Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1243 Scott Adams： Georgia Election Credibility and Where Do We Go From Here？

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of the day,

00:00:14.280 and you're going to need it today. You know, sometimes you come and you watch this live

00:00:20.860 stream and you say to yourself, well, I enjoyed it, but did I need it? Today you need it. You

00:00:28.900 really do. And if you'd like to make it special, and I'm pretty sure you do, all you need is a

00:00:34.460 cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any

00:00:39.520 kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled

00:00:45.880 pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except

00:00:50.760 the Republic. It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now. Go.

00:00:58.900 Ah. I feel democracy returning. Slowly. You'll get there. All right, let's talk about all the

00:01:09.580 things. Some of you know, if you watched my live stream yesterday, Christine and I tried to take

00:01:17.600 a vacation in beautiful Park City, Utah, because things were more open there and there were still

00:01:25.680 flights. So we thought, well, if it's legal and it's open and they're open for business,

00:01:31.360 should you go there? But let me give you one travel tip. I gave some more details yesterday,

00:01:36.660 but here's your travel tip. If you pick a city destination, say Park City, Utah, and you

00:01:45.780 end up 19 miles away from your destination in a hotel that says on their website they're in Park City,

00:01:53.960 but when you get there, you're 19 miles away from Park City in a whole different city,

00:01:59.700 which is not at all what you planned. In those conditions, you just say thank you very much and

00:02:08.420 you fly home because you can't fail harder than being a luxury resort. There's a high-end resort

00:02:16.640 where you show up and the people who show up go, uh, maybe not. How about you just book us a car

00:02:23.740 back to the airport? So that was our, that was my vacation for the year, was flying with a mask on a

00:02:30.080 plane to a location that was the wrong location, putting my mask back on and flying home. How was your

00:02:37.080 vacation? It was so bad. It was, uh, it was laughable. All right. So there's some, uh, news about a, uh,

00:02:46.620 nationwide bicycle trail that is being built. Now, some people said, Hey, Scott, you brought up that

00:02:54.860 idea early in the pandemic. Why don't we have a, a connected bunch of national bicycle trails and we

00:03:01.900 could use e-bikes and regular bikes and make it a, make it a tourist destination and people from

00:03:07.560 Europe and everywhere would come and they would ride bicycles and have great vacations because the

00:03:13.280 travel part would be easy. Just get on your bike and you go hundreds of miles. If it's an e-bike,

00:03:18.700 it's pretty easy. Now, um, while I did, I did suggest this idea probably last, I don't know, last spring

00:03:27.760 or something. Uh, I did not suggest it before this effort had started. So I was actually just saying

00:03:34.560 it was a good idea, but there were people already working on it and it's called the rails to trails

00:03:40.460 conservancy. And I think the rails part is that they're converting old railroad tracks into bike

00:03:47.580 paths and they got a bunch of funding. So what's different and new is that because bikes became such a

00:03:54.420 big thing during the coronavirus that they got more funding. So it was always an idea before I came

00:04:01.660 up with it, but now the coronavirus made it more of a thing and I could not be happier. Interestingly

00:04:07.920 though, there was a criticism, which is that we turned into a lawless criminal place where all the

00:04:16.000 bikers would get mugged by homeless people. And I thought my first reaction was, well, that's not going to

00:04:21.720 happen. Why would homeless people just start deciding that they're going to be robbing people

00:04:28.180 on bicycle paths? And then I thought about it a little more and I thought, oh, actually that's

00:04:33.660 what's happening right now. There are lots of bicycle paths that do have homeless people on them and

00:04:41.520 it's getting a little dangerous. I was starting to wonder if we should just turn all of our cities

00:04:46.540 into bicycle paths because they don't seem to have a reason to exist and traffic's no good. So just ban

00:04:54.300 all the traffic except maybe delivery trucks or something and just make it all bicycle paths. So if

00:05:00.720 you can get your bike to Detroit, you can bike all the way through it. No traffic. All right, let's talk

00:05:07.900 about some other stuff. Kim Jong-un is alive. We'll get to the election thing. I'm just letting more people

00:05:12.840 get on before we talk about the lead story. Kim Jong-un, he is alive. So that's good for him, 0.75

00:05:20.160 I guess, because he did a speech at the opening of some big economic thing in his country and he

00:05:28.120 admitted that they had failed in all of their economic goals. Basically, he said, we failed at

00:05:34.520 everything economically. Now, of course, the coronavirus is a big part of that and the sanctions from the

00:05:41.000 United States are maybe a bigger part of it. But here's what I found interesting. Since when does a

00:05:47.880 dictator say we made a mistake? On everything. It was weirdly honest. Yep, everything we planned didn't work

00:05:58.120 economically. It feels as if he's softening up the public for something. It feels as if he's a guy on the

00:06:09.860 verge of making a deal with the rest of the world. Maybe something about the nukes. Because he tried it

00:06:16.740 his way, which is try to keep the nukes, we keep our sanctions on, and then just see what happens. See

00:06:23.700 if he can break the sanctions enough. But he's admitting in the most transparent way that it didn't

00:06:31.180 work. So what do you do after you've said it didn't work? Do you keep doing it? Because the thing you

00:06:37.500 would not expect to happen is that he would tell everybody this didn't work, let's do more of it.

00:06:44.120 Feels like he's getting ready for some kind of a change. Now, it's too bad that Trump won't be in

00:06:50.920 office, it looks like anyway. That's the way it's going. So could he make a deal with Biden?

00:06:57.380 Would he? I don't know. This could get really interesting. There are a bunch of air traffic

00:07:03.700 controllers who heard a threatening message saying that the Iranians might try to retaliate for

00:07:10.980 Soleimani's assassination. And they might do it by flying planes into the capital on Wednesday,

00:07:20.200 which would be today. Raul Davis on Twitter told me, he goes, it's a solid way to stop a protest from

00:07:29.440 happening. Now, suppose you were heading to Washington, D.C. to protest. Let's say you're

00:07:36.400 Republican, you're going to protest the results. And then you heard that maybe it will be under attack.

00:07:43.600 Would you be less likely to go to protest if you thought the whole state was going to be,

00:07:49.420 not state, but the city was going to be under attack? I would say the likelihood of this being

00:07:55.120 real is pretty close to zero. You know, nothing's impossible. But I don't think they're going to

00:08:02.060 fly airplanes into the capital unless Iran wants to not exist by next week. Give me any, tell me any 1.00

00:08:10.320 scenario in which something like this actually happens. Iran attacking the capital of the United 0.68

00:08:17.000 States right after an election. And then Iran still exists a week later. That's not a thing. 0.94

00:08:24.220 What kind of plan would that be? So I would say the odds of Iran wanting to kill itself this week 0.79

00:08:30.500 were low. Let's get into the election stuff now, okay? That's why you're here.

00:08:36.260 Rasmussen poll has an outcome that you haven't seen yet, but I got a sneak peek. And it's exactly

00:08:48.440 what you'd expect. Maybe not you. It's exactly what I'd expect. And it goes like this. Apparently,

00:08:57.600 the older you are, because they broke it down by age group responding, the older you are,

00:09:03.680 and therefore the more experienced. Wouldn't you say that that's almost exactly the same thing?

00:09:10.320 The older you are, the more experienced, the less likely you believe that the election was fair.

00:09:18.040 Coincidence? Now, so here are the numbers. If you're over 65, according to the Rasmussen poll,

00:09:25.440 49% of you think Biden did not win fairly. Basically half the country, I'm sorry,

00:09:33.100 49% think that Biden did win fairly, which means that more people think that it was an unfair

00:09:39.480 election if they're over 65. If you're between 40 and 64, that goes up to 51% think it was a fair

00:09:48.920 election. So once you get to over 40, people are really, really skeptical that this was real.

00:09:56.880 But what about under 40? Under 40, 65% of them think it was a fair election. Gigantic difference.

00:10:06.540 Now, is it because senior citizens fall for conspiracy theories? Well, if there were a big difference

00:10:18.000 between the over 40s and the over 65s, I'd say, yeah, that might be something to look at.

00:10:24.240 But the over 40s and the over 65s are almost statistically exactly the same. That half of 0.86

00:10:33.120 them-ish, only half of them think it was a fair election. But under 40 years old, 65%, two-thirds

00:10:41.680 of them think it was a fair election. Now, what have I told you about our young citizens? They're the

00:10:49.160 stupidest citizens. Now, am I insulting young people when I say that they are our stupidest citizens? 1.00

00:10:57.080 No. I was young, and I was far stupider than I am now. Now, some of that is that you just, you know, 1.00

00:11:05.700 your brain gets developed over the years. You know, until you're 25, your brain isn't quite done cooking.

00:11:11.460 And some of it is just experience, right? If you've seen enough things, you know, things change.

00:11:19.000 So, can it be a coincidence that the people with the least experience, the ones under 40,

00:11:26.180 are the ones most likely to think no cheating happened? Maybe. You know, maybe it has to do with

00:11:33.840 Democrats being younger. Maybe it has to do with senior citizens falling for conspiracy theories. 0.69

00:11:39.360 Maybe. But I would think the more obvious, straightforward, straightforward interpretation

00:11:45.820 is that the younger you are, the less you've seen stuff like this. At my age, I've seen things like

00:11:55.220 this, meaning things that look true but weren't, way more times than you have if you're 25. It's not

00:12:02.520 even close. By the time you get to my age, you've seen a lot of BS. And so you can spot it a little

00:12:09.060 bit easier. All right. Here's my take on Georgia. So my guess is that it will be two victories for

00:12:18.040 Democrats. One appears certain. The other is close. But I think it'll go the Democrat way. And the

00:12:25.700 Democrats seem to think that as well. But here's the thing. Turnout will probably be the big story,

00:12:33.200 right? It already is emerging as the big story is turnout. And the story will be that Stacey Abrams

00:12:40.240 got more turnout than, say, President Trump did because he said the wrong things and she did the

00:12:45.660 right things with registering voters and stuff. But here's my problem. If we all accept that the rate

00:12:54.880 of turnout for each of the parties is the deciding factor, and we know that turnout is driven by

00:13:01.160 things such as the way the news is covered, the amount of attention that a party puts on signing

00:13:08.760 people up, the techniques they use, the legal processes, the tricks, even the gerrymandering,

00:13:16.460 because it's both parties, right? Once it comes down to how well you game the system,

00:13:24.620 there's nothing like a democratic republic. It's not even close. If it all comes down to

00:13:32.480 gaming the system, that has nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with

00:13:38.320 whose small team of operators can make the right decisions.

00:13:42.060 So I believe in the concept of one person, one vote, but in Georgia, that one person and one vote

00:13:48.620 was Stacey Abrams. Because if it's true that her efforts could be identified as the key thing that

00:13:57.660 made the election go the way you wouldn't expect, in other words, go to the Democrats, if she really

00:14:04.660 made that much difference, then it wasn't a real election, was it? Not an election the way it was

00:14:10.680 conceived by the founders, where your vote actually matters. The only vote that mattered was Stacey

00:14:16.340 Abrams. If it's true that what she did made a difference. Now here, by example, or, you know, to fill

00:14:24.200 out this point, in 2016, I didn't vote. In fact, I haven't voted in years. I didn't vote this last election

00:14:33.280 either. I just decided it was not worth my time. But I asked on social media, on Twitter, how many

00:14:42.340 people had their votes changed by me? In other words, listened to me or watched my Twitter feed

00:14:48.760 and decided in 2016 to vote for Trump when maybe they wouldn't have. And I think, if I recall,

00:14:55.640 1,500 people immediately said, yes, you, you specifically, Scott, are the reason that I voted

00:15:02.460 for Trump. Now that's just the people who answered a Twitter poll. You could probably multiply that by 10

00:15:10.080 to get the actual number of people whose votes I changed. So 15,000. So one vote, one person,

00:15:18.580 I voted 15,000 times. I don't know how many times I voted in 2020. But people like me are not voting

00:15:28.900 once. People like Stacey Abrams, she's not voting once. She may have voted tens of thousands of times

00:15:36.320 based on her efforts to get more people to show up on her team. So that's what's happening. And we

00:15:42.380 should acknowledge it for what it is, more like a game show in which it's more like The Apprentice.

00:15:48.580 You know, in The Apprentice, you got two teams and they go out and they've got a task.

00:15:53.820 And whoever executes the task becomes the winner. And that's what our elections turned into. Two

00:15:59.940 teams, the Democrat operators, the Republican operators. And they go out and they try to game

00:16:05.460 the system the best they can. And whoever games it best is the winner. It's just like The Apprentice.

00:16:10.560 Definitely not like a democracy or a republic.

00:16:13.040 Um, Geraldo was saying by tweet that, uh, some reports indicate the Republicans in North Georgia

00:16:23.380 stayed home and did not vote because they had been told time and again by President Trump that the

00:16:28.400 process was rigged. And Geraldo says, if true, then the disappointed, you know, POTUS 45 burned the

00:16:35.200 house down at his way out the door. Now, I would agree with the if true part. But let's talk about it.

00:16:40.860 Is it true? Do you buy into the hypothesis that the way Trump talked about the elections and his

00:16:50.360 allegations of fraud caused voters for him or voters for Republicans to stay home?

00:16:57.220 Do you believe that? Because I don't understand the connecting tissue.

00:17:05.980 You know, there's, there are lots of things which I claim to be obviously true. You know,

00:17:10.460 you don't need data to, or a poll to determine that some things are obviously true. For example,

00:17:16.520 if you change the incentives about something, you don't have to wonder if it works.

00:17:21.660 Because incentives always work. You know, if they're big enough. So if they're too small,

00:17:26.160 that's different. But here's my, uh, here's my question. I'm really skeptical that the way the

00:17:35.400 president talked about it made a difference. Now, the way the news talked about the way he talked about

00:17:41.500 it, I can imagine that would make a difference. Because the way he talked about it was there were,

00:17:46.720 there was a lot of fraud, but you better get out and vote to overcome the fraud. That makes me feel

00:17:53.680 like I'm more likely to vote. Because you know, the fraud is going to have to be limited, or else

00:17:58.640 it'll be too detectable. So the fraud's got to be in that, you know, 5% or less range, or else it's

00:18:05.400 just too obvious. So who was it who said to themselves, huh, if the other team's going to like cheat up to

00:18:11.820 5%, my best strategy is to stay home? Because it's not as if, you know, the election was going

00:18:21.660 to be 90-10 in one direction, and they were going to switch it to 10-90. Nobody thought that.

00:18:27.220 It's got to be a small fraud, but big enough. So of course, you should try to surprise with outcome

00:18:33.820 and win. So why would somebody pick the obviously wrong strategy? Because that's what Geraldo's

00:18:41.820 hypothesis says, that people would pick the opposite strategy of the one that's obvious.

00:18:49.000 And the obvious one is to vote so much that even if there's fraud, you've still overcome that hurdle.

00:18:55.860 But did people do the opposite? Now, the way the news reports it, which is not what Trump says,

00:19:01.600 the news reports it, and social media reports it, and pundits report it as,

00:19:06.720 Trump is saying, essentially, there's no point in voting because it's rigged.

00:19:11.500 Trump never said that. Can you find me a quote where Trump ever said anything like,

00:19:18.440 Republicans maybe shouldn't vote because it's rigged? Nothing like that came out of his mouth,

00:19:24.180 and I base that on no research at all. Do I need to research to know that he never said

00:19:30.960 anything like that? I don't think I do. It's so obvious he never said anything like that.

00:19:36.040 I don't feel like I have to Google it, right? Do you feel like you need to Google that? Of course,

00:19:41.820 he didn't say that. His entire efforts, his actions were all about getting more people to vote. Of

00:19:49.020 course, he didn't tell them not to vote. How crazy is that? But that's what was reported.

00:19:53.280 It's all over social media, etc. So I would question that. Now, having questioned it, I would

00:20:02.220 also easily be convinced that it was true if there were some data to suggest it as opposed to

00:20:08.680 anecdotes. Anecdotes won't give me, are not going to convince me that this is true. I just don't see

00:20:14.620 the connecting tissue. But I can be convinced with data. A user on Twitter named Kai, K-I-E,

00:20:25.460 who says that seeing their state officials refuse to investigate or audit claims of illegality has

00:20:33.220 had more of an effect than the claims of rule breaches themselves. So what about that point?

00:20:38.280 Is it Trump talking about that he thinks there was fraud that kept people home, allegedly? Or is it

00:20:46.560 the fact that the Republicans could watch how the elected officials treated their concerns and treated

00:20:54.480 them as if they weren't concerns, that they weren't real? Now, I think, as I've said, most, it could be all

00:21:01.740 of them, but at least 95% of the claims are bogus. But if the claims are not treated as serious,

00:21:10.040 what does that do to the voter? Okay, I voted, and my elected officials won't even do an audit

00:21:16.900 to make sure I really voted? Because there is a big question about whether I voted. And I'm just

00:21:23.580 asking my elected officials, can you confirm that I really voted? Is that unfair? Is that a wrong thing

00:21:31.140 they ask? And if they refuse to do that, to either assure you that things were fair or to prove that

00:21:37.960 it wasn't, they just don't even want to deal with it at the level that you think they should.

00:21:42.240 There have been recounts, but people always want more. So which made a bigger difference,

00:21:47.580 Trump or the fact that the elected officials wouldn't look into it? Good question.

00:21:55.920 Jack Posobiec was tweeting this morning, and I would agree with him because I said the same thing

00:22:00.540 earlier. Jack said he's struggling to think of a bigger political miscalculation than blocking

00:22:06.860 stimulus checks during a pandemic one week before a special election. I believe I said that too,

00:22:15.060 right? Now, we don't know how much that changed the outcome, but I'd have to think it changed a little

00:22:22.360 bit. And these are really close elections. So it's still mind-boggling to me that it wasn't perfectly

00:22:31.400 obvious to every Republican that under these very specific conditions, we're in a pandemic,

00:22:39.100 we seem to be able to print money for other things, so it's not like there's a budget problem per se.

00:22:44.780 Okay. And we've got a special election coming, as Jack said. This was really obvious. There are very

00:22:54.300 few times when you can really say for certain what the right policy is. This was easy. You pick the big

00:23:02.440 number. If you don't pick the big number, the other team says we would have, and you're done. Because do

00:23:09.720 you know what citizens like more than they like a little bit of money? Just take a guess. Something

00:23:16.680 that citizens like more than they like getting a little bit of money. That's right. They like getting

00:23:23.580 more money. Now, if you're surprised at that, I don't have any science to back it, really, but I feel

00:23:31.900 confident that given the choice of less money or more money, citizens would make the right choice.

00:23:38.740 But did Mitch McConnell and lots of the Republicans, did they make the right choice

00:23:44.200 that was obvious to owe every single person who was not them? Apparently not. They found a way

00:23:53.440 to snatch a stinging loss from what should have been an obviously easy decision. So congratulations on

00:24:02.540 that, guys. Nate Silver, you know him, of course, statistically brilliant, famous guy.

00:24:13.820 And he says this. He says basically the polls were quite good in the Trump era when Trump was in the

00:24:20.400 election. I'm sorry, when he was not in the election. So when there was no Trump in the election,

00:24:25.980 the pollsters were pretty close. In the 2018 midterms, Georgia 2021, Alabama 2017. He gives

00:24:32.260 other examples. But they were quite poor, the pollsters were, in any election in which Trump was

00:24:38.400 in it. So how do you interpret that? That when there's no Trump, polls are pretty accurate. When

00:24:44.220 there is Trump, polls are inaccurate. And inaccurate in the same way, probably, of underestimating Trump.

00:24:50.660 Trump. So Nate Silver speculates. He says maybe that was a quirk. So it could be just a statistical

00:24:59.160 oddity. But it increases the likelihood of certain theories of polling error relative to others. And

00:25:04.160 Nate mentions, especially those centered around Trump turning out low propensity voters that are

00:25:10.280 hard to capture in polls. So Nate is suggesting that maybe the reason is that Trump gets people to vote

00:25:17.200 vote that you wouldn't even know to poll them because they've not voted before. So you just

00:25:23.420 wouldn't bother asking them who they're going to vote for if they have a, you know, 30-year record of

00:25:29.200 not voting at all. No point in polling them. And so maybe that's part of the question. But what happened

00:25:34.620 to the most obvious hypothesis? The one that has just zillions of at least anecdotal evidence,

00:25:44.440 which is that Trump supporters didn't want to tell the truth to pollsters. Isn't that the more obvious

00:25:51.300 hypothesis, at least? I don't know how you would exactly figure out which one had a bigger impact.

00:25:58.060 But I would go with that one first. But without data, we don't know. But that'd be at the top of my

00:26:04.400 list, given how many people have told me personally that they lied to pollsters about that. All right.

00:26:10.180 But what were the odds that the Georgia special election, coming so soon after the presidential

00:26:20.020 election, would have all of the same tells for looking like a stolen election? Now, what did I tell you

00:26:30.700 before the Georgia election? I told you that if it's true that the national election was stolen,

00:26:36.760 there isn't anything in the world that I could see, no friction, no obstacle, that would keep them

00:26:45.140 from doing it in Georgia. I mean, why wouldn't they? Can you think of any reason they wouldn't?

00:26:50.100 Now, this is a big if, right? If, with a big if, it was done nationally and done, including done in

00:26:58.380 Georgia for the presidential election, and nobody went to jail, and nobody's arrested, and we don't have

00:27:08.440 a smoking gun that at least the mainstream news reports as a real election problem, why wouldn't they do it

00:27:17.460 again? So, I was expecting, since I also believe that the national election almost 100% had fraud in it,

00:27:28.380 based on just the setup, not based on any specific claims. So, if you're new to me, I base that on the

00:27:35.460 fact that any large system that you could cheat at, and that's certainly true of elections, you could.

00:27:43.380 You could. There are a whole bunch of ways you could do it, and there's a big upside potential,

00:27:49.020 and there are lots of people involved, so you can always find somebody who's willing to do anything.

00:27:52.480 Under those conditions, there has to be massive fraud. You couldn't build a system that has those

00:27:59.920 qualities. You can do it. There's a big advantage if you do it. There are plenty of people willing to

00:28:05.020 do it. You always get fraud. So, of course there was, but we don't know that they'll ever be proven

00:28:11.600 in any way that could reverse anything. Who knows? So, here's my bigger question, and Joel Pollack

00:28:20.340 spoke to this. So, one of the things that happened was that apparently in at least one polling place,

00:28:27.380 they stopped counting the votes and went home for the night to continue counting them in the morning.

00:28:33.740 Now, if you were not in a coma for the last few months, wouldn't every one of you know that if there

00:28:42.340 was one thing that you have to get right in the Georgia election, what would it be? One thing you had to do

00:28:57.280 right process-wise in terms of the people running the election process. I would say that one thing you just

00:29:02.980 had to get right is not to stop counting votes in the middle of the night when the Democrat challenger

00:29:11.700 starts to catch up to a significant or at least, you know, substantial lead of the Republican. Right?

00:29:19.520 That's the only thing you shouldn't have done. And they did it. They did it.

00:29:25.740 Now, I don't know how many precincts there was. Was it just one? But even the fact that there was one.

00:29:33.460 If there was one thing you shouldn't do to convince the public that this is a fair election,

00:29:38.980 don't do that. Now, what would be the second thing that you definitely don't want to do

00:29:45.880 if you're trying to run a good election and you just saw what happened in the presidential election?

00:29:53.180 Well, one thing you don't want to do is to make it hard for the observers to get close to the action

00:30:04.880 because that was one of the biggest issues, right? If you don't let the observers observe,

00:30:10.620 you must be hiding something, people said in the presidential election. So again,

00:30:16.220 if there was one thing you had to get right, it's don't stop counting the votes just as the Democrat

00:30:23.980 starts to get close. If there are two things you really don't want to do, it's ban the observers

00:30:33.920 from getting close enough to watch. Now, if you did those two things, which they did,

00:30:40.060 are you even trying to look like an honest election? Because this doesn't even look like

00:30:46.760 trying. Now, those two things apparently are based on decisions. There might be some factors in here.

00:30:53.440 We'll find out more about this. We're still in the fog of war about this election. So we could find out

00:30:58.540 that the one that stopped counting had some physical or health or safety reason and there was nothing

00:31:04.360 they could do about it. We could find out that. That would change my opinion. And we could find out

00:31:10.980 that the reason some observers were blocked was actually this time there might have been a good

00:31:15.620 reason, whereas last time there wasn't. So wait for more information. But at this point,

00:31:23.140 if you wanted to make it look stolen, you would do those two things, block observers and stop the

00:31:32.540 elections or stop the counting. Now, I turned on the CNN's coverage when the two GOP senatorial

00:31:43.840 candidates were solidly ahead. And I turned it on and I see the two GOP guys are solidly ahead, but not

00:31:51.900 not so much that it couldn't be overcome. And I said to myself, is there any possibility

00:31:58.720 that this is going to go exactly the way I would expect it to go if it were a fraudulent election,

00:32:06.020 which is that the Republicans get this early lead and then it just sort of disappears right at the

00:32:13.920 last minute. Last minute it disappears. And then I watched it happen right in front of me. I'm watching

00:32:21.580 and I go, you know, it would be funny. Funny in a simulated world kind of way, as if it looks

00:32:29.740 exactly like the presidential election, just like the same pattern. That would be funny. And then it

00:32:36.780 happened. And then it happened right in front of me. Now, did you have the same experience where you're

00:32:44.620 watching and you said, I feel as if these Republican leads are about to disappear in the next hour? Why

00:32:52.940 do I feel that? And then you watched it. Okay, given those three data points, that, you know,

00:33:03.540 the voting was stopped in at least one place, you know, some observers had some friction in at least

00:33:09.100 one place. We'd like to know more. And you know that that pattern, which was alleged, and it can't,

00:33:15.020 it can't be true that that pattern happens everywhere in every state in every election in the United

00:33:19.460 States. What were the odds it happened twice in a row? I mean, it could happen, right? Could happen

00:33:26.560 twice in a row. There's nothing that would stop it from happening twice in a row. But it feels like

00:33:33.220 exactly... All right, let me address this troll before I block you. So I'll address you before I

00:33:41.140 block you. And the troll is saying, you lost, bro. Let me clarify. I congratulated Biden the same time 0.96

00:33:51.280 that the mainstream press said that he was the president-elect. Same time. So I don't need you

00:33:58.740 to remind me who's going to be president, because I understand how it works. But do you understand

00:34:07.240 that my point is not about who's going to be the president? Do you understand that I'm talking about

00:34:13.040 the credibility of the system, and how this election mimicked everything that looked wrong with the

00:34:19.800 first election, and it was so easy for that not to happen? Well, he explained that. Well, it was so easy

00:34:27.380 for it not to happen, and yet it did. So I'll get rid of you. You'll go into the blocked bin.

00:34:37.000 Johnson, totally real name.

00:34:43.260 So that's where we are today. We'll see how the final vote comes out, and I guess the Democrats are

00:34:50.200 all ready to go nuts on this. Now, we also had this situation where there was the vote count

00:34:59.060 decrements, meaning that you could look at the vote coverage on CNN, and you could look at the vote

00:35:05.460 totals as they came in, and you can see that, at least in one case, it decreased by 30,000-some votes.

00:35:11.840 But here's the thing. You say to yourself, is there any situation in which vote totals would ever go

00:35:20.320 down when you're counting votes? And the answer is yes. There is a reason that a vote total would go

00:35:26.920 down in the middle of the count, and the reason would be human error, and there was exactly that

00:35:32.160 report, that there was a transcription error, somebody put 7-1 instead of 1-7, and so there was

00:35:38.680 a difference that had to be reversed. Now, how often does that happen? How often does a number

00:35:44.500 get reported, and then when they check them, oh, misreported, you transcribed a number? I don't

00:35:50.440 know. Maybe a few times. You get a lot of different counties, a lot of people reporting. I can see it

00:35:55.480 happening a few times. Would it happen only to one party, though? Would all of the mistakes, if there

00:36:02.300 are multiple, I saw one, but if there were more than one, would they all go in one direction?

00:36:07.260 Well, that's a big part of the claim. The claim is that, hey, yeah, I could believe you if you said

00:36:13.580 there's some human error that gets corrected. That would make sense, because it's not a surprise that

00:36:18.780 there's human error. But why would it always be one side? That part wouldn't make sense if it's

00:36:25.780 human error. But the claim is that it doesn't happen to just one side. So the claim is that people are

00:36:32.660 seeing it on one side, or they're ignoring it when it happens to somebody else, but that it actually

00:36:37.480 is just a normal part of the process. Things go up and down because of human error and correction.

00:36:42.940 Which is more likely? If you didn't know anything else, and you just heard this explanation,

00:36:50.400 say, oh, yeah, completely routine, and it does happen to both parties, versus the claim that it's

00:36:57.940 not routine, and it only happens to one party. If you didn't know anything else, which of those two

00:37:03.180 sounds more credible? The answer is the one who says it happens to both, and it's routine.

00:37:11.780 That doesn't mean it's true. But if that's all you knew, and you heard those two explanations,

00:37:18.680 the one that says it's normal and routine is always going to be the one you bet on. The one that

00:37:23.960 says something very surprising and shocking, and a crime that you could see on television as it

00:37:31.780 happened, that's kind of a big claim, right? It's a big claim to say that an election was stolen in

00:37:39.460 such an obvious way that you could watch it, the number change in real time on television.

00:37:44.800 Maybe. You know, we've been through the kind of year, 2020, where it looked like anything could

00:37:51.140 happen. So do unlikely things happen? Yeah, they do. Unlikely things happen. But if I had to choose

00:37:58.900 between those two explanations, I would like to see two people who know what they're talking about

00:38:04.140 and have access to the data answer this one question. Can you show me a happening to the

00:38:10.420 Democrat? That's it. Can you show me those examples where it happened to Democrats? If you can,

00:38:17.540 and it sounds like a pretty reasonable claim. If you can, that's the end of it, right? Would you

00:38:23.640 agree? If they can show, okay, you just watched the wrong clip. Watch this clip. This is also CNN,

00:38:30.580 same night. Okay, here's a case where the Democrat went down. It was just a correction.

00:38:36.120 How hard would it do just to show the counterclaim? But I haven't seen it. Have you? And is it because

00:38:43.500 the news is just no longer even trying to do news and they're not really investigating anymore? Because

00:38:48.960 you can't rule that out. One reason that maybe you don't know that is that we don't have a functioning

00:38:54.160 news industry anymore. We really don't. You know, they do dig into some things, but it's what they want

00:39:01.940 to dig into. The news doesn't cover things because you want them to cover it. They cover things because

00:39:07.940 they estimate how many clicks they'll get. That's it. It has nothing to do with what you want to see.

00:39:13.200 What I would like to see on the news tonight is basically one story. This. I'd like the news to

00:39:20.800 say, look, they got that claim out there that they decrement, they decreased the number of votes. It only

00:39:26.000 happens to one side. And that claim is causing something like half of the country to think the

00:39:33.000 election was fraudulent. Now there are other claims, but that one sort of is sticking in people's minds

00:39:39.180 because it's a visual. You know, there's the video and you can watch the video and it happened. I watched

00:39:44.720 it with my own eyes. So it's the stickiest claim. Of course, the Democrats should want to dispel it.

00:39:52.940 But I haven't seen it. Have you? Now, is this because I just watched the wrong networks? Have any of you

00:39:58.660 seen it? Have you seen anybody showing you as visually as you see the Republican vote go down?

00:40:07.220 I think it was Purdue. You saw 30,000 votes just disappear in real time. Have any of you seen it?

00:40:13.900 Because I've heard it claimed, but you should be able to see it because it's visual. So where is it?

00:40:21.960 Now, does it bother you that that's maybe the most important question in the country, which would

00:40:29.100 make it by extension, because we're the United States, one of the most important questions in

00:40:33.960 the world? And it would be as easy to answer as looking at the tape from the coverage and just see

00:40:43.080 if the Democrat ever goes down. That's it. And also see if the Republican goes down in more than one

00:40:51.500 case, because if it's just one, it could be that mistake, the human mistake that was reversed.

00:40:57.400 It's the easiest thing in the world to check. It's right there on video. You just play it back

00:41:03.120 and just look. So we don't have the debunk, but we don't have the, you know, the opposite of the

00:41:11.260 debunk where it's confirmed. Do we even have news in this country? Right? Because I know there are a

00:41:18.880 whole bunch of news organizations. I think most of the major news organizations have at least

00:41:23.300 somebody watching this, this live stream almost every time.

00:41:29.600 What do you think? There are a lot of producers watching this right now, because I know, because

00:41:34.940 I get a lot of, you know, messages from them. You're news producers. So I'm talking to you,

00:41:40.160 news producers. Why is it that your top story? How hard would it be for that to be the top story?

00:41:46.020 You could take the steam right in of the fraud allegations, which would be good. If they're

00:41:52.920 not true, I don't want to believe something that's not true. Just let us know. All right. Here's

00:42:00.480 something else. So people have been sending me a couple of videos, and they have to do with these

00:42:09.100 very big conspiracy theories about election data was forwarded from Frankfurt, Germany to Rome,

00:42:16.560 and there's an Italian connection, and the CIA was in on it, and MI6, and the Italian defense

00:42:22.360 contractor, Leonardo, and then I guess that's where the votes were allegedly changed.

00:42:27.240 And then there's a video of some blonde woman who has a very long story of, you know, these spooky 1.00

00:42:35.880 characters and intelligence agencies in Rome, and I don't know what her story is. But anyway,

00:42:41.220 so I've been asked to evaluate these claims. Now, let me start by saying that 2020 was so weird

00:42:49.940 that it starts to make it look, I said blonde. Did she have like white hair? She was older. I'm not

00:42:56.760 sure. So here's the question. I got lost my train of thought there. But my point is that I don't think

00:43:09.700 any of these are credible, even slightly. So if I had to put a ranking on the credibility of it,

00:43:16.860 well, let me do that. Let me rank the credibility of various claims. The claim that someone somewhere

00:43:24.680 probably hacked into our voting system, I'd say that has a credibility of 10 out of 10.

00:43:30.700 Because you know people are trying, you know it's possible. 10 out of 10. We don't know how much,

00:43:36.620 maybe we'll never find it. But it's a credible report, or a credible allegation. What are the

00:43:42.600 allegations? What credibility would I put on the votes decrementing, meaning that votes were just

00:43:48.980 taken away from Trump or the Republican? I'll put the credibility of that at two and a 10, maybe two.

00:43:59.960 My guess is that when looked at, it'll be easily debunked. And it's only based on pattern recognition,

00:44:08.260 that things like that tend to get debunked. What would be an example of a thing like that?

00:44:15.860 Russia collusion hoax. That was a thing like that. When you first heard it, you thought to yourself,

00:44:23.200 I don't know. That feels exactly like a thing that isn't true. Right? There are just some claims

00:44:29.900 that you just see and you go, ah. So I listened to the woman who had the story with the details,

00:44:35.660 and here's my takeaway. I believe all of the claims are based on a person you don't know saying

00:44:42.460 things. Am I right? That 100% of these stories about data going through Rome and Italy and the CIA and

00:44:50.800 all that, that all of this is based on just somebody you don't know saying things that come out of their

00:44:58.540 mouth. That's it. No documents, no video to back it up, no statistical data that shows their version

00:45:07.880 of events. Nothing. So what credibility should you put on wild story from a stranger with no evidence?

00:45:16.100 Zero. That should be exactly zero. If you give that a one, you got some explaining to do.

00:45:21.780 How would you get a one out of that? It's zero. Wild story from a person you don't know with no

00:45:29.000 other physical evidence. Credibility is always zero. Now, remember, again, if you're new to my live

00:45:35.860 streams, credibility does not mean it didn't happen. There are things that don't sound credible,

00:45:41.480 and then you find out, oh, shoot, that actually happened. That didn't sound credible to me at all.

00:45:46.020 It did happen. So when I talk about credibility, it's statistical, not a guarantee.

00:45:55.580 So researchers are looking into the benefits of vitamin D for coronavirus. Boston researchers at

00:46:03.020 Brigham and Women's Hospital are going to do some kind of a trial to see if vitamin D can lessen the

00:46:09.580 severity of COVID symptoms, and they're going to see if it actually can help you from getting it in the

00:46:15.020 first place. They can actually protect you prophylactically. Now, here's the question I have

00:46:20.460 about this. What? Why are they just beginning to test this? You know, what are we, 10 months since

00:46:33.420 the pandemic started? No, 12 months since the pandemic started, and we're just trying to figure out if

00:46:39.560 vitamin D works. Now, I know that there have been other, there's lots of scientific indication that

00:46:47.740 it could work or should work because it has that kind of antiviral protective kind of benefit in

00:46:54.020 general, but it took us this long to even begin the test? Really? Because it was sort of the most

00:47:02.640 obvious thing to test from day one, because there's a correlation between having low vitamin D and bad

00:47:08.600 outcomes. But it doesn't mean that's causation. It could be just a correlation. That's what they'll

00:47:12.800 test. At the same time, over in the UK, the National Health Service is now offering free vitamin D

00:47:20.580 for anybody who they define as high risk. So if you're, say, a senior citizen, you have some

00:47:27.200 comorbidities. The government will give you vitamin D to supplement you. So they must think it works,

00:47:33.680 or at least the risk management of it working is good because the risk is low. But if it works,

00:47:39.700 that'd be great. So a number of people have been giving me credit for suggesting that vitamin D would

00:47:47.900 make a difference last February. But I'm not like the person who invented that idea. So I'd love to take

00:47:55.540 credit. But there are lots of people who knew that vitamin D would be important for your general

00:48:00.780 health. So why wouldn't it be important for this? And I want to say something that I've said a few

00:48:10.920 other times, but I like to put it in better wording sometimes because it helps the message.

00:48:17.380 I think you should trust science. Whenever science is doing something that you don't know anything

00:48:24.620 about and you don't have any insight that would tell you to trust them or not. Just, or when I say

00:48:30.340 trust science, I mean trust that the process can move you from being wrong to being half right to

00:48:37.040 being right if you do everything right and you wait long enough. The problem is you never know where

00:48:42.640 you are in that journey. Are you at the beginning of the journey where you're wrong about everything

00:48:47.660 in science? Or if you're at the end where you finally figured it out? Or are you in the middle

00:48:53.380 where you're not right yet either? So when I disagree with science, the reason that I do it is that

00:49:05.420 there's something about it where my special skill of identifying BS applies. So for example, in climate

00:49:15.180 change, when scientists say, hey, CO2 added to the atmosphere will cause this warming effect,

00:49:21.580 you've never seen me criticize that. Why would I? What do I know about chemistry? Zero. What do I know

00:49:30.620 about physics? Nothing. So I don't criticize things that I don't know anything about. Now I don't know

00:49:37.100 if science is quite right or if there'll be more right later, but there's plenty of science that says

00:49:42.460 CO2 should warm the atmosphere, all other things being equal. But you do see me question the 80-year

00:49:53.420 economic projection. That's because I can recognize obvious BS, and that's obvious BS, but I can't really

00:50:03.380 judge science. So when I'm disagreeing, or it looks like I'm disagreeing with science or scientists,

00:50:08.520 I'm not really. I'm just picking this low-hanging fruit that happens to be the exact thing, just happens

00:50:15.800 to be the exact thing that I know how to do it. Find out when somebody is full of crap. You just 1.00

00:50:22.060 watched this live stream, I just did it on a whole bunch of questions. So that's my skill. Can I not doubt

00:50:29.660 a scientist? If the scientist happens to blunder into my special skill, meaning that they said something

00:50:36.300 that I can just look at, and with no experience in science whatsoever, I can just look at it

00:50:41.500 and say, I don't have to be a scientist for that one, right? Like an 80-year economic projection.

00:50:50.380 You don't have to be a scientist to know that's bullshit. That's just obvious. All right. It's 0.99

00:50:57.120 obvious if you have a certain amount of experience. If you're under 40, well, maybe a little less obvious.

00:51:01.900 If scientists disagree, it's appropriate to doubt. Yes, of course. And that would be part of the

00:51:09.680 scientific process. Somebody says, you have no scientific training. Okay. I'm going to stop you

00:51:18.180 there. UserDigitalZep. What did you think that comment was addressing? When you say, Scott,

00:51:28.640 you have no scientific training. Are you disagreeing with me when I said, I have no scientific training?

00:51:38.820 I don't even know why some people make comments. You're not surrounding yourself in glory.

00:51:46.980 Do we care where the science is from? We should. We should. You know about how many nerves the human

00:51:58.120 body has. Do I? I don't even understand that. No scientific training equals appeal to authority

00:52:05.260 fallacy. Well, yeah, if you don't have your own skill, you kind of don't have a choice. You kind of

00:52:11.980 have to believe the experts or else just guess. Vitamin D is sunshine. Yes, we all know where

00:52:22.680 vitamin D comes from, I think. I hope. If you're watching this live stream and you don't know that

00:52:27.440 vitamin D comes from sunlight the best, you need to catch up. I'm not really following the Assange

00:52:36.060 story. Because I feel as though the part that's important in that story is the part we don't know.

00:52:47.240 Somebody's saying that I should Google the swine flu being a fake and that it never really existed. It

00:52:52.700 was bad testing. Now, there is an example of something I can call BS on. All right, so somebody

00:52:58.840 just made a claim that there are some scientists who say swine flu wasn't real and that it's just the

00:53:03.980 test gave you false results. Here's a perfect example in real time. I don't have to be a trained

00:53:12.100 scientist to know that it was a real swine flu. Again, you just have to live in the world long

00:53:22.140 enough. I don't even feel I have to explain why that's obviously wrong. If that's not really,

00:53:29.160 really obvious to you that that's not true, maybe you're young or maybe you don't have much experience

00:53:35.260 dealing with BS as I do. But that was obvious. I don't need to Google that. It's obviously not true.

00:53:48.140 Can restaurants open if they add vitamin D to their food?

00:53:51.280 No, there's an interesting question. Suppose restaurants decided to give you free vitamin D

00:54:02.340 supplements for eating at the restaurant. Could you make the argument that that alone would make

00:54:08.620 eating at a restaurant safer than staying home? Right? Because we don't know. There's optimism that

00:54:17.720 vitamin D does make a difference. It protects you. But suppose the restaurant just said, we'll give you

00:54:22.860 6,000 units of vitamin D, you know, if you haven't already supplemented. It's just free. It'll just sit

00:54:30.980 there and you just have it when you get your bread. If vitamin D works, it's safer to eat in the

00:54:39.940 restaurant than to stay home if you haven't been supplementing. All right. Let's talk about where

00:54:47.800 things are going, because it looks like now the Democrats are going to have a lock on power. Don't

00:54:53.080 know for sure, for sure. Don't know 100% for sure, but it's looking like that way. So are we going to

00:54:58.900 see Washington DC become a state and maybe Puerto Rico? There's a little, that one's a little harder.

00:55:04.500 Are we going to see the, and therefore the Democrats will have a control of the Senate forever and

00:55:11.140 they'll be making all the decisions. There's something you're missing. Democrats can be stupid

00:55:20.000 when they don't have power. Right? Watch this. I'm not the president of the United States, 1.00

00:55:27.460 so I have no power. Watch, watch what I can say. Um, global warming is caused by UFOs.

00:55:36.500 What happened? I didn't get fired because it turns out I'm not a politician. If you're not a

00:55:42.540 politician, say anything you want, right? So, and if you don't have power. So Democrats have had the

00:55:49.440 benefit, at least in terms of criticizing Trump and everything he does, they've had the great

00:55:54.720 advantage of having no power. At least not the power that could override a lot of things he wanted

00:56:01.140 to do. And so they could say any crazy thing in the world and they would never get called out because

00:56:07.940 their crazy thing would never be implemented. They could never be held accountable. So there's no limit

00:56:13.660 on the crazy stuff you can say you want to do. But what happens if you're the dog and you chase a car

00:56:18.920 and you catch it? Now what do you do? So the Democrats became, just became, I think, again,

00:56:26.200 not guaranteed, still could be some surprises, but it looks like the Democrats were the dog that caught

00:56:32.480 the car. Now what? If your prediction is that they will use their power to implement the ridiculous

00:56:40.840 things that they've been saying, and I'm not saying that making D.C. a state is ridiculous, 0.81

00:56:45.740 that's just strategy. But in terms of, you know, policy and the Green New Deal and some things they

00:56:50.580 say about that stuff. Let me take a concrete example. Democrats who were, let's say, anti-nuclear,

00:56:59.800 the ones who were more Green New Deal and didn't like nuclear so much. I think even the AOC is open to

00:57:06.160 nuclear. But let's say they got power and decided to get rid of nuclear. Could they do it? I don't know.

00:57:15.740 Because if you actually got down to it, it would be so dumb that they probably couldn't do it. 0.97

00:57:21.120 How about the border? This is a better example. Because actually Biden is pro-nuclear, so that was 0.98

00:57:25.700 a bad example. But here's one where Biden and Trump are on opposite sides, which is border control.

00:57:32.340 What the hell is Biden going to do? Because if Biden does the things they said, which were absurd,

00:57:38.780 hey, let's just let everybody in. That's the sort of crazy stuff you can say when it's not your job.

00:57:44.560 But as soon as it becomes your job to decide who comes in, do you make the same decision as when it

00:57:52.000 wasn't your job? Well, if you're stupid, you do. But if you're smart, you know that the things you 1.00

00:57:58.220 were saying when you were not in power weren't that real. There were things you say when you're not in

00:58:03.600 power. They're not things that you do if you think you're going to be held accountable for them.

00:58:08.700 There's a difference. You can say any crazy thing if you're not in power.

00:58:13.840 So here's my optimism for those of you who think the republic was lost and we're all doomed.

00:58:20.520 Number one, our elections almost certainly have been fraudulent for your entire life.

00:58:26.740 Did you notice?

00:58:27.460 I didn't.

00:58:32.600 Guaranteed your elections have been fraudulent all of your life and probably longer and you didn't even

00:58:39.420 notice. Guaranteed because of the setup, not because of the specific allegations, which I think

00:58:45.980 are either all bullshit or 95 percent, but just the setup that it can be there can be cheating. 0.61

00:58:51.900 There's a high upside. There's lots of people who would be willing to do it. 0.97

00:58:57.620 Guaranteed. Guaranteed it's happening. Does it matter? I don't know if you're even going to notice.

00:59:05.200 If, let's say, California decided to raise its taxes as much as Gavin Newsom says he wants to,

00:59:13.480 could he do it? I doubt it. I doubt it. I don't think he could get away with it.

00:59:19.480 Could the progressives who want a whole bunch of stuff, can they get away with it? Well,

00:59:31.020 there's some stuff they probably can, such as getting rid of school choice. I'll bet they

00:59:36.660 could get away with that because the public is uneducated. They don't realize because there's

00:59:42.640 no school choice. They're uneducated and I guess they'll stay that way. So there are certainly

00:59:47.640 some things they can change. How about if the Republicans got so much power, I guess they

00:59:53.460 wouldn't be able to do much with the Supreme Court for a while. It's too packed. Oh, let's say they pack

00:59:57.640 it. Let's say the, let's say the Democrats pack the court and then they have full control of 0.56

01:00:03.160 everything. Could they, could they change abortion rules? I mean, it's already, it's already legal-ish

01:00:15.500 in most places. So if you actually come down to what will they do differently? Will, can Joe Biden

01:00:22.320 under our current scenario be nice to China the way we used to be nice to China versus being tough

01:00:29.500 for them? I don't know that he can be anything but tough because no matter what you said before

01:00:36.420 about Trump doing things wrong and starting trade wars, blah, blah, blah, once you're in the job,

01:00:42.580 I feel as if you're going to have to at least pretend you're doing the job.

01:00:48.360 Now he doesn't worry, I have to worry about getting reelected, but he at least worries about

01:00:52.340 Kamala Harris's future, I would assume. Somebody says they'll ban guns. Isn't that a state decision?

01:01:03.080 And what happens if you try to ban guns beyond the point where the, the non-city dwellers can't take

01:01:11.940 it? Well, there's a limit to how much you're going to ban guns because there are so many guns.

01:01:16.860 Anyway, so here's my overall thought. The overall thought is that things won't be nearly as bad as

01:01:26.040 you think, even if the Democrats have full control, because using that power the way they've been

01:01:31.460 talking about it would be so obviously suicidal that they kind of have to get serious now.

01:01:37.600 I watched this phenomenon when I was working at Pacific Bell, the local phone company years ago,

01:01:43.440 and I remember that there was an opening for a director job, which was a pretty high-paying job,

01:01:50.780 to be a boss above, you know, a number of people. And the person who was selected was just somebody I

01:01:56.640 worked with who was very smart, but he had no management leadership skill that I could detect

01:02:02.380 whatsoever. But he was smart, and they figured he could figure it out. The weird thing is that he

01:02:07.340 acquired those qualities of being a manager slash leader almost instantly. So because he had to,

01:02:15.840 okay, this is your job now, now you're a leader and you're a manager, so he just became that person.

01:02:20.780 And I think the people who become president or get power have to become the person with power.

01:02:27.140 And the person who didn't have power is just a different person. So you have to become a different

01:02:31.340 person. So that's your protection. Your protection is that the system's probably always been rigged,

01:02:38.660 and probably it is again. And the Democrats, if they get the power, they have to act differently

01:02:45.440 than what they talked before the power. They have to. There are too many forces against them.

01:02:52.880 Somebody says, disagree, Obamacare cost us affordable health care. You don't know that.

01:02:58.240 How would you know that? That's a problem of not knowing how to compare things. The comparison of

01:03:08.380 we got Obamacare, and this is the result, compared to your imagination of what would have happened if

01:03:16.460 something else happened that didn't happen, that's not an analysis. All you know is that one thing

01:03:22.820 happened. You don't have any information whatsoever of what could have happened. Now, the exception

01:03:28.800 would be, I suppose, if it's a situation that you've had lots of times before, and you know that

01:03:34.500 whenever you make this decision in this situation, you get a good outcome. I mean, in those situations,

01:03:39.600 you can know. But if it's a one-off situation, all you know is that something happened. You don't

01:03:45.980 know what the alternative could have been under different scenarios.

01:03:48.660 Yeah, you can know that your price went up, but you can't know if it would have been worse.

01:03:55.260 That's unknowable. So yeah, Trump is making the claim that Pence can decline to certify the state's

01:04:05.440 electoral votes or something along those lines. Pence, of course, because he's smart, and I say this

01:04:11.920 a lot lately, Pence is smart, so he's not going to do something that, I hope, even if it maybe looks

01:04:20.500 like it's technically, constitutionally, he could make an argument to do it, it's not the right play.

01:04:27.820 All right? There are probably lots of ways you could imagine that if the election turned out to be

01:04:32.900 fraudulent, that in a way that could be detected, that you could reverse it. But I don't think having

01:04:38.880 the vice president do it's a good play for the cohesion of the country. That feels like a mistake.

01:04:46.260 But we'll see. You know, how many people have told, have said that, hey, Trump, this thing you're doing

01:04:51.740 is a mistake. It's too risky. How often has that happened? Well, just about every decision he makes.

01:04:59.100 Ordinary people say, oh, that's a little too risky. You're asking for trouble. Don't move that

01:05:04.080 embassy to Jerusalem because of all the... Okay, that worked down. I thought that was going to be

01:05:09.120 a lot of trouble. Don't get so tough with North Korea because he... Okay, that worked down. Don't... 0.56

01:05:14.940 Do not get tough with China on those trade talks because they're... Okay, that sort of went a good

01:05:20.240 way in the end. So everything Trump does seems to be something that you and I would say, oh, that's a

01:05:26.820 little scary. And then he does it. And you realize, oh, okay, that just worked. There were no outcomes

01:05:34.460 at all. So I'm saying the same thing again, but at least I have the... A little bit of awareness

01:05:41.400 that I could be wrong about this. Let's just game this out. Let's say that Trump... Since I think

01:05:51.980 Pence will not waver on this, I don't think we have to worry about the what if. But let's say it

01:05:58.100 anyway. Let's say what if Pence decided to go along with this? Would it destroy the republic

01:06:05.960 as the worry warts worry? Or would it simply bring us to a good place where Pence says, nope,

01:06:14.920 you know, I'm going to draw the line. I can't certify this. And I don't know if he can even get

01:06:19.560 away with that constitutionally. But let's say he could for the sake of talk. And let's say that

01:06:24.740 caused a recount. And either the recount or the audit showed that things were fine. Would we be

01:06:31.360 worse off? No, we wouldn't be worse off. Might delay things a little bit. But the worst case scenario is

01:06:38.800 that we find more certainty or more confidence in the outcome of the election. Now, the other way it

01:06:44.820 ago is that we find out it was fraudulent. The audit picks up some big problems in 10 days. I think Ted

01:06:50.940 Cruz is just asking for 10 days for an audit. Wouldn't change the schedule of anything. You'll

01:06:56.040 just have more information in 10 days. That's all he's suggesting. So while I do believe that the

01:07:04.060 president is better than I am at judging how much risk a thing has, because I would say that that,

01:07:12.040 you know, if I look at my track record versus the things he said he was going to do,

01:07:17.200 and then I predicted, you know, how bad that would be, I think in most cases I was on his side.

01:07:23.900 Certainly with North Korea, definitely with China trade. So I guess most times I was on his side that

01:07:30.520 it wasn't that risky. But the move of the Jerusalem embassy, which I agreed with, I did think was going 0.95

01:07:36.900 to cause more trouble. So I guess he was right and I was wrong on that. And you have to take that

01:07:43.720 humility with you. By the way, that's what I recommended in my book, Loser Think. To protect

01:07:49.480 yourself from bias, which you can't do entirely because you're human, but you can do what you can

01:07:54.200 do, is to keep track of your own predictions well enough that you can do what I just did, which is

01:08:01.660 I can recognize a pattern in which Trump does riskier things than I think I might do. And then

01:08:08.920 it turns out he's right. Once you see the pattern, you need a little bit of humility about your next

01:08:13.800 opinion, right? Or you should. So if Trump, in fact, does not, oh, somebody says look for a ban on

01:08:23.900 fracking. Well, certainly on maybe federal land. But I don't know if even the Democrats could ban

01:08:32.360 fracking at this point. I feel as if that's the problem with having power versus wanting power.

01:08:42.080 Yeah, I guess Biden is hiring some of the Russian hoax pushers. So Biden has that same problem that

01:08:48.580 Trump did, but a different version. Trump had a problem that he had been so villainized that the

01:08:55.640 number of people willing to work for him at all, reputationally, was small. So Trump had to pick

01:09:02.180 from a pool of people who were willing to work for him, which is a really small pool after the fake

01:09:08.780 news has turned him into Hitler. But Biden has his own special form of the problem that almost every

01:09:16.400 Republican was pushing the Russia collusion hoax. So how can Biden staff his government

01:09:24.220 without staffing it with people who believed in the biggest hoax of all time? I don't know if it's

01:09:31.160 the biggest, but it's one of the best. Well, I don't need to finish that. All right. What's happened

01:09:40.020 with Swalwell and Hunter? I guess those stories got less interesting lately. Oh, if somebody says

01:09:48.460 they won't ban fracking, they'll just add red tape until it won't be economical. Well, that could

01:09:53.900 happen. That could happen. But it's going to be harder for Biden to add back red tape if the removal

01:10:01.700 of it didn't cause a problem. And I feel as though the stuff that Trump cut, all those regulations,

01:10:08.660 if it caused problems, wouldn't we be hearing about it? I feel as if we would. So I don't know why

01:10:16.100 Biden would fix something or why we try to fix something that wasn't broken. So if a regulation

01:10:21.560 went away and nobody's the worst for it, I don't know. Does he put his political capital into that?

01:10:27.260 Oh, yeah. And if he bans fracking, he's going to have to go even harder at nuclear.

01:10:40.000 Obama didn't ban fracking. Biden won't either, Sparky says. Yeah, Biden says he's not going to ban it,

01:10:46.780 except maybe on federal land. And I don't know why he'd even do that. All right. That's all I got for

01:10:51.780 now. I will talk to you tomorrow. All right. Periscope is gone. You YouTubers are here for

01:11:01.280 another minute or so. Where can I find hypnosis classes? The most frequently asked question about

01:11:08.500 hypnosis. And the answer is, I don't know. I mean, I went to a hypnosis school that doesn't exist

01:11:13.520 anymore a million years ago. But if I haven't gone to a hypnosis school, I wouldn't know if I could

01:11:20.400 recommend it. I'd go to Yelp. Find out what's local. Go to Yelp. But hypnotists are pretty good

01:11:28.080 at getting people to recommend them. So yeah, Park City was a... Well, I actually, I can't say that

01:11:35.560 Park City sucked because I never got to Park City. I only got to a place 19 miles away that was

01:11:41.420 baited and switched as Park City.

01:11:44.680 Why did I not go to the D.C. protest? Have you met me? Do you think I would go to a street protest?

01:11:55.140 That's the last thing I would do. I wouldn't go to a street protest for anything.

01:12:03.040 And I don't know why anybody else is going either. What good do you think that's going to do?

01:12:07.900 Why would I go to a protest that wouldn't change anything?

01:12:13.380 What happens when Republicans learn that rules don't matter? I don't know if that's exactly

01:12:18.160 what's happening. I think they might be learning to cheat better or to get out the vote better or

01:12:24.440 something. Did you give the hotel a bad review? Well, not yet.

01:12:34.140 I should have guests more often because you enjoyed when I talked to Joel Pollack. Well, thank you.

01:12:42.220 You know, the trouble with having authors as guests is if you don't read the book, you're not really a

01:12:50.000 good host for having an author on. And I don't read a lot of books, to tell you the truth. And the

01:12:59.660 reason is that usually you can get the essence of a book in different ways. So a book is something I

01:13:05.740 would do for entertainment and only when the plane is taking off. Or if I don't have Wi-Fi

01:13:11.800 on the plane, I guess.

01:13:16.740 When do conservatives start getting silenced like conservatives in the UK? Well, we'll see.

01:13:24.280 So I don't know the answer to that question. It looks like a creeping problem.

01:13:34.360 Dilbert's life matters. Thank you.

01:13:39.100 Trump's next gig. Well, I think Trump will enjoy just being in the public eye.

01:13:45.540 I would imagine he has a whole bunch of offers. I think he has an offer to do The Apprentice again,

01:13:50.480 but that feels like going backwards. I think he's likely to become part of or found some kind of a

01:13:58.560 platform, which would be a good outcome. Cat, you're from Jewett, New York? Wow. That's walking

01:14:07.340 distance from where I grew up. Not quite, but it's bicycle distance. Your husband has a jewelry store

01:14:16.120 in Park City? Well, I was 19 miles away from it. Dogbert was your hero? Thanks.

01:14:24.340 Will Trump go as a third party? No, I don't think he will. But that's the other thing that could happen

01:14:29.320 to the Democrats. The Democrats might end up splitting into a progressive party, and that would be the end

01:14:34.080 of them. You know, one thing that would end the Democrat Party's power forever is if the progressives

01:14:39.260 decided to start a third party. Antifa is still rioting up in Portland, but nobody cares about

01:14:48.480 Portland. Trump could begin a replacement party? Yeah, I don't think so. I just don't see that that could

01:14:57.160 work. Talk about the Harris presidency? Well, we may have to talk about that later. All right, that's all

01:15:03.700 for now. I will talk to you later.

01:15:09.260 I will talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 06, 2021

Episode 1243 Scott Adams： Georgia Election Credibility and Where Do We Go From Here？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript