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,

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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,

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

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,

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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...

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript