Episode 1219 Scott Adams： Forensic Audit of Voting Systems, Hypnosis to Change Sexual Identity, The Great Reset
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
143.9238
Summary
Scott Adams talks about the coronavirus outbreak in Sweden, Joe Biden's speech, and why he might have a cold. Plus, a story about astronaut pee and the future of clean drinking water in space and a new type of coffee maker.
Transcript
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?
00:04:17.860
Imagine the last time you heard, you know, President Trump was going to give a speech.
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,
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
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
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
00:14:17.060
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
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,
00:39:55.560
the election is just garbage. But is it real? Is there anything about this story that you find
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?
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
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.