Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstain critique the Libertarian Party's pandering messaging and analyze Senator Rand Paul's claims of election fraud in Philadelphia, citing statistical anomalies. They argue ineffective lockdowns worsened virus spread, referencing Tom Woods' charts showing infection spikes post-mandate, while contrasting this with Sweden's success without mass restrictions. The discussion highlights fears that FCC chairman Ajit Pai's departure will allow Biden to reinstate net neutrality rules and notes the election results were dismissed in Pennsylvania due to untimely legal arguments. Ultimately, they view Biden's identity politics as a "last ditch effort" by the establishment, warning that his potential mental decline could destabilize the presidency amidst widespread skepticism about his legitimacy. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Stamps.com Postage Savings00:01:49
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
Hey guys, today's show is brought to you by stamps.com.
Thousands of small business owners have discovered the benefits of stamps.com in the recent months.
In recent months, they've been able to keep their business running and avoid the crowds at the post office all from their own computers.
With stamps.com, you can print postage on demand and avoid going to the post office.
And you'll save money with discount rates you can't even get at the post office.
Stamps.com also offers UPS services with discounts up to 62% and no residual surcharges.
Stamps.com brings all of the mailing and shipping services you need right to your computer in the comfort of your home or office.
Whether you're a small business sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products or just working from home and need a mail stuff, stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, you just leave it for your mail carrier, schedule a pickup, or drop it in a mailbox.
It's that simple.
And like I said, with stamps.com, you get great discounts too.
Five cents off every stamp and up to 62% off USPS and UPS shipping rates.
Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
It saves you time and it saves you money.
And right now, our listeners can get a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without any long-term commitments.
Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in problem, and you get that awesome four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale with no long-term commitments.
Stamps.com promo code problem.
Debating the Mises Caucus00:06:37
All right, let's start the show.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What is up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Heart of the Problem.
I'm Dave Smith.
He's the king of the caulks.
Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
What is up, my brother?
How are you doing?
Two New Hampshire was so fucking fun.
Oh, that's great.
Great time.
Yeah, yeah.
So you got a lot of the Free State Project people came out.
Yeah, they came out.
They were a lot of fun.
Some people traveled in from Boston.
They've got a cool clubhouse room, and my presentation worked, which was great.
So it was a lot of fucking fun.
There you go, dude.
That's fucking awesome.
Yeah, that's cool.
So were you allowed to do it?
Was it indoors?
It was indoors, and they do not give a shit.
I mean, old people are coming out.
Guys were coming out.
They're like, I just had cancer.
We're like, well, maybe you shouldn't be here, but we went for it.
We packed that thing out and had a good time.
It's like, I have cancer and COVID.
Like, oh, all right.
Maybe you shouldn't.
Maybe you should mask up.
Oh, that's awesome.
And to any of you guys listening, if you're like, man, that sounds fun.
It sucks so much that I missed it.
Well, Rob's doing it in Philly as well.
So going out.
Philly, December 5th, right?
That's true.
And then it's done.
Never doing this thing again.
So, you know, this is your last chance to see it.
Travel, people.
You'll never see it again or Rob, probably.
This is your last time to see Rob.
He's probably not going to make it through the holiday season.
That would be my guess.
But again, it's just a guess.
He's made it.
You never know with AIDS.
You never know.
The doctors gave Rob two weeks to live about a decade ago with these AIDS.
And he's just, he's been shocking all of us ever since.
That's why I brought Rob on the show.
I was like, I mean, who cares?
It's only going to be an episode or two.
I'll throw the kid a bone.
And he just kept living.
And I'm like, all right.
Well, I'm not going to fire a guy who's, you know, AIDS-ridden.
It just seems cruel.
So, anyway, and people say I don't have a heart.
Yeah.
Of course, I do.
With my hairline and this lighting, people might not realize we're kidding.
I like to think so.
I like to think there's a few people who are taking this really seriously.
Okay, so a couple announcements before we get into the show today.
So, I have agreed to do another debate with one of our critics in the Libertarian Party.
And it will be again on Lions of Liberty podcast, moderated by the great Mark Clare.
I'm going to be debating Archie Flower, who was a former member of the Mises Caucus, left the caucus.
He's the chair of one of the state parties or something like that.
I don't know much about the guy, but we're debating.
I believe the topic is that the Mises Caucus promotes entryism and that racism is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
So, this should be another fun shit show.
Maybe it'll be like the Andy Craig one, maybe not.
I don't know.
Can I ask some questions?
Huh?
Can I ask what?
I don't know what entryism is.
What is that?
I think we're all going to find out together.
Oh, no.
From what I understand, it's the idea that people kind of enter into a movement to alter it and kind of take it over from the inside or something like that.
I don't know.
I should probably learn what it is before we go into this debate.
But either way, I think that's going to, you know, I think that'll be interesting to find out.
And I think it'll be fun.
I know that I told people that I have that I had retired from debating the Loser Brigade.
And truthfully, I don't know a lot about Archie.
I don't really know if I'd categorize him in that group or not.
I guess we'll all find out together.
But, you know, I decided to come out of retirement.
I was inspired by Mike Tyson to come give it one more go-around.
By the way, did you watch the Mike Tyson fight?
I watched.
Well, I wasn't watching it live, so I knew the results of it.
And then I watched the first two rounds and there was too much of the hugging thing.
So I just kind of got bored.
Look, I'll tell you, I understand that is, it wasn't the most exciting fight ever, but I got to say, I thought it was just like one of the most incredible things I've ever seen.
Mike Tyson is 54 and he had a 15-year layoff from ever having from ever boxing anyone.
And he came back and he was moving great.
He threw some really great combinations.
I just, I was blown away.
I thought it was awesome.
And it was fun for nostalgia purposes.
And Roy Jones also.
I thought both of them fucking looked good, you know, considering.
So yeah, Roy actually had a winning strategy for dealing with Tyson, which is if he got inside, don't give him space to generate his power and the multiple boys.
I agree, but I thought Tyson won the fight.
I thought Roy Jones fought a smart fight.
But I thought Tyson won.
I mean, it was, you know, it was an exhibition and there weren't judges and stuff.
But anyway, I thought it was fun.
I don't know if it was worth 50 bucks, but I thought, for me personally, I enjoyed it and was just blown away by how impressive it was for someone to do that in their mid-50s after being out of the sport for 15 years.
And also RIP Nate Robinson.
That was uncomfortable and not great.
In all seriousness, the reason why I'm doing this debate is that I just, I do think that going forward, as I've been saying, I think we have some real plans to really, you know, if you think there was the Mises caucus has made an impact over the last few years, I'm telling you, that's going to be nothing compared to what we do over the next couple of years.
It's going to be like a real legitimate reclaiming of the Libertarian Party for the Libertarian movement.
And I just think that there is some benefit to me going around kind of one by one and taking on our critics and dismantling their arguments.
And I've been able to do that successfully with every one of these, you know, with every one of these debates or, you know, discussions, whatever you want to call it.
It's not a formal debate.
And so I think there's some value in just continuing to do that.
I don't know how much more of it I'm going to do.
Considering Others vs Lockdowns00:08:55
Some people are just too low status to be worth responding to, or they're just, you know, don't really come at things in good faith.
But I'm in the business of, you know, taking over the Libertarian Party now.
That's what I'm fucking doing.
I think it's the best thing for the libertarian movement and for the hopes of liberty.
So that's what I'm doing.
I just, I, and I'll tell you, I sometimes I want to just, you know, because I'm very critical of the Libertarian Party when they screw up.
But I try to also, you know, encourage them when they do well.
And I saw this morning, I saw a tweet from the Libertarian Party and I was actually getting excited to retweet it and be like, great fucking job.
You guys are awesome because the tweet starts so good.
It started so good.
So the Libertarian Party tweeted, you are essential.
No virus can change that.
And no government has the right to tell you otherwise while threatening your ability to earn a living or live your life.
I was like, oh, yes.
Okay, Libertarian Party.
There we go.
And then they go, also, it's a really good idea to wear a mask, avoid crowds, and consider others during a pandemic.
God damn it.
It's like, what are you guys like afraid of the great message that you had to start that tweet off?
It's like, you're like, oh, I don't know.
I mean, this is a really great message, but it might upset the establishment a little bit.
They're so afraid.
They're so afraid of being called, you know, oh, you know, you know, COVID deniers or whatever, you know, they're so afraid that they have to go, but, but we do think everything, like, you know, everything the government's telling you to do is a really good idea, but still they shouldn't be telling you to do it, you know?
So that's, we're, we're kind of for freedom.
Is that good enough?
You know, there was something really interesting while traveling.
I texted you this before the show, but government's almost using this fear and guilt factor to get compliance with the coronavirus where it's not even clear to them that they got the authority on some of this stuff.
So sometimes they're like saying, hey, you can't do this, but is there a consequence?
And so traveling into states, or let's just say theoretically, if you went to other states, because I don't even know what's enforceable or what's law, but there's signs that saying, hey, if you're entering our state, like you need to quarantine for 14 days.
Or theoretically, if you're getting a hotel room, they won't tell you this online, but then they'll make you sign a document that you've been quarantined for 14 days before you got there.
And you're like, wait, do I legally have to sign this?
Is there any ramifications for signing it?
It's a little bit like, you know, if they brought you onto the witness stand, like you swear to tell the truth and like, is there anything that happens if I don't?
No, it's like, sure, okay, I'll swear all you want.
There's something very weird going on where they're just kind of proclaiming, or can you please do this?
Or, you know, it's unclear what you do and don't have to actually do.
Yes.
No, you're, that's true.
A lot of it is we're in this very vague territory, which is completely, I mean, so far beyond what the legal authority of the states are that they can't even really figure out when they're allowed to enforce it and when they're not.
But there's always kind of the threat that they could enforce it, or there's always, or at least they create the feeling that, you know what I mean, like they have this authority to enforce it.
And in some senses, they are actually, in some instances, they are actually enforcing it.
Yeah.
So it's very, it's very strange.
The whole thing is.
Theoretically, if you're out at night and you've had a drink and you're like, oh, I might get pulled over, there's no way of explaining.
Like, yeah, I'm just doing a show in this town.
My hotel is over there.
Like, good luck with that one.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Right.
So it's, but my thing with the Libertarian Party is you're just like, like, they're just so bad at messaging and understanding like how to spread a message.
It's like, look, man, what you're dealing with with these lockdowns are.
First off, they're killing far more people than they're saving.
They're destroying lives left and right.
Just in like on a level that's hard to imagine.
And that's not even to say, that's just the consequentialist argument.
That's not even to say of the fact that we've ushered in like straight up totalitarianism in the name of these lockdowns.
And so for the Libertarian Party to even be like, but you know, we do think it's a really good idea to wear masks and we think it's a really good idea to social distance and all this, like, why, why would you take the teeth out of your argument?
It's like if you were, you know, if you were opposing the war in Iraq and you go, you know, I don't think we should fight a war in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy and he's killed a lot of people and he's a bad dictator and all that.
Like, why even take that you're trying to save lives here by being against this war?
Why even take the teeth out of your argument?
Why do your enemies work for you?
And, you know, some people responded, you know, saying like, well, I mean, are you again, you know, that you can be okay with wearing masks and be against the government mandating them and all of this stuff?
And it's like, yeah, that's not really the point.
The point is that they have no idea how to deliver a compelling message.
Your role as a libertarian is not to talk about how, you know, it might actually be better if we overthrow Saddam Hussein or Saddam Hussein's a really bad guy or any of this.
Your role is to oppose the war, obviously.
That's what you're here to do, to preach a message of liberty in this desert of totalitarianism.
So why can't you just do that?
Why does it have to be this kind of thing?
And by the way, saying it's a really good idea to wear masks is, I don't know, like in what situation?
In what situation is it a really good idea?
People are going fucking insane with this mask shit.
I mean, yeah, if you're indoors and on top of someone for an extended period of time, maybe it's a good idea to wear a mask in that situation.
But, you know, you see people out at the park wearing masks.
I saw people at the beach wearing masks a couple months ago.
I'm sorry, that's insanity.
That's not like, oh, yeah, good idea.
You're on team science.
Wear a mask.
That's good.
You know, avoid social, avoid crowds, they say.
But what do you mean?
Like, how, how, how big are we talking in these crowds?
And how long are you supposed to avoid crowds for?
Like, what does this mean?
You know, this, this shit started in March.
It's December now.
And we're talking about not being around other humans for how long?
How long are people supposed to do this for?
Is that like such a granted thing that that's what's good for people?
And then the thing that bothers me the most is consider others during a pandemic.
I mean, that just kind of gives away the whole argument right there.
So basically you're saying, oh, considering others would be doing what the government is telling you to do.
We don't think the government should tell you to do it, but you should consider others.
How about considering others by opposing the lockdowns?
How about that?
How about the people who are against the government destroying millions of people's lives?
How about they're the ones who are considering others?
Can you not like try to battle the framing of this argument a little bit?
It's just unbelievable how little they understand messaging and how much they how they don't understand what would be a compelling way to deliver the message of liberty.
Also, the mask stuff.
I mean, I don't know.
There's a lot of different elements to it.
That did you, I think I mentioned this on the podcast recently, but there was a story of some kid who's in daycare who's been in daycare, I guess, for you know, like six months or something like that, and has still never seen the caregiver's face.
Yeah, it's weird.
Like, do you know how weird that is?
How bizarre that we don't really know what type of psychological damage this is doing to children, to young children, to see to see adults masked up constantly.
What type of anxiety, how that's going to affect their ability to bond with other humans?
We have no idea, but it's quite possibly going to be very profound.
No, I don't know.
Is it just a given that it's a good idea for that person to be wearing a mask, especially when children are really not vulnerable to this virus at all?
And I mean, okay, you could jump on that statement and like find one example, but it's kind of like, you know, if you were to say, like, men aren't really vulnerable to breast cancer, and then you're like, aha, but four men have gotten breast cancer.
Like, yeah, the point is, it's, it's, you know, a statistical anomaly, or is that the word I'm looking for?
Whatever.
It's very rare.
It doesn't really happen.
And so, anyway, so I responded back to the Libertarian Party how that message sucked.
And I said, try this message.
Lockdowns are literally killing people and destroying families.
If you care about others, then you must oppose them.
Wearing Cuts Today00:03:28
Isn't that better?
Isn't that just like what you'd want to say?
Isn't it so obvious?
It really just, it baffles me that any libertarian would have trouble messaging this.
I mean, I know we've said it before on the podcast, but it's worth repeating.
But like, if you, if you could imagine, right, in 2019, when all the shit we've gone through this year just would have seemed impossible, if you had just laid this out and said, hey, how about what if, hypothetically, this happens?
And talk to, I mean, you'd sound batshit insane, but if you had just been, what if governors are getting on TV every day and telling you what you're allowed to do?
Every intimate detail of your life, who you can have in your home, whether or not you can go to work, how far away you must be from another human being when you see them.
I mean, it's really literally what they've been telling us.
Well, what would the libertarian, what would the libertarians' message be?
It would be so obvious.
Oh, our message would be, we're for freedom.
This is totalitarian, you know, all of that shit.
And the fact that the LP can't even get this together afterward is pretty insane.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Cuts.
For better or worse, 2020 has kicked off the work from home era.
And everyone is asking one big question: what are we supposed to wear?
Do you really need to wear a tie for your Zoom meeting?
Probably not, but sweatpants and your go-to gym tea don't really feel right for a work environment either.
Cuts clothing is the perfect solution to your work from home wardrobe confusion.
Cuts is the best in the world at making technical apparel for the sport of business.
Their t-shirts, polos, and hoodies have enough quality and style to wear in the office on a date or anywhere in between.
So you don't have to choose between a classic look and a modern feel.
In 2016, Steve Borelli was struggling to find the perfect t-shirt.
He wanted something that had enough quality to be worn professionally at work, yet enough style for a night out.
No matter where he looked, nothing fit the bill.
So he took matters into his own hands and he created Cuts.
Fit, fabric, and function.
Cuts started out in 2016 by making what GQ calls the only shirt worth wearing.
The athletic, tailored-looking fit is perfect for work, a date, and everything in between.
After four years of development, Cuts has finally released their new polos and hoodies.
These things are beautiful.
They're incredible.
They look great.
I love them.
I wear them all the time now.
Cuts is loved by your favorite athletes, entrepreneurs, and even podcast hosts.
It seems like everyone's wearing cuts these days, and you can too.
And plus, you can get 15% off your first order by going to cutscothing.com/slash P-O-T-P.
That's cutsclothing.com/slash P-O-T-P for 15% off of the only shirt worth wearing.
All right, let's get back into the show.
So anyway, I don't know.
Somebody else said to me that I supported government totalitarianism when I was happy that the cops said when the cop when the police state attacked protesters in this country, Dave supported government totalitarianism.
Was there ever a time when I was supporting cops attacking protesters?
Bitcoin Voter Verification Case00:15:06
In fact, we were very critical of that and mentioned it many times.
I was critical of when cops sat back and allowed violent criminals to assault, kill, loot, and terrorize people.
And that's, yeah, that seems fairly reasonable.
I don't know.
I don't think protecting people in private, protecting people in private property is totalitarian.
However, many of these other policies clearly are.
So, anyway, that's where we're at.
Maybe some of this stuff will come up with in the Archie Flower debate.
The other thing that I wanted to mention is that I've been for a long time now, okay?
The Bitcoin people, the cryptocurrency people have been fairly critical of me.
I've noticed it for years.
I'm aware of it.
And I've gotten a good deal of criticism lately, I think, because Bitcoin is just going through the roof.
And they're critical that I don't talk about Bitcoin enough.
And I've always said I just don't really have enough knowledge about Bitcoin to really get into it that much.
I like cryptocurrency.
I think it's got a lot of potential to any degree that it can undermine government currency.
I think that's great.
I don't know enough about it as an investment, but it seems to have made a lot of people rich, so that's good.
But so I finally said, okay, listen, I hear the criticism.
I promise I'll do an episode on Bitcoin.
Who should I have on as my guest to explain to me?
And I have just been flooded on social media.
So many people, so many suggestions, then other people who are like, no, that guy sucks.
He's a fraud.
Don't have him.
And then people are like, he's the greatest person ever.
No, have her, have him.
So all of these recommendations.
So what I'm probably going to end up doing is having a few episodes, maybe two or three episodes on Bitcoin.
I'll set them up over the next couple months.
And I will do that for you.
I'll try to dive into it and learn a little bit more about Bitcoin.
I respond to the audience.
So I understand the criticism.
We'll try to talk about that more.
It is a very interesting subject.
I just don't, you know, as I've said, I just don't really know enough about it.
And I've never been super motivated to dive in.
So, yeah, so that's that.
Okay.
Rand Paul is trending, which is always interesting to me and to Robbie the fire.
He's trending on Twitter over comments that he made about the election.
Before we get into the Rand Paul stuff, why don't we just talk a little bit about where we're at with the election?
It does seem to me that the fire in the flame of Donald Trump fighting the election fraud, as he claims, seems to be dimming quite a bit.
They lost this case in Pennsylvania after getting a victory in that preliminary hearing, or it was an evidentiary hearing.
They lost in Pennsylvania.
It seems to me to be very unlikely that this thing is going to be won through the courts.
And it seems like, I don't know, seems like the odds of Joe Biden being installed as the president on January 20th are about as high as they've ever been.
What do you think, Rob?
So we're getting to the point where we got to track down some legal experts to actually comment on this stuff because the journalism on it is so bad.
It's like it takes a new level of research to even see what's going on in these cases.
The one thing I picked up on from this PA case, and please email me, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but we watched that evidentiary hearing.
We watched one minute of it.
And the compelling part is what was going on in these dumps.
There was a massive dump that had all these votes for Biden.
What happened here?
And so that seems to be where the voter fraud is is the statistical anomalies, right?
Then they have the case gets thrown out.
And the reason why the case gets thrown out is because the case that was brought to them was saying that it was against the constitution for them to change the mail-in voting over a year ago.
And so they said that, well, you needed to oppose that at the time.
You can't oppose that after the election.
You had an entire year to say that the law that they passed, I think it was like law 77 or something was unconstitutional.
So it was thrown out.
That means that there was no court case that looked into what happened with these voter dumps, that there's no investigation to do some sort of analysis of calling people to verify whether or not the votes that were counted for them were voted, were properly counted, whether or not people who had a vote made in their name, if that was actually them.
There's still a lot of things that you could do by way of random sampling to discover whether or not there are real shenanigans that took place in this election.
But this court case that was lost was lost because, and probably I got to tell you legally, that makes sense to me, that you had an entire year to say that a law was unconstitutional, and then you waited till it was too late to undo to go, hey, none of these votes should count whatsoever.
That sounds like a dumb court case, but I don't understand why when we were watching that earlier hearing, the most compelling piece of, or the most compelling thing that should at least be investigated to see whether or not there was fraud in this election, it doesn't look like there's been any court cases revolving around that.
So there's something here that I don't understand.
Is the legal framework too rigid that like you can't bring forward a statistical argument or that's not something that they would look into?
You would need an investigator to investigate it first.
Yeah.
Like you see what I'm saying?
There's something about this process that's not adding up.
Look, I mean, obviously, like our expertise in the legal minutiae is not, you know, the people, you know what I'm saying?
Like there are people who understand this stuff better than we do for sure.
But what always jumped out to me and the reason why I have figured this was not going to work on top of the fact that I just think the whole system's corrupt anyway.
So even if Trump had a really good argument, I have very little faith that our judicial system will get to the bottom of it.
But one of the cases that got thrown out in Pennsylvania, one of the earlier cases, basically what they said was that, well, even if you're, you know, even if you're pursuing this argument that some votes can't be verified, that they were legitimate for whatever reasons, to throw out all of the votes would be disenfranchising a whole bunch of other people who voted.
And so we're not going to do that.
And I understand where to me, it does seem like there is a strong legal argument to say kind of what you were just saying in a lot of these states that if you wanted these measures passed, you'd have to do it before voting, because after the fact, there's kind of no way to correct this without also causing as big a problem as what you're trying to correct for.
So, in other words, if you say there was no signature verification, but we don't have the envelopes anymore, we just have the voter ballots.
And then you're saying, okay, well, we want to throw out whatever, you know, we want to throw out a million votes in Georgia because the signatures weren't verified.
And you'd be like, okay, well, you can make the argument that there's a problem without verifying the signatures, but then you could also make the case that if you throw out all these votes, you're going to throw out some where the signatures would have been verified.
So either one is kind of equally imprecise.
And it's just, it seems to me that there have been a few judges who have basically said this.
And that was more or less what I was saying, you know, a few weeks ago, that the problem is that Donald Trump, if all of these, you know, Donald Trump was saying for months that this whole system is ripe for the potential of fraud, and yet they weren't able to do anything about it for whatever reason.
You know, maybe it's because Donald Trump just didn't have control of the situation.
But regardless, they weren't able to do what would have needed to be done to protect this from happening.
They should also just be reporting that unconstitutional laws were passed that created a framework where false votes probably were counted that may have led to the victory of Joe Biden.
You'll never hear that story.
Like they just said, hey, you lost the court case.
What they don't tell you is that they're not looking into whether or not the new voting laws were unconstitutional, which is definitely something the general public should have an awareness of.
Yeah.
No, that's for sure.
Okay.
So let's go to Rand Paul and what he was saying.
So joining me now is Kentucky Senator Ram Paul.
He's spoken out about investigating potential voter fraud and he joins me now.
So Senator Paul, good to have you here tonight.
I'm sure you heard the news at the top of the hour tonight about the GSA beginning their process of the transition.
And Michigan has certified their vote.
Philadelphia County has now certified their vote.
But the president said there are still outstanding cases that they want to continue to pursue.
And you hear in this instance, this mathematician, you know, just really looking at this mail-in process, which in some aspects is very perplexing.
You know, I think the first thing that we need to acknowledge is that this was an unprecedented election in the sense that normally 99% of people show up in person and we can kind of police that the right people showed up because you don't have the same people showing up again and again.
They sign in, they show an ID, and it's pretty easy to validate the vote.
But now we have an election where maybe a third to a half mailed in their ballots.
This has never ever happened in our history.
So we have to validate were they the right people?
And the left keeps saying there's no evidence or there's insufficient evidence.
But what Professor Williams has done here is he's taken a random sample of Republican voters and found out that there's an extraordinary number of Republican voters who said they voted that weren't counted.
And then there's an extraordinary number of Republican voters who said, I didn't request a ballot.
I didn't vote.
And yet they're recorded as having voted.
And when you take a random sample, when you do statistics and you apply it to the whole, now we have evidence of large-scale problems with the vote.
I think they could take this to court and show that this is a random sample that represents of a million votes.
Now we may be talking about 100,000 votes.
That'd be enough to tip the difference.
I would think that if we took this to a court, the court would then mandate that you have to look at all of the absentee votes one at a time, not count them, but verify whether or not the person who you say voted, you actually call them and ask them, did you vote?
And who did you vote for to verify the vote?
Yeah.
I mean, it's mind-boggling, actually, how much room there is for.
Let's just pause it right there for a second.
So what's funny to me, and this happens a lot with Rand Paul clips, is that you see all these people online freaking out.
And then you listen to what he says.
And I just don't get what's not reasonable about that.
Now, I'm not optimistic that this is going to actually work out in court, but he is whether or not, look, forget whether or not Donald Trump's able to find any success in legal avenues.
Just assuming Joe Biden's going to be president, just for the sake of argument.
Isn't it important to know this stuff?
If there are these statistical abnormalities that seem to indicate there were a lot of problems with the voting process, wouldn't we want to know that?
Wouldn't we want to talk about that?
Who would be against this?
Yeah, it seems like the next step is they got to do one of those Senate hearings like they did for basically which got the Mueller investigation started.
They need to have one of these Senate hearings go, all right, here's all the fraud that we're looking at, and then create an actual like committee to investigate and look into it.
The FBI is not, no current government organization is going to look into it.
And it seems like the court system can't handle this style of a case if there is any truth to it.
And I don't know if you mentioned it, but I guess they've now isolated it to four data, four dumps of votes that swung the entire election.
And they're all those odd, basically, you know, pure Biden, all the ballots came in for violent Biden situations.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I did see that.
And it's certainly, I mean, you know, it seems pretty shady.
I don't know.
Like it's it certainly should raise some eyebrows.
And it's funny because what you see is that the Democrats who have gone on and on for the last four years about undermining democracy and how incredibly precious our democracy is and, you know, all this stuff, that once their guy wins, they have absolutely no interest or concern about whether the democratic process was legitimate or not.
And to me, that is clear as day.
And as I've said for years, no one really believes in democracy when it comes down to it.
Always be skeptical of people who just tell you how much they love democracy.
Because if you really love democracy, you'd also have to support it when the vote doesn't go your way.
And that is very, very rare that people actually believe that.
So what was Rand Paul getting slammed for?
That he's flouting the no evidence fraud claim?
More or less, that he's still hanging on to the claims of fraud.
Oh, look here, Rand Paul, you know, still going out, even though Twitter has told us that these facts aren't true, you know?
And you see it in Twitter.
If you go to like the trending news section, it's all and it's been that way for a month or so.
Like every day, it's like, experts say election was safe.
Experts say there's no vote fraud, all this stuff.
So I think it's as simple as that, that he is doing what you're not allowed to do, which is questioning whether or not this election was legitimate.
I would love to know, like up front, if an expert, a panel experts told us, how easy is it to do this random sampling?
Is it a one-day thing that costs voters $10,000?
And then we can all agree with absolute certainty that if they go through this random sampling and everything turns out to be verified, then clearly there is no issue.
Like with this table, I don't know.
That's why I'm asking.
I really don't understand statistics that well.
It's, of course, I failed four times in college and then they just kind of gave me a D so I could move on with my life.
That was nice of him.
Yeah, it was very nice, that guy.
But you see what I'm saying?
Like, how easy of an exercise is this?
And is this thing so easy and certain that it's absurd that we're not just doing it?
Yeah.
No, listen, I can't say I know for sure, but I do think at the very least, these topics should be discussed.
And it's always a clue when you see that there's not an effort on the part of the corporate press to say, no, listen, these data dumps aren't shady or these voter dumps aren't shady.
Refusing to Grapple with Evidence00:02:03
This is what happened in these cases.
It's just to say you're not allowed to talk about that or you're not allowed to hear from people who want to talk about that.
To me, that always seems like an indication that they don't really want to have these discussions.
So one of Rand Paul's tweets was, you know, whatever this thing is where Twitter puts up this claim about fraud is false or whatever.
So what Rand Paul tweeted, and we'll get back to the video in a second, but he tweeted, interesting, Trump margin of quote defeat in four states occurred in four data dumps.
This is to the point you were making before between 1.34 and 6.31 a.m.
And then he posted an article about the anomalies in vote counts.
Now, the fact that a sitting U.S. senator saying that, like everything he's pointing out here are factual statements.
And he's not even like telling you.
He's just saying it's a question and it's worth thinking about.
And that's enough to get a little Twitter, little censorship fucking gold star, you know, like that's enough to get that from them.
So this is no matter how you feel about what happened in the election, I actually think that this type of censorship, this type of like refusal to grapple with the evidence being presented is a bigger story in some ways than even whether or not the evidence is legitimate.
Because this is a major thing.
This is a presidential election.
This is a big story.
And if the way we're going to deal with big stories is if someone presents some type of evidence, whether you think it's good or bad evidence, if someone presents it, rather than to take that evidence on, the response is just, you're not allowed to talk about this.
Hair Growth and Free Speech00:02:15
We now put a stigma on you for even bringing it up, for even asking the question.
That is a very dangerous precedent.
And it's one that all decent people should be concerned about.
So that to me is one of the big stories coming out of all this.
All right, guys, let's take a second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, brand new sponsor.
Very happy to have them on board.
And that is Nutrophil.
80 million men and women in the U.S. experience thinning hair, yet it's still not openly talked about, which can make going through it feel scary and stressful and just adds to the problem.
Luckily, Nutrophil is here to help you take charge of your hair growth by growing thicker, fuller, healthier hair.
Neutrophil uses natural, clinically affected botanicals to help grow hair as strong as you are.
And it's physician formulated to be 100% drug-free.
On top of thicker, stronger hair without laser or chemicals, Nutrophol's ingredients may also help you get a handle on better sleep, stress response, skin, nails, and libido.
Visit neutrophil.com and take their hair wellness quiz for customized product recommendations that put the power to grow thicker, stronger hair back into your hands.
When you subscribe, you'll receive monthly deliveries so you never miss a dose.
Shipping is free and you can pause or cancel anytime.
Does it work?
Yes.
In clinical studies, Nutrophil users saw thicker, stronger hair growth with less shedding in three to six months.
Whether you're experiencing thinning or not, you deserve hair as strong as you.
Neutrophil can help you achieve your best hair growth naturally.
You can grow thicker hair, healthier, and support our show by going to neutrifold.com and using the promo code P-O-T-P to get 20% off.
This is their best offer available anywhere, plus free shipping on every order.
Get 20% off at neutraful.com, promo code P-O-T-P.
That's N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L.com.
Promo code P-O-T-P for hair as strong as you are.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Let's play the rest of Rand Paul's interview.
Anecdotally, so it's very interesting to hear this sampling of these numbers and what it adds up to from this professor.
Mask Mandates and Identity Politics00:15:25
You know, the president indicated in this tweet tonight that they've started the GSA transition process.
What, you know, you're a senator.
Obviously, you're concerned about the Georgia election.
We know that Joe Biden's heading there to campaign.
What would be your advice for President Trump tonight with regard to his own position and with regard to that Senate race?
With regards to the Senate race, I think the president would be an asset to campaign for the candidates down there.
There's not been a politician in my lifetime or even in the previous generation that's been able to draw crowds and enthusiasm like President Trump.
He's very popular in Georgia.
I think he would help quite a bit to go down there and campaign for him.
And what about the presidency and continuing to pursue the legal avenues?
I think that this is an unprecedented election.
We've never had one like this.
When a third of the people vote by mail, yes, we need to validate that those are the correct people and they actually did vote.
If we're not willing to do that, it means we're really not willing to examine this election in its extraordinary fashion.
But it also means that the easiest way to validate an election is to vote in person.
I'm not against voting early or having early voting, but the majority of the vote, the vast majority, needs to be in person because there's so many checkpoints.
Can you imagine calling up a million people in Philadelphia and saying, did you vote and who you voted for?
and checking if that was accurate.
So the first thing you do is a sample like Professor Williams did.
And when you look at this sample and apply to the whole, you're astounded that there could be 100,000 invalid votes just in Philadelphia.
So I think in the future, we have to go back to in-person voting.
We can't just say, oh, here's a ballot.
We're going to mail it to anyone.
I think it's rife for fraud.
Now we have scientific evidence that there may well have been widespread changes in votes in Philadelphia that could have affected the election.
Well, I mean, we know Jimmy Carter and James Baker both did a study way back and said, you know, mail-in voting has a huge potential for fraud.
So we need to get this right.
Before I let you go, you said on outnumbered overtime today, it's getting some attention.
There's no indication any lockdowns have slowed this down with regard to the virus, obviously.
I think the Wall Street Journal put it best when they said the virus is insidious.
It's largely spreading regardless of human behavior.
Does that mean that, you know, following the guidelines for Thanksgiving and all of that doesn't really keep us safer?
Is that what you're suggesting?
I think if you look at the mandates and the lockdowns, and you can look at chart after chart, state after state, country after country, as the mandates have become more severe, as the mask wearing has become more widespread, the incidence of the infection has gone up.
We're going up exponentially now, despite all the mandates.
So you can argue there may be some benefit.
And I think there are benefits to N95 masks.
The other masks don't work.
And there would be a benefit if you were at high risk to wear one.
But having everyone wear one is not a good idea in the sense that I don't think it's necessarily helping.
It's incredibly invasive.
And one point on your herd immunity, your doctors were saying we need two-thirds.
Well, in New York City, a third of the people have antibodies.
So it may be that you get to herd immunity much, much faster with only a third being vaccinated.
I'm still for everybody being back.
That's a great point.
Yeah, it's interesting.
All right.
Let's stop there.
The COVID stuff was interesting as well.
But anyway, so this is more or less what the big controversy about Rand Paul is.
And I got to say, I'm just not seeing it.
And I've, look, I'm somebody who's been critical of Rand Paul many times throughout the years.
But, you know, he's the best senator we got.
And I just like, I think it's really unfair to see him getting beaten up for this stuff.
And the one thing that I like about Rand Paul, when he's at his best, he does have some courage and he will take a view that's going to upset the establishment and get people, you know, like to, you know, be pissed off at him.
And I think that's something that you're going to need.
You know, again, this was my big criticism of the Libertarian Party.
It's like, when, you know, tell me when you have taken a view that legitimately got the establishment furious at you.
Like, what dangerous position do you hold?
Because if you're not willing to hold any dangerous position, what good are you?
I mean, if you're trying to take on the establishment, but you're never willing to have an opinion that will, you know, get you labeled bad names or something like that, then what good are you?
How are you really helping anybody in this fight?
I think that's an important question.
Anyway, with the COVID stuff, look, Rand Paul is absolutely right.
There's no evidence that mask mandates or that lockdowns have worked.
And it's really, it's like this secret that the corporate press and the establishment don't want to talk about.
But this is in terms of mitigating the virus, there's absolutely no evidence that this stuff has helped.
And that's something we're going to have to come to terms with in one way or another.
Any thoughts, Robbie?
Career across the board, dude.
Do you see Tom Woods?
One of the portions of one of his most recent speeches on the COVID lockdowns was going viral.
And it was him just showing on charts when mask mandates came in and then how the numbers spiked after the mask mandates came in.
And, you know, it's a pretty, it's a pretty important thing to notice, you know, as we're talking about all of this stuff and people are criticizing you for not, you know, saying, oh, yes, wear a mask as vague as that.
Not even like in what situations?
Just wear a mask at home, in your car, outdoors, wear a mask, you know?
And he's showing these charts over and over again in every country.
And there's just no evidence that the mask mandates are doing anything to slow down the spread of the virus.
And I don't know exactly what that reason's for.
Maybe it's because the masks themselves don't really work.
Maybe it's that people aren't keeping them on all the time.
Maybe it's because they're not wearing them properly.
I mean, I don't fucking know, but it's enough evidence to say, hey, it's not as if this is going to really help the problem at all.
And then people would, you know, argue like, well, we don't really know because you'd have to go back and see what would have happened without a mask mandate and compare it to what happened with a mask mandate.
But believe me, if the charts showed something else, if the charts showed that when there were mask mandates, the virus started, you know, like collapsing and disappearing, they would take that as proof that the mask mandates work.
So when it shows the opposite, that I think is, you know, worth noting, to say the least.
I'll have to find that speech.
I saw the one he gave, I think it was at the Mises Institute where he had said that there was no correlation between the lockdown.
Like if you looked at charts of areas at lockdown and the virus, there's no way to, you can't tell the difference, which means there's no proof that they're doing anything.
Yeah.
Have you seen that meme, which is, you know, it's kind of dumb, but it's, there's something to it.
But it's the meme where they're basically, I've seen it at like a few different versions of it, but where they're going, they basically say, if the lockdowns worked the first time, why do we have to do them again?
If the lockdowns didn't work the first time, why do we have to do them again?
And even though that's kind of simple, there's something there.
There's a nugget there that really makes a good point.
I mean, why would you go through a second round of lockdowns if lockdowns were such a success?
And if they weren't a success, as they clearly weren't, why would we go through a second round of lockdowns?
None of this, there's no strong argument for lockdowns.
And there's like a million strong arguments against them from a moral point of view, from a constitutional point of view, from like a slippery slope type of argument of allowing government to have this authority.
And in many ways, most importantly, just from a human toll point of view.
They cost a lot more lives.
They cause a lot more destruction than they avoid, which isn't even really clear that they do anything.
And of course, the example that everybody doesn't want to talk about is Sweden and still is, a country where they never had these mass lockdowns and they've done better than many other European countries that had them.
So anyway, that's, I guess that's that.
So one other thing I thought I'd mention briefly that I did see is that it was announced that I always fuck up this guy's name, but is it Adgipai or whatever?
The FCC chairman guy is going to step down on January 20th.
So the FCC chairman who Trump appointed is going to step down on January 20th.
And Biden, I guess, will get to appoint a new guy.
And probably, I guess they'll get their net neutrality rules back in there.
Which is, I mean, that's really scary because we'll see what level of enforcement exists.
At first, there's probably not going to be a lot of it, but I wouldn't be surprised, I guess, if everything you're now seeing being done by way of tech censorship.
I don't understand why government wouldn't come in with the same laws.
You're not allowed to spread, in quote, dangerous information.
Well, we'll see.
We'll see if it goes into that direction.
It's a scary thought.
But, you know, it's funny because I remember when this guy first came in and struck down the net neutrality rules.
And do you remember us having these shows?
We did specials on them, like entire podcasts on this topic.
And the claims that were being made were so outrageous and none of them came true.
Yeah.
It's like, how do you even revisit it when you try to choose?
People will forget that three years ago, they made the most extraordinary claims of what would go wrong and none of them came true.
How do you even revisit it?
Bernie Sanders claimed this was the end of the internet as we know it.
There were a whole bunch of other people making these claims.
This was going to change everything.
This would lead to websites being destroyed and the big guys would take advantage of all this shit.
And what I mean, none of it.
None of it came true.
And we were the ones sitting there saying, none of this is going to happen.
This will actually be better than keeping these rules.
And the thing that's frustrating, like you said, is that there's no, you get no credit for being right about this.
And more importantly, the people who make these wild predictions and are completely proven wrong, they don't have to, you know, address that at all or apologize for it.
And then they get to go on making their next predictions, which I'm sure they will.
But yeah, it's just one more example of where, yeah, the hysteria was completely wrong.
But it was pretty crazy how they were able to work people up and get them really concerned about this thing.
And then, of course, they just move right on to the next thing.
Well, one of the things that's really interesting about Biden is how much he represents just a return to the establishment.
You know, like it's almost like they just wanted blank establishment candidate.
Like that's kind of what Trump was running again.
It's Trump versus blank, nameless, faceless establishment candidate.
And that's what he represents.
He didn't really campaign that much.
No one really knows what he plans on doing.
He never even told you if he wanted to pack the Supreme Court, you know, all of this.
It's just kind of like, oh, look, all of these positions are going to be recontrolled by Obama.
You know, it's going to be Obama's third term type people running the show.
And what it seems to me right now is what they're really pushing is to buy people off with the worst type of diversity, you know, pushing.
So it's just all this stuff, all these articles about like, oh, did you know, you know, Joe Biden is historically considering two black people to be defense secretary and he's got an all-female transition team and like all of this shit.
And it's, it's really just interesting while you have this huge swath of Trump supporters who just don't believe this election was legitimate at all.
And then you have another huge, you know, chunk of the like hard left that really doesn't like Joe Biden, but just liked that he wasn't Donald Trump.
And then you've got a bunch of people in the country who just don't like the establishment.
Trust in institutions is at an all-time low or has been at an all-time low, you know, for years now.
And they're just hoping that they could, they can go, eh, but but we put a black guy in there to bomb people now.
So how what does that do for you?
And it's, I don't know.
I'm just looking at this and I'm going, I don't think this is enough.
I don't think this is going to work, but I guess we'll see.
Yeah, I've been loving the, isn't there something sexist about an all-female team being like, I'm only working if I'm surrounded by females?
You get them like cocktail waitress outfits or something.
Well, this is a funny thing.
You ever seen like where they'll talk about, I've heard like, you know, like people talk about like black neighborhoods before, and they'll go like, well, it's a very diverse neighborhood.
And you're like, no, it's not diverse.
It's that's not diverse.
If it's 90% black, it's not diverse.
That's the opposite.
But like diversity is almost just a word that's used to be like pro anything except straight white men.
So if you're like, well, we really care about diversity.
So we have an all-female like panel.
And you're like, but that's not diverse.
That's the opposite of diverse.
That's like uniform.
Like, what?
But no.
So yeah, I guess nobody's really looking at that.
I just really do wonder how much it seems to me like a lot of this stuff, a lot of this like really naked, you know, identity politics stuff is like this last ditch effort of the ruling class, which is a kind of pathetic effort.
And it doesn't seem to me that there's really that this actually appeases enough of the population for it to work.
Like, I just don't, I don't know.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong about that, but like, does anyone like, I shouldn't say anyone, but how many people are actually like, oh, look at that, an all-female transition team.
Like that, hey, Joe Biden really got something for us.
I'm glad we voted for him because now we get this, you know, like, is that really going to be enough?
And my, my guess is no.
My guess is no.
Slowly, even now, as, you know, Donald Trump is, he's not going to concede.
I don't think.
I don't think Donald Trump will concede.
I don't think he'll be there at inauguration for Biden and fucking good for him.
I'm glad.
Number one, because I hate the system.
And so I have no problem with people's faith in the system being shattered.
And also on some just on a more, I don't know, maybe a more petty level.
I just go, it's poetic justice.
This is what the Democrats deserve after everything they tried to do to undermine his election.
He should show up, have Melania address really slutty, and then get on the mic and just be like, well, my wife still had her.
Okay, I still got to have her wife.
And I'm the real president.
Spinning Biden's Decline00:01:32
He's just like fucking Kanye West crashed the show.
But so I, you know, I'm kind of fine with all of this and I like people's confidence in the system being undermined and all of that stuff.
But little by little, the story starts to become Joe Biden being the next president.
And now it's going to just be so interesting is just, you know, that he's got this mess that he's got to inherit.
And how exactly are they going to spin it now?
You know, now, how are they going to spin the fact?
Now, for a while, it'll be, well, it's all Trump's fault.
But how long can that really last?
I'll just say healing souls is expensive and it's a painful process.
And so whatever goes wrong, you know, you got to purge some elements of our freedoms in order to heal the soul of America.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, it's going to be, it's going to be really fascinating to see how they handle Joe Biden and how they protect him because it's going to be really tough.
Particularly, whatever mental decline Joe Biden is dealing with is only going to get worse in the coming years.
And the, you know, fallout from all of the disaster is only going to get worse.
So how is Joe Biden?
How is he going to be the face of it?
You know, you could understand how Obama was the face, but how the fuck are they going to keep Joe Biden as the face?
And even if he's gone, how the fuck is Kamala Harris going to be the face of it?
I don't know.
Interesting.
It's an interesting question, if you ask me, and it'll be fun to see.
All right.
That's our episode for today.
Thank you guys for tuning in.
We will be back on Wednesday with a brand new one.