you know, similar in states,

00:34:07.040 but it rigorously defies fraud detection. I love that phrase. Our election system rigorously defies

00:34:16.280 fraud detection. It does. It looks like it was designed to not show you the fraud if it happened.

00:34:24.460 It looks like it was built that way. It's so bad. But here's some things going on. The Georgia

00:34:31.400 Secretary of State announced that an audit of voter signatures on absentee ballots will happen in

00:34:37.460 Cobb County. Now, of course, everybody said, why Cobb County? That's not the bad one. Why don't you do

00:34:43.580 the ballot count in the county that there are allegations there was misbehavior? I don't know

00:34:50.860 if Cobb County was even one of the ones somebody had to question about. But anyway, so all they're

00:34:56.300 going to do is check signatures. I assume they'll find some amount of fraud. I assume that they won't

00:35:02.640 be able to prove how much it is because they're only looking at a sample, and therefore you can't

00:35:07.220 always generalize that sample. And therefore the courts will say, so what? Yeah, you found a bunch

00:35:13.900 of fraud. So? The courts don't care. So does it matter that there's going to be an audit of voter

00:35:20.740 signatures? I mean, maybe for your curiosity, but whatever. All right, here's the good story. It's the

00:35:27.640 one you're waiting for. There was a forensic audit of Dominion voting machines in Michigan in one

00:35:33.400 county. And here's the result of the audit. All right. Now, I'm just reporting, reporting what I

00:35:45.500 heard. Okay, that's it. I'm just reporting it. Remind me to talk about Patrick Byrne in a minute.

00:35:53.720 Somebody's, somebody's prompting me. So what they find is that 68% of the votes that went through the

00:36:01.200 voting machine went to adjudication. So that means that they, they feed a bunch of votes into the

00:36:08.100 machine and 68% of them were bounced as it needs a person to review them. 68%. Do you know what is

00:36:16.880 the allowed error? Way less than 1%. So the amount that would be acceptable, given that nothing is

00:36:26.240 perfect, by contract, way less than 1% would be acceptable. They had 68%. Way, way less than 1%.

00:36:36.000 Not even close to 1%. They had 68%. Okay. 68%. Allegedly. All right, we'll get to that. Now, what happens when

00:36:47.340 a ballot is adjudicated? Well, we found out because we saw a video on it. So what happens is a separate

00:36:54.220 machine lights up if something was not proper in the vote counting. And then you can see the ballot,

00:37:02.200 and it comes up, and the operator can put anything they want on that ballot. Yeah, I really said that.

00:37:09.540 The operator who sees the adjudicated ballots, the ones that have some question about what the voter

00:37:14.620 intended, all of those votes go to somebody who sits at another computer, a separate computer.

00:37:20.700 It comes up on screen, and then they can change the votes to whatever they want.

00:37:28.240 And nobody's watching. Just whatever they want. So they could take all 68% of those votes,

00:37:35.060 just change them all to Biden. And do you know how easy it would be to get away with it?

00:37:40.480 It's 100% easy. Nobody's watching. And do you know what happens when they looked for the logs so that

00:37:50.000 they could look at the actual record of what happened in 2020? The 2020 log is missing. Oh,

00:37:59.300 they've got the 2018 log still in the machine. Oh, yeah, they have the 2016 log still complete,

00:38:06.440 still in the machine. Only the 2020 log was deleted, and it was deleted the day after the election.

00:38:13.600 And every vote in there that went through adjudication, allegedly, was unmonitored.

00:38:23.220 Now, these are the same machines that allegedly are in widespread use. And one of the things that

00:38:30.580 disappeared with the log that would have told you what happened with this machine was the indication

00:38:37.820 of whether the internet had connected to the machine at any point. So the thing that would

00:38:44.880 have told them if the internet had ever been connected to that machine, at least during the

00:38:49.960 voting process, that log is missing. It wasn't missing in 2018. In fact, it's still there,

00:38:56.940 right on the disk. It wasn't missing in 2016. Now, what do you think about this? And then the

00:39:06.560 analyst who looks at it, he says that this is not an error. So it's not a bug. He said he can look at

00:39:13.940 the code, and he can see that the code was written to create 68% errors. It wasn't a mistake. It's right

00:39:23.020 there in the code to create the errors that aren't real errors. So let me say this. If this is true,

00:39:36.560 this is, you know, cracking times 10. It's all you would need to know, really. You wouldn't even need

00:39:40.900 to know if it happened. You would only need to know this is a thing. If this is a thing that the

00:39:48.400 adjudicators are getting tons of votes, and nobody watches what they changed them to, if that's real, 0.99

00:39:55.560 the election is just garbage. But is it real? Is there anything about this story that you find 0.99

00:40:04.080 unsettling? So turn on your skeptic mode now, right? I know you want to believe this is true.

00:40:12.260 You do, don't you? You want to believe this is the Kraken. You want to believe this forensic analyst

00:40:20.400 nailed it. You want to believe badly if you're a Trump supporter. But just work with me a little bit

00:40:28.200 and turn on your skeptical filter and tell me, is there anything wrong with this story?

00:40:37.700 There we go. Somebody nailed it. A little too on the nose, right? A little bit too on the nose,

00:40:50.780 meaning the story is a little bit too good. And by a little bit too good, I mean way too good.

00:40:58.540 Way too good to be true. Now that doesn't mean it's not true. But if you had to place

00:41:07.680 a really big bet on this one, you should bet against it. Sorry. That doesn't mean it's false.

00:41:16.760 I can't tell. I don't really have any independent way to know if it's true or false. I'm just telling

00:41:23.020 you that if you ever hear a story that sounds like this one, and you don't know anything yourself,

00:41:29.420 you've just heard this story, if it sounds like this one, bet against it.

00:41:37.560 Like you, I join you in saying, I would love to know if this is true. Because if it is,

00:41:45.180 there's one other tell here, that the analyst says the code is intentional.

00:41:54.420 Do you think that these voting systems would include intentional code that was obvious when

00:42:02.340 you just looked at it for fraud? Or in this case, obvious code for creating adjudicated ballots for

00:42:09.260 no reason? Do you believe that that's really there? That you could just look at the code,

00:42:14.860 and you could see a cheat code, and you could tell their intentions just by looking at the code?

00:42:23.080 Well, maybe. Maybe. There's nothing that would rule that out that I'm aware of.

00:42:30.180 But you've got a story that's really a little too perfect. A little too perfect.

00:42:37.100 And you've got somebody who might be doing a little bit of mind reading, because you can tell

00:42:45.800 what the code does. You can't tell the intention of the person who wrote it. You think you can,

00:42:53.220 but you can't always. No, you could be speculating correctly. I could be speculating that that's the

00:43:00.060 reason the code is there, and maybe it is. Maybe that's exactly why it's there. But I'll bet you.

00:43:04.840 I'll bet you. That when the makers of this software respond, they will tell you a story of a reason

00:43:13.740 that that code exists that will be plausible. Probably. Now, that doesn't mean their plausible

00:43:23.040 explanation is true, but I'll bet you're going to hear a plausible explanation. I'll bet you will.

00:43:29.960 So wait for that. We'd like this to be true, because it'd be fun, but who knows.

00:43:34.840 Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of this morning, Google has not told us what caused the massive

00:43:42.200 outage. Is that true? Still true as of this time of day. It was true when I woke up.

00:43:47.200 So I think if Google does not tell you what caused their outage, you have to assume it's probably this

00:43:57.780 hack, this wind, what is it? Solar wind thing. Now, here's a question for you. I've read stories that

00:44:10.940 associated the hack with China, but those were not credible. And now it sounds like the New York Times

00:44:18.080 is saying that the hack is Russian. Does that feel a little bit convenient that it's a Russian hack? 0.51

00:44:28.460 Here's my question. Is Russia the only country that's good at it? Are you telling me that China

00:44:34.340 isn't good at hacking? Because why is it that Russia is the only one who breaks through? It feels 0.67

00:44:41.580 a little too neat to me. So then here's the question. How do we know? How do our intelligence

00:44:51.840 people know? Because that's who we're telling us. So I guess the US intelligence people are saying

00:44:57.240 they think it's Russia. Keep in mind that 50 US past and present intelligence professionals

00:45:06.680 also said the Hunter Biden story was Russian information. I guess I was informed that they

00:45:14.780 didn't use the word disinformation. But they're saying it's Russian information, sort of assuming that

00:45:21.000 you know, they're playing fast and loose with what information means. Do you believe that the same

00:45:29.120 intelligence agencies, who 50 of them believe that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian

00:45:35.600 information, do you believe that the same class of people can tell you who hacked this software?

00:45:43.440 I don't think that's a thing. Now, if there is a hacker out there who actually has experience,

00:45:49.600 like a real, you know, super experienced hacker, who wants to disagree with me, I will listen to that.

00:45:56.580 But I'm not going to listen to ordinary people who don't know more than I do, which is not a lot

00:46:01.400 about hacking. Tell me that we can always tell where a hack comes from. Because I don't think we can.

00:46:09.040 I don't think that's a thing. I think that often you can tell. I wouldn't rule out the fact that

00:46:15.740 it's, you know, there are times when you can tell. That seems reasonable. But are you telling me that

00:46:21.280 Russia, Russia, or China, you tell me they don't have the ability to hide the source of the hack?

00:46:31.020 I'm not a hacker, but I don't believe that things can't be hidden.

00:46:36.280 And prove me wrong. There's a story out of Great Britain where unconscious bias training is being

00:46:45.420 scrapped for civil servants. So I guess in England, or just England, I guess, you had to take unconscious

00:46:51.580 bias training to find out how much bias you had that you didn't even know about. And apparently,

00:46:57.500 after doing it for a while, they decided, there is no evidence that this makes a difference.

00:47:02.540 And there's a little bit of evidence that it makes things worse.

00:47:09.060 So that's in England. I don't know that, I don't think that's going to happen here. I think over

00:47:14.240 here, we'll be doing more of this, not less of it. But England decided to go without.

00:47:23.100 Scott, why aren't you talking about Russell Ramsland Jr.? Remind me who Russell Ramsland was. I did read

00:47:30.580 him. I think that's another. Russell Ramsland. Who is he? Ramsland. Because I know that's a real

00:47:39.840 story. And I remember seeing it and ignoring it. Oh, that's a state official. Oh, he slams a report

00:47:51.460 on the votes. So is he the one who did the... Yeah, I just talked about that. Why are you asking me to

00:47:59.140 talk about that? I just got done with that. Oh, Patrick Byrne. So Patrick Byrne, who had been the CEO of

00:48:05.620 Overstock, he's no longer, I think. But he has a story that the FBI asked him to work on a sting

00:48:13.080 for a bribery of Hillary Clinton. The credibility you should put on that story is

00:48:22.640 zero. Zero. Unfortunately, Patrick Byrne has a credibility problem. Yeah, zero. Now, again,

00:48:35.080 people can be non-credible, but they can be right sometimes. So I'm not saying, I'm not saying it

00:48:42.260 didn't happen. I'm just saying that if that's your only source, zero. Zero. All right. Talk about

00:48:54.220 Barr. You know, I haven't talked a lot about Barr, but I'll give you my layperson's opinion. I think he

00:49:01.880 was great, honestly. I was looking at the comments from Democrats who were saying that he lied to the

00:49:09.720 country about the Mueller report, to which I say, did he? Did he lie about the Mueller report? Because

00:49:17.060 I don't think so. I think he handled the Mueller report just right. Now, did he, should he told us

00:49:24.720 more about Hunter Biden's laptop before the election? Not if he's doing his job. I feel like

00:49:32.680 he should not have told us that, even though I wanted to know, even though it would have changed

00:49:36.540 the result. I feel like there are some lines that you just don't cross. And that feels like one that

00:49:42.500 should not have been crossed. And I would respect him for not crossing it. I respect him for being

00:49:49.300 good with working for the president. And if there are people not being prosecuted for,

00:49:55.760 I don't know, the Mueller report origins or whatever, it's probably because they don't have

00:50:00.900 the goods yet. So I don't have any problem with Barr at all. That's just me.

00:50:06.500 Sorry about that. He didn't tell the president or Congress. Well, that's to keep it from leaking.

00:50:20.400 It's the same issue. And if he had told Congress, it would have leaked. And I don't think that would

00:50:26.780 be fair. He quit before he could be fired, possibly. Thank you. All right. The child of a candidate,

00:50:43.140 blah, blah, blah. All right. Look them up when you have time, somebody says. I don't know what

00:50:48.440 you're talking about. All right. I think we've covered everything, haven't we? I think we have.

00:50:54.040 That's all for today. I will talk to you tomorrow. And you YouTubers? All right. You got any questions

00:51:05.000 for me? Some of you trust Barr. Some of you don't like them. What's your one sentence explanation

00:51:10.500 for socialism? Sharing versus competition. That's it. Why was my week so bad? Well, you might find out

00:51:21.760 some day. But today's not the day. Oh, I'm feeling well. I mean, I'm healthy. I just, you know,

00:51:30.840 there's sometimes when you have a, you have an unbelievably bad week, like so bad you can't

00:51:37.020 even believe it. That's one of those. But I'll get over it. And I will talk to you tomorrow.

00:51:51.760 Bye-bye.

00:51:53.400 Bye-bye.

00:51:59.680 Bye-bye.

00:52:04.720 Bye-bye.

00:52:10.080 Bye.

00:52:14.880 Bye-bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 15, 2020

Episode 1219 Scott Adams： Forensic Audit of Voting Systems, Hypnosis to Change Sexual Identity, The Great Reset

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript