Episode 1172 Scott Adams: Fake Polls, Election Day Unrest, Biden Chased Out of Texas, and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Accepting risk and choosing freedom
The true function of "respected" FAKE polls
Biden's tour bus visits Texas
What if media lies...says Biden won election?
The possibility of us having TWO Presidents
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Yeah. It's hard to imagine, really, a better way to spend the morning.
This is kind of as good as it gets.
Am I an hour early?
I am an hour early.
Okay.
DLA savings time.
Well, interesting, because some of my clocks changed and some didn't.
But guess what? We're going to do this now.
And it'll be here for the rest of you.
Those of you who are a little bit slow, you're going to get here.
But let me tell you, before I continue, I did know the time changed.
I did check the clocks, I did double check, and I triple checked to make sure I had the right time.
And for reasons that are unclear to me, some of my digital clocks have not changed, but some of them did.
Let me make sure that I'm not hallucinating.
Oh damn it, they all changed.
Well, we're going to do this early.
Are you ready? Yeah, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. Oh yeah.
It feels...
Early, doesn't it?
Yeah, it tastes a little bit early.
You can get that from the coffee.
All right, well, those of you lazy heads who are still in bed, I've been up since 3 a.m., as I often am, because sleep is for the dead.
Every time I sleep, I say to myself, I don't like this sleep.
I don't like this at all.
So I like to pop out of bed as soon as I can.
Get on with the day.
And you should be like that, too.
Somebody says, you're robbing us of an hour.
It's not time.
I realize that I've done something terrible to many of you.
I've developed this habit of being here at a certain time because of the time change.
And by the way, I should tell you about this time change thing because what you're seeing is bigger than what it looks like.
What you think you just saw is that I just had a little brain fart and forgot it was the time changed.
That's what you think, right?
But it's actually way bigger than that.
I recently had to just stop scheduling interviews because I couldn't show up on time.
And it wasn't that I would forget that I had something scheduled.
I have a very peculiar problem that I've literally never heard of anybody else have.
And it goes like this.
I have a calendar and time issue that's like a mental problem.
And I've always had it. It's not related to smoking marijuana or anything like that.
It's a lifelong thing.
And it goes like this.
I can look at my calendar and somebody can say, we're going to meet at 8 p.m.
Put that on your calendar.
And I'll say, well, that's easy enough.
8 p.m. on the 9th.
And I'll look at my calendar.
I'll go to the 9th. I'll go to 8 p.m.
Make sure I got a p.m., not a.m.
Write it in there. And then, it's pretty easy, right?
Everybody in the world can do that.
You just write it down on your calendar exactly like it was given to you.
Except I can't.
About four out of five times I write it in the wrong place or the wrong time.
And so the way I had been correcting for that is whenever I was trying to schedule something, I would send it to Christina, and she would schedule it on my calendar because she's not defective in this way.
So this time change thing is part of that problem.
Which is, I can look at a calendar and see something that isn't there.
Consistently. It's not one of those things that happens once in a while.
Consistently. I can look at September 9th.
I can double check it and triple check it.
Okay, it's September.
It says the 9th.
That's the day I want.
And I'll turn away, and then I can turn back, and it'll be like October 6th or something.
Just a completely different day and time.
And this has happened all my life.
It's not some new thing.
And it seems limited to calendars and time.
I don't know what that's about.
Have you ever heard of that? Has anybody ever heard of that?
Somebody says the same here.
If somebody else is having this problem, I'd love to hear about it.
Yeah, I am dyslexic.
But I don't think that's exactly what's going on because I actually hallucinate seeing different things.
So anyway, that's not why you signed up to watch this.
So there's a study out of Stanford University.
A bunch of economists.
I'm just guessing they might skew Democrat.
But a bunch of economists estimated that there have been at least 30,000 coronavirus infections and 700 deaths as a result of Trump's 18 campaign rallies between June and September.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Trump killed 700 people by campaigning for president?
It's not impossible, is it?
I mean, it's not completely impossible.
But there's a little note on this article that you don't see in the headline, and you don't see it in the first description, so you might have missed it.
Here's the note you might have missed.
It hasn't been peer-reviewed.
Do you know how many peer-reviewed Studies turn out later to be false.
About half.
About half. So this has not reached the level of credibility of a peer review, which is only right about half the time.
So it's below the credibility of something that's only right half the time.
Now it does seem to be reasonable that if you have large gatherings you would have more infections.
But 700 deaths?
It sounds a little political and maybe less scientific than it needs to be.
But I don't doubt that people died because of the activity.
But that's what everybody signed up for.
There's nobody who went to an outdoor rally with lots of people during a pandemic who said to themselves, this is perfectly safe.
Nobody said that.
It's not like anybody was fooled by it.
Oh, it turns out, surprise, surprise, meeting in large groups during a pandemic spreads the disease.
They all knew that. Everybody knew that, and they made that choice.
They chose freedom.
In this particular context, over risk.
Now, unfortunately, the nature of this virus is that when you take on risk, you're taking on risk for other people.
Which doesn't seem fair, right?
It's fair for you to take on a risk that's just for you.
But what happens when you take on risks for other people?
Is that what you signed up for?
Do you want a stranger deciding whether you live or die, or at least the odds of you living or dying?
Well, you don't want that, but it's not so very different than the rest of the world.
Meaning, if you get in your automobile and go somewhere, you're taking a risk for yourself, of course, but you're taking a risk on behalf of all the other people driving, all the pedestrians, everybody else.
You are hoping that That your activity does not kill anybody.
And there's lots of examples like that.
So it's not that unusual that you take risks that are largely about yourself, but they have some big impact on the rest of the world, too.
And I think you have to look at that not as a mistake, but as a choice.
Right? The people who went to the Trump rallies, there's no claim that the There's no claim that there was something special about these rallies other than they were rallies, that there were a lot of people in one place.
So I think these are people who said, this is the risk and I choose to take it.
Is that the same as a mistake?
I don't think it is.
It's the opposite of a mistake.
It's what people chose.
It's a tragedy when anybody dies.
We're not going to gloss over that.
Death is death. But these were choices, not mistakes.
And I think that's important.
All right. Here's a funniest thing from this morning.
So, of course, I've tweeted that I think the polls are fake and that the Iowa poll you saw went from Biden being up to Trump being up.
Oh, surprise! Right before the election.
Oh, who saw this coming?
Oh, That right before the election, the polls would magically converge.
I did. I've been saying it for a year, that right before election day, the polls will magically converge.
And what will the pollsters be able to say?
Well, I guess Trump was campaigning pretty hard in those final days.
Really? Really?
You think that's why the polls converge in the final days?
Because Trump is campaigning extra hard?
Now, I do think that campaigning makes a difference, but it's not that.
It really isn't.
Because if he had campaigned just as hard...
In August, do you think the polls would have closed?
No. No, they would not have.
Now, what we assume about the polls, there are a lot of people making assumptions.
Some of the smart people who were wrong in 2016, and yet we still call them the smart people, I don't know why, have said that, sure, sure, sure, they got it wrong in 2016, but, you know, Scott, Scott, Scott, They've learned from their mistakes.
They've made adjustments.
They know what they got wrong.
And it's been four years, so they had plenty of time to adjust.
They're not going to make the same mistake again, Scott.
Well, what's wrong with that analysis?
What's wrong with the analysis that says the pollsters learned from their mistakes and now they've corrected?
What's wrong with that? It assumes they wanted to correct.
Right? And that's the assumption that we don't make.
Because if they were wrong in 2016, I don't think it's because they sampled wrong, necessarily.
I feel as though, because, you know, in 2016 they were also, it was all Hillary's going to win until the last days, and then it magically, magically, the polls converged.
It seems far more likely that In my skeptical opinion, it seems far more likely that what happened was that the pollsters wanted to show that when Hillary was running, wanted to show that Clinton was way ahead, because that helps fundraising, right?
If you have lots of fundraising, or if you're trying to raise funds, you want the people you're asking money of to think it's money well spent.
Hey, this candidate can win.
So I think the fake polls are all about generating funds for the candidate.
And of course, if you generate lots of funds for the candidate, where do those funds go?
Do they spend them?
Well, a lot of it is for travel-related stuff.
It takes a lot to move around.
But a lot of it is advertising.
So it goes to the very media entities that are doing the fake polls.
Do you see that?
The entities that survive on advertising dollars would like more advertising dollars to be spent.
And what is the best way to get more advertising dollars spent?
Well, do a fake poll.
Put your media's name on it.
So it says New York Times plus something, or NBC plus something, CNN plus something.
You know, they often pair up.
But you pair up and put your credibility on it.
And then it says, hey, Biden's looking good.
And then suddenly, what happened to Biden's fundraising when he looked like he was going to win?
Did you see? He set records for fundraising when his poll numbers looked good.
Where did that money go?
It went to the people who did the polls.
In many cases, the media companies, the news business, paired with a polling company, so it's kind of like they made money for themselves by giving you a poll result that guaranteed the most fundraising, which guarantees the most advertising spend on those same outlets.
Do you see it now? So everybody who said, I think they made a mistake in 2016, but surely they have corrected their mistake, is missing the most important part of the equation.
They don't want to correct that mistake.
It's not a mistake.
It's not a mistake.
It's a strategy, and it's a good one, and it works really well.
But the last part of the strategy is, in order to keep their credibility for next time, so they can just do the same trick again, They have to look for something in the news and say, oh, that thing in the news, that's why the polls went from way apart to suddenly they're very close at the end.
It's because the thing in the news.
2016, what was the thing in the news?
Comey doing his announcement about Hillary's emails.
In my opinion, that changed zero votes.
And yet, history records, because the media gets to write history, right, records that that changed the election.
Do you believe that?
It's been four years.
In four years, how many people have you met who said to themselves, you know, I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but then Comey did that announcement about the emails and changed my vote.
Have you met even one person who said that in four years?
Any of you? You know, it would be not a big deal if any one of us Had never met somebody who changed their vote because of that.
But look in the comments.
See if you can find anybody in the thousands and thousands of people in the comments who have spent four years probably interacting at least a little bit with people who voted both ways.
Tell me one person who said on that day that Comey came out, well, I'm changing my vote because of this.
And yet we have been told to accept that as the official explanation.
It's ridiculous, of course.
Nobody changed their vote because of that.
Not a single person.
And this time, they're going to have to look for something in the news, something that's happening this week, to say, oh, that's why it narrowed.
What do you think they're going to say?
Well, Trump has handed it to them.
What they're going to say is that Trump did a lot more campaigning, And they might even say that what the media will call an illegitimate story, which is the Hunter Biden laptop stuff and whatever connections they have with China and Ukraine.
And the media is going to say those are the things.
Well, yeah, Trump did campaign more, but also there was that dirty trick he did by trying to tie Hunter to his father as if they were connected.
They're connected.
And that'll be the official story.
And the public will, at least half of the public, will believe that's what happened.
They'll think the polls were correct.
Something happened that was a dirty trick.
Darn that Trump with his dirty tricks and Hunter's laptop.
It changed the vote at the last minute, plus his extra effort did make a difference.
And I guess it's because he didn't care that people got killed.
Poor Joe Biden...
He could never match what Trump was doing because unlike Trump, the uncaring monster that he is, Joe Biden cares.
And he cares so much that he's not going to campaign very hard because if he did, people might get infected.
So he cares.
He doesn't want to infect you.
So what could he do?
He couldn't match what Trump was doing because he's not a monster.
He's not a monster.
What choice did he have?
Because Democrats love people.
They don't want to kill people.
They love you.
Not like these monsters wearing their red hats and driving their pickup trucks all over Texas.
Not like them at all.
So that's the story you're going to get.
But here's the punchline of it all.
And if this doesn't make you laugh, you're dead inside.
All right? If you don't think this next part is funny...
You're in the wrong place.
You're watching the wrong Periscope.
So, many of you know Jimmy Wales.
Jimmy Wales is one of the founders, or the founder, I don't know how many there were, of Wikipedia.
Now, I've communicated with Jimmy a few times on various Wikipedia-related things, such as correcting the fine people hoax.
By the way, Wikipedia, you know, there was a big...
Battle with the Trump supporters and the Democrats to get the Wikipedia page on the Find People hoax to correctly say that it's a hoax.
And for a while it looked like we were winning to get the actual accurate story on there.
But I checked out a little while ago and I think what they did was they wrote it so confusingly that you can't kind of tell what's going on.
So you're not really sure...
Did they call it out as a hoax?
Was it a hoax or not a hoax?
So the final refuge of the people who are essentially called out for spreading the fine people hoax, their last play, and you saw this with, was it PolitiFact, the fact-checking group?
Instead of just fact-checking it as a hoax, which it is, and it's obvious, and you just have to read the transcript, it's obviously a hoax, Instead of fact-checking it like they fact-check everything else, they just decided to show you something long and confusing so that they didn't have to fact-check it.
I mean, it's outrageously bold what they do.
So Wikipedia is now just a confusing page on that.
So you can't really tell was it a hoax or not a hoax.
Anyway, but Jimmy himself, I've communicated a few times on Twitter...
And he's a nice guy, and I like him, but he's very anti-Trump.
So I'm very pro-Jimmy Wales and pro-Wikipedia, even if you're not.
I know some of you are going to be like, Wikipedia, all that news is left-leaning fakeness.
But I think Wikipedia is actually a national treasure.
Even with its flaws, everything is flawed, but even with its flaws, I think Wikipedia is a national treasure.
And I like Jimmy Wells.
But this story is funny.
So Jimmy sees one of my tweets about the polls being fake and Trump going to win.
And He said that...
Where's his exact tweet?
So he tweeted back at me.
I'll give you his exact tweet.
He said, or...
So he's saying, instead of my view that the polls are fake, he goes, or what if, as seems infinitely more likely and plausible...
All right, so now Jimmy is going to tell us what is infinitely more likely and plausible...
Then my hypothesis that the polls are fake because people are lying to the pollsters.
He goes, isn't it infinitely more likely and plausible the polls are not fake and Trump is about to lose?
Given that you have zero evidence of fakery, he says to me.
Now, do I have zero evidence of fakery?
So here's the funny part.
So I pinned it to my Twitter feed with a retweet in which I asked my followers to write into the comments whether or not they personally have lied to pollsters.
How do you think that went?
So for your entertainment pleasure, you know, after this Periscope, check out my pinned tweet at And now,
I will grant you, I will grant you that my You know, comments within a tweet are certainly not a statistical fact of any kind.
I will grant you that the people who follow me on Twitter are far more likely to answer that way.
I'll grant you all of that.
But the funny part is that in Jimmy's world and his bubble, and we're all in bubbles, right?
He's not the only person in a bubble.
But in his bubble, There is no evidence for this.
There's no evidence that people are lying to pollsters.
And I'm going to tell you, nobody knows for sure how this election goes.
Could I be wrong? Sure.
Sure, I can be wrong.
I think Trump has it locked down now.
But I can be wrong. We can all be wrong.
But I'll tell you one thing I'm sure of.
There's plenty of evidence that people have lied to pollsters.
Don't know how many, but there's plenty of evidence.
And certainly, anecdotally, just if you're looking at the crowd sizes and everything else, it would seem that way.
All right. Are you ready for the...
Well, I'm going to give you the good news first.
So you saw the Arizona poll numbers where Trump just flipped it.
Trump just went from way down to way up in Arizona.
Now, do you think that's because people changed their minds?
No. It's not because anybody changed their minds in the last week in Arizona.
That didn't happen.
People either started answering the polls accurately Which would be hilarious in itself.
Imagine if the only time you answered the poll accurately was a couple of days before the vote, the election.
That would be almost as good as waiting, you know, as the Democrats finding out after election day that people had lied.
But doing it like the day before the vote to make them extra scared?
It's like, yeah, actually, I am going to vote for Trump.
So I don't know if anybody did that.
I'm just saying it would be funny if people had decided to answer honestly only once and only the week before the actual election.
I have no evidence that that happened, to Jimmy's point.
But it'd be funny if it did.
So you've got that going well.
You've got these gigantic...
Did you see the crowd in Pennsylvania for Trump?
It was crazy.
It was crazy.
But here's the most fun part.
Biden took his little douchebag bus to Texas.
How do you think Biden's little douchebag tour bus did in Texas?
Well, it turns out that it was surrounded by pickup trucks with American flags and ran them out of Texas.
Now, I'm laughing about it while not encouraging this behavior.
I do not encourage anybody to run anybody out of any state, much less a presidential candidate out of Texas.
But I can't say it's not funny.
And by the way, I believe the Biden campaign is exaggerating...
How much pressure these trucks that were following the bus through Texas, I think they're exaggerating how much danger that was.
I think they're trying to say that they tried to crowd them off the road or something like that.
I don't believe any of that stuff.
But they did turn the little douchebag Biden bus into a Trump rally, because there are little buses in the middle But it's surrounded by this sea of Trump supporting trucks with flags.
And it was such a perfect sort of Texas thing that they literally, instead of getting on horses and running after the bad guys, it was like they just got in their pickup trucks and sort of surrounded the candidate and Gently guided him out of their state.
All right, so that was funny.
All right, here's the scariest thing you're going to hear today.
I'm trying to decide if I'm going to make this an actual prediction because I feel like I could predict it, but I don't want it to happen.
And I don't like to predict things that I don't want to happen because I feel like, you know, you can sort of help cause them to happen by predicting it.
But I think there's a really high chance that the following will happen.
And it goes like this.
You have noticed that the corporate media can make entire national stories disappear.
Have you not watched this?
You watched them make the fine people hoax a national story that didn't even happen.
And you've watched them make lots of hoax-related stories about The president recommending drinking bleach, you know, just crazy stories that you know they just made up, and half the country believed.
But more scary than that is that they can make up just a story on a nothing, such as the Russia collusion hoax.
It was made up on a nothing, and half of the country still believes that Trump did collude with Russia.
Which has been shown to have no evidence whatsoever.
So we know that the media can just change reality for half of the country.
What happens if the media just decides to say Biden won the election when he didn't?
Now, the first thing you're going to say to me, because this would be your first reaction, is, well, Scott, there's a vote that, you know, We're going to have a vote count.
No matter how long it takes, we're going to have a final vote, and one of them is going to have more votes, according to the electoral college.
So this isn't the sort of thing that the media could just make disappear.
You can't make an election disappear, right?
It's just too big, too much objective data.
Everybody in the world is watching.
So under those conditions, The mainstream media can't just make up a reality and sell it to you, can they?
And the answer is yes, they can.
The media has the power, as of today, to do the following.
Trump wins the election, and the media can say that Biden won and sell it.
They can do that.
They do have the power, and they've proved it by testing small.
They can make you believe the Covington kids were bad for a week.
They can make you believe any hoax.
They can make you believe that things happened that didn't happen.
And half of the country believes it.
So now you say to yourself, but still, Scott, it's going to be objectively true that somebody won or somebody didn't.
The Supreme Court is going to rule, maybe.
They might get involved.
And then there'll be a ruling.
And that's going to be Black and white.
You know, this is one case, Scott, Scott, Scott, where you're not going to have these two movies on one screen.
You're going to have one president when it's done.
Everybody will see all the data.
We'll all have the same information.
That's when reality will converge into one thing we all see.
Maybe. That's one way it could go.
And certainly I hope it goes that way.
But let me suggest the following.
We know that this vote is going to be contentious and contended.
Meaning that no matter who wins, see if you would agree with this, no matter who wins, the other side is going to say it was rigged.
Right? Is there any chance that's not going to happen?
Do you see any possibility, no matter who wins, do you see any possibility that the other team won't have an argument Might be a good argument, might be a bad argument, you might agree with it, you might not, but there will be an argument that the other side actually won.
We've never quite had that before, except in the Gore vs.
Bush days, when we were a little less divided and the Supreme Court could just settle it and we would go on with life.
We're not in that place anymore.
It is entirely possible...
And at the moment, it's slightly more likely than the other alternatives that the following will happen.
Trump will win according to the things we can count.
The Democrats will claim that Biden actually won because of this or that irregularity or something.
Got counted wrong or there was voter suppression or the wrong ballots got not counted in the wrong state or something.
So we're going to have...
Two completely different election outcomes reported by the two different medias.
I feel like that's going to happen.
More likely than not.
Now the alternative is a landslide by one or the other candidates.
I think there's more chance of a Trump landslide, but...
If you had to go with the odds, you'd say it's going to be close no matter what it is, and votes will be trickling in that could change the outcome for weeks.
I mean, that's possible. So, what happens to the United States if the media presents us with two movies and they won't back off?
Could Biden's people actually move into the White House, having lost the election, In terms of number of votes and according to the Electoral College.
Could Biden and his people actually just pretend they won and have half of the country so sure it was true that they acted as if Biden won?
Yup. Completely feasible.
Now what happens if Biden's people show up with the moving trucks and they pull up to the White House And Trump is still there because he thinks he won.
And the people sitting in the moving truck outside think they won.
What happens? Do you call the military?
If Trump said, okay, military, or whatever security for the White House, go throw those movers out.
They can't be moving stuff into the White House.
They lost the election.
So tell them they can't come in.
What if they try?
Is there anybody whose job it is to arrest people who believe they won the election from moving into the White House, which they believe they rightfully won?
Think about that.
You could actually have the moving truck for Biden, you know, figuratively speaking, a moving truck, pulling up to the White House with Trump sitting there saying, you didn't win, and the entire mainstream media saying, yeah, Biden won.
Biden won. When are you moving out?
What do you mean Trump won?
That didn't happen. Biden won.
When are you moving out? And as crazy as this seems, that's where we're heading.
In other words, I'm not saying that's where it's going to happen because, you know, there could be lots of twists and turns.
There could be that landslide, like I said.
But I feel like it's a 60% chance, a 60% chance that Biden and Trump will both be claiming victory and the respective medias will be backing them.
And we actually won't have one president.
We'll have two.
And it might be like Venezuela, where Biden becomes, he thinks he's president.
And starts acting like president from his house.
Like Venezuela.
In Venezuela, they had the president in exile, or whatever it is, and then the acting president.
But sort of like, depending who you talk to, one of them was president or the other.
We're kind of heading for that.
Now somebody said the Supreme Court will settle it.
That was before this Supreme Court.
Because this Supreme Court doesn't have the credibility of prior Supreme Courts because it's so heavily conservative at this point.
So the left part of the country is not as primed as they ever have been to accept a Supreme Court decision, even if they used to.
This time feels different.
So anyway, there's some possibility that we'll have two presidents for a while.
That'll be weird. Which one are you going to obey?
If you're wondering how that will be resolved, I don't know.
How do you resolve that?
That'll be hard to resolve.
Here's a reason that there might not be violence after the election.
Are you ready? One reason there might not be violence is that we won't know who won.
Right? Because if, let's say on election day, the election was called for Trump, and let's say the whole country agreed that, okay, he won by so much, he really did win.
In that case, you would certainly see mass unrest, because that's the trigger.
Everybody's waiting for the starting gun.
All right, wait till Trump gets named the president.
Go. But what if the news is we were not sure who's president?
Do you still have a riot?
Because you don't even know if you won or you lost.
You're like, ah, tonight?
Do we riot tonight?
Now, they might do sort of, you know, a kind of a riot where they're just supporting their candidate.
That would be, you know, there'd be enough trouble from that.
But it's not going to be the full energy riot as if you thought you lost.
That would be a different level of energy.
So it's possible that drawing out the result is the very best thing that could happen accidentally.
Because if you draw it out, you're going to take all that energy that would have been concentrated on the day after the election, or election night actually, and You take all that energy and you just sort of spread it out over a few weeks.
It's like, ah, we don't know who won.
I'm really angry unless I'm not.
I really hate what happened unless I don't.
I'm really going to be angry tomorrow unless I get some more data.
It could be the weirdest self-canceling problems because you've got two problems, right?
One is you're not going to be sure who got elected.
And then the second problem is unrest in the streets.
What if the fact that we don't know who got elected takes all the energy out of the protest?
Now, it's not going to take it all out.
There will definitely be protests.
There will definitely be people in the streets, no matter what.
It doesn't matter which way it goes.
There's going to be people in the streets.
But I feel as if it's not going to be anything like a civil war.
And the reason is that the Republicans don't want it to be.
They don't want it to be.
You would need two sides that want to fight to have a real fight.
The Republicans would rather just follow the rules and not fight.
But suppose it came to it.
It came down to it. If it came down to it, and I don't want to put this in...
I don't want to act as if this is something I want to happen...
So frame this with the idea that nobody wants the following thing to happen.
Probably there's a mass casualty event in our future.
Not right away, but if you get enough people this worked up, sooner or later you're going to get somebody who has the wherewithal and the craziness to do something really, really bad in a large crowd of people.
So that might take some of the steam out of the protests.
So one way it could go is a mass casualty event that just makes everybody else stay home.
We don't want that to happen, but I'd say that's in the top ten possibilities, a mass casualty event.
It's probably in the top five, I would guess.
And for that to happen, I think the left would have to kill more people.
So if the left get a little bit more deadly after the election, then the odds of a mass casualty event which killed mostly Antifa and Black Lives Matter goes way up.
But not unless they get pretty bad.
Worse than they have been.
On the good news...
Oh, by the way, the Trafalgar group, Robert Caheli, I guess he's the head of that, And he called Trump as the winner in 2016, and he was correct, and he is calling Trump the winner again now.
So the one guy who got, well, a few people got it right, but one of the few people who got it right is calling it for Trump again.
So that means something.
Here's a little tidbit of interest.
Did you know that black and Hispanic young women now attend college at a higher rate than white young men?
Interesting. This is more to my hypothesis that the Republican Party is becoming a male, let's say, male-focused or oriented or biased.
I guess biased would be a way.
The Republican Party is more male-biased and I think will start to absorb African American men.
You're already seeing that. Whereas the Democratic Party is more of a party of women Which will absorb women and men who think women should be in charge, meaning that they would rather not be in charge themselves.
So I think that's where it's going.
Long term, the political parties will be separated by gender more than ethnicity.
That is my prediction.
That the black voters will split, and the males will go Republican, the women will stay Democrat, and that that will be a trend to the future.
That's what I predict. All right.
There's another theory about why the polls are so off, and that is the revolution theory.
And the theory is that the pollsters are part of a mass...
effort to make it look as though Trump stole the election.
Somebody says that I should look no further than my own chat as to whether Republicans want to follow the rules.
Well, I would say if you look at what the Republicans have done so far, there's a pretty strong trend toward them following the rules.
I think that's safe to say.
So why would that change?
Such speculation about the White House moving in.
I'm just looking at your comments here for a moment.
Well, of course it's speculation.
That's what we're doing here. All right.
There's another article in the news suggesting that masks...
Although a mask, of course, cannot keep virus from getting to you completely...
But there's mounting evidence that the amount of virus you're exposed to can determine how sick you get or even if you get sick.
So if the masks did nothing but reduce the viral load, even if you got the virus every single time...
Let me give you an example.
Let's say you knew that every time you came in contact with another masked person and you had a conversation, That if one of you had been infected, that the odds of your coronavirus, even if both of you have masks, if the odds of your coronavirus from your infected body getting over to the other person, let's say it's 100%.
Let's say if you're in a room with an infected person who's shedding virus, Your odds of getting it in a five-minute conversation, even if both of you have masks, let's say the odds of some of that virus reaching you are 100%.
Because that's probably true, right?
Because the virus is aerosol.
It's coming out of the sides of your mask, because when you exhale, it's going somewhere, right?
It's got to go somewhere. So the room would fill up with virus.
The other person would be exposed to it.
I feel like you could say that the odds of the other person being exposed to at least one virus particle, if that's what they're called, is 100%.
Probably, right? Because the virus is sort of floating around wherever you are if you're infected.
But because we know that the amount of the virus is very important to whether you get infected in the first place, and if you do get infected, it's a really big deal in terms of how bad it becomes.
So if you get a big dose in the beginning, you're going to get much sicker, the scientists say.
So here's the question.
If the mask does not keep you from getting the virus, could it keep you from getting it worse?
And the scientists are suggesting they don't have a controlled study of this, but they're suggesting that the common sense of it, the logic, the best medical thinking about it, is that at the very least, it would reduce the amount of virus that hits the other person.
All right. Somebody says, I'm very happy today because it's only two days until the Trumpers are silenced and it's game over.
You know, this really isn't the election where you want to be overconfident.
Did you learn nothing from 2016?
You know, as a Trump supporter, even I learned something from 2016, which is you don't really want to be that person Who the day before the election is a little too confident?
Now, I'm telling you my prediction, but of course we're human beings.
Anybody could be wrong.
If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll just deal with it.
It's not going to ruin my day.
It won't even ruin my day, much less my life.
So I hope that most of you can be similarly Relaxed about this.
I don't think there's any chance that Republicans are going to riot if they don't get their way, as long as the election is fair.
So what are you going to do after Election Day when there is unrest everywhere?
What are you going to do?
How will you stay safe?
And here is what I suggest.
Number one, First of all, if Biden wins in a landslide, there won't be much social unrest, probably.
That's what all the smart people say.
I think it's still possible that the looters and protesters just want to loot and protest, so there might be some of it anyway.
But if Biden gets elected in a landslide...
Probably, I would agree with most of the smart people who say there would be less rioting.
But I think Trump is going to win.
So, how should you prepare?
Well, definitely you should have guns and ammo.
And that's just a good general Second Amendment advice.
So, it's not even advice specific to this situation.
Just in general...
You should be prepared for whatever comes your way.
But keep it in your house, right?
I would not go out on the porch with your weapon.
I would not display my weapon.
Unless your house is under attack, of course, and then all bets are off.
You have to do what you have to do if your house is actually under attack.
But be careful, right?
Just be cool and try to get through the first couple of weeks.
The first couple of weeks could be rough.
But just try to be a good winner.
Try to be a good winner if you win.
And if you lose, try to be a good loser.
Because that's one thing we can control, right?
You can't control everything, but you can control if you go crazy.
You can control if you act impulsively.
You can control how you influence other people by your attitudes, etc.
So influence what you can influence, and don't worry about the rest.
I don't think there's any chance that the United States will be dissolved in the next year because of unrest.
I put the odds of that at zero.
Zero.
You have a very biased view, all of us do, a biased view of how many people are marching and how many people want to overthrow the government.
It's a really small number.
The rest of us are just not making noise.
So it feels like there's a much bigger movement than there is.
It's small. And we are strong and well-armed and quite determined to still be the United States by the end of the year.
So I make this commitment to all of you.
We will be the United States next year.
We will not go out of business.
We will not have a civil war.
We will not shoot ourselves in the foot.
Maybe a little. We might wound ourselves, but we're not going to kill ourselves.
You will be fine.
The coronavirus won't last forever.
The economy will survive.
Nobody will starve.
It will be uncomfortable, and a lot of people are going to be suffering, but nobody's going to starve in this country.
