All Episodes
Nov. 2, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
53:37
Episode 1173 Scott Adams: Democrats Cover Their Tracks and Prepare for Coup 2.0 While Texans Reject the Biden Bus and Hoaxes Fall Like Rain

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Shy Trump supporters...58,000 of them Punishing and re-educating Trump supporters if Biden wins Coup2 Plan: Winning after losing the electoral college Will Supreme Court vote to make itself relevant? FBI investigating Biden bus incident Mask study says 80% reduction of respiratory illness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right. I think I might be live now on both YouTube and Periscope.
Thanks for coming. Thanks for getting in here.
I appreciate it every time you show up.
Well, tomorrow's the big day.
We've got a lot to talk about, don't we?
I see some people helpfully suggesting restream.
See this $13,000 equipment behind me?
Trust me when I say I have tested every live streaming option, and I have settled on the only one that works, and it only works 80% of the time.
All of the other options are more like 30% of the time they work, and this one's 80%, so I'll keep that.
All right, but first, what's the most important thing we have to do?
Well, we need this simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein or a canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Oh, yeah.
I feel the poles begin to converge.
With one sip. That's all it took.
So, let me tell you why I think this Periscope works.
I think this Periscope, meaning coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip, is that there's something that I do differently from other people who livestream.
Do any of you know what that is?
I'm just curious if it's obvious to you What I do differently.
And I will tell you, I'll give you a moment to see if you can think of it on your own, but here's what I do differently.
I don't treat you like an audience.
I treat it like I'm talking to one person.
Now, if you watch the news and turn on the television, your news presenters, they act like they're talking to a crowd.
They're talking to an audience.
And the way you present to an audience is really different than the way you would talk to one person.
Now, it's not exactly like talking to one person.
You know, it's a little modified.
But I think that's what I brought to this.
The live streaming world is talking to you one-on-one.
Even though I know there are more than one of you, I hope.
All right. So, how many of you have heard the podcast just came out with Sam Harris talking to Andrew Sullivan?
You really have to watch this.
You've got to watch it or listen to it.
And here's why it's so fascinating.
So both Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan are very flexible thinkers, meaning that they're not necessarily just going to agree with a side unless there are reasons.
So they're two very rational people who are not stuck in some kind of dogma.
So much so that neither of them are fans of President Trump, to say the least.
They're big critics of President Trump.
But because they're also smart, rational people, they say on the podcast that neither of them believed the fine people hoax.
They didn't believe it.
So that gives you an idea that they're capable of looking at, you know, data and facts and knowing that that matters.
But despite that, despite that mental, let's say, flexibility, mental acuity that they both have, clearly both brilliant people.
You can't take that away from them.
But listening to them talk, and I want to make sure that I'm saying this not as an entertaining insult.
Because we're sort of in that mode where insulting each other over our politics is just sort of entertaining, right?
A really good string of insults against your political nemesis is just sort of fun and entertaining.
But that's not what I'm doing here.
So this next thing I say, do not put your entertainment filter on it.
This is actually, literally...
I'm not putting any hyperbole on this.
When I listen to them talk, it sounds like a festival of mental illness.
Do you have that?
And I have to wonder, when the left hears Trump supporters talk, do they have the same feeling?
Now, I'm not talking about, you know, on the news, both sides like to do the trick where they'll find the least informed voter from the other side, and they'll interview the person who doesn't know anything, and they'll try to sell that as representing all Democrats or all Republicans.
But, and of course, they don't represent them, they're just individuals.
But When I listen to that, it just sounds like they have some actual mental issues that they're working through.
And I don't mean permanent ones.
Andrew Sullivan admitted on the podcast that after the 2016 election, he had clinical depression.
And he actually had to seek treatment for a mental condition that he attributes to the election, to Trump getting elected.
That's pretty serious.
This whole mental illness thing over Trump is completely real.
When Trump derangement syndrome was first bandied about, and I didn't invent it, but I was one of the earlier adopters of that phrase, and people would say, well, you know, that's just something you say.
It's just something you say to sort of diminish your opponents.
But it isn't. It's not that at all.
And I don't think that I've heard, I've seen this kind of insanity since Obama was president.
Now, when Obama was president, there were a lot of Republicans, and you know this is true, who had a little bit of Obama derangement syndrome.
It was a thing. But I've never seen it at this level.
This is a whole new level.
But the reasons and the things that stand out to me as signaling mental distress as opposed to good rational thinking, which both are very capable of doing, as I've said, is that, at least in Sam's case, and I think Andrew's too, they focus primarily on the internal thoughts of Trump.
So instead of talking about, I don't like this policy or that policy, there's some of that as well.
But it seems to be primarily focused on him as a person.
And Sam says directly that Trump's character is not just a quirky character that you like or you don't like, but rather it's an existential threat kind of a bad character.
Somebody who's such a bad person that they could end the world without even meaning to do it.
They're so bad. Now, that was the sort of conversation that made a little bit of sense in 2016, because we had not yet seen what a President Trump would do.
But after you've watched him for four years, don't you say you either want more of that Or you don't.
You kind of know what you're getting at this point, don't you?
You know, in my case, I got pretty much exactly what I expected with one exception.
This might be true for you, too.
Everything that Trump did and didn't do was pretty much what I thought he would do and what he wouldn't do.
The wildcard was COVID and coronavirus, because nobody really saw that coming.
I mean, some of the experts predicted it, but you and I didn't see it coming.
And so if you had asked me in 2016, hey, do you think Trump's going to be the best choice for handling this coronavirus?
I probably would have said, I don't know.
Peace me. I mean, I've never been in a coronavirus pandemic.
I don't know who's the best choice for that.
I have no idea. But I would say that maybe he wasn't.
Maybe somebody else would have handled it better.
I don't think that that's demonstrated yet.
There are things that I would have done differently, things you would have done differently, but that's different from saying that we would have gotten a better outcome.
Don't quite know that.
We know we might have done things differently.
But anyway, so both Andrew and Sam think that Trump's narcissism and his lack of empathy and he only acts for himself and all of those things, which are interestingly unprovable, meaning that everything you can measure looks a little bit better for Trump, and all the things that you suspiciously you can't measure How much narcissism is in Trump?
And how much is too much for a leader?
They need a little bit, but how much is too much?
Can't measure anything like that.
So anyway, you have to listen to that podcast.
It is genuinely entertaining, legitimately.
Are you seeing the size of the Trump rally crowds?
I'm kind of blown away by it, aren't you?
I'm not going to list the crowds because I think he had five of them yesterday.
He's got five more today.
Somebody says in the comments, I meant to say this as well, that Make America Great Again It was a great slogan in 2016.
But of course, the president was playing with turning it into keep America great again, which didn't really fit, right?
Keep America great.
I don't know. It's just not very inspiring.
But now that the coronavirus hit, Make America Great Again now clearly means before coronavirus.
It's harder to put that historical, you know, is it a secret racist dog whistle or something?
Because we all want America to go back where it was, 2019.
Pretty much everybody wants at least that much change, if not more.
So I think Make America Great Again turned into the greatest slogan of all time for the second time in a row, but for different reasons.
The environment served up the perfect situation.
Anyway, when you watch the Trump crowds, it's hard to imagine him losing, isn't it?
Can your brain wrap its head around the fact that you look at the Biden crowds, and you look at the Kamala Harris crowds, and then you look at the Trump crowds?
It's really hard to believe that he's going to lose with that much energy.
Now, I know what the polls say, etc.
Brett Baer was on, I guess, Tucker's show last night on Fox, and he was saying that the talk of a Biden blowout has calmed down a little bit.
You know, a week ago, two weeks ago, people were talking about a Biden landslide, and it's just all Biden all the way.
You don't hear as much of that today, do you?
It seems as if, right on schedule, and exactly as I predicted publicly a number of times, others did as well, that the polls are fake, and And that in order to maintain their credibility after the election, because they can't keep that big margin, you'd see some of the polls start to shrink and close because they don't want to look so wrong when the final vote comes out.
Sure enough, you're seeing a number of polls shrink.
Then we're also seeing, I went over to MSNBC because I wanted to see how they were dealing with things lately.
And over on MSNBC they've got an interesting article that I just tweeted.
That talks about the nightmare scenario where, uh-oh, wait a minute, there's actually a path for Trump to win.
And I don't know if they would have had the same nature of stories three weeks ago when they were trying to get donations and they were trying to get everybody fired up, but now they can say it.
So now they need to do a little bit of the cats on the roof situation.
Yeah, somebody in the comments is saying 58,000 people in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Whoever wins Pennsylvania will probably win the election.
Trump got 58,000 people to show up in Pennsylvania.
If you're Biden and you know you need Pennsylvania to win, how does that make you feel?
Do you feel like those poll results that used to show you in charge, do you feel like they're still good?
What about that margin of error?
Brett Baer was asked about, you know, why it could be that the polls are shrinking.
Now, Brett, of course, is not an opinion guy.
He's a news guy, which we appreciate about him, which is exactly why he's awesome, is that he does a really good job of keeping his opinion out of his public statements.
You know, it just sticks to the news.
And he was opining...
And this is fair.
That as people get closer to Election Day, they stop thinking of it being just about anti-Trump, and they see a stark choice.
Now it's Biden or Trump.
It's not just no Trump or Trump.
Biden or Trump.
And that doesn't look so good, maybe.
So that's, you know, Brett had that hypothesis.
There might be some of that.
You know, I made the same prediction a year ago.
That when you're talking about a generic Democrat running against Trump, that generic Democrat always looks great.
But wait till you get an actual Democrat, and wait till Trump sinks his pitbull teeth into that Democrat and starts reframing them and turning them into his chew toy, which is what he did with Biden.
So at this point, it's a real choice against a real person, and that real person is Biden, and it's not quite the blowout scenario, perhaps.
But I think most of the, correct me if I'm wrong, but are not all of the swing states within the margin of error?
Can somebody do me a fact check on that?
I just made a claim.
I think it's close to true, but it might not be true, that all of the swing states are within the margin of polling error.
Somebody do a fact check on that.
Or it might be true that at least there are enough of them within the margin of error that Trump has a path if he got all of those.
Now, let's talk about that.
I would like to suggest...
That the idea that shy Trump supporters don't exist or that they've been accounted for is wrong for a really good reason.
I'll say this clearer than I've said it in the past because I want to get on record before the election just in case I'm right.
And it goes like this.
The shy Trump supporter is the one who doesn't want their name associated with Trump because it might be a reputational problem.
And I've seen some Democrats argue against it like this.
Hey, look at those rallies.
It looks to me like Trump supporters are proud to put on their MAGA hat and shout their support for the president.
So why do you think there are shy ones?
This is somebody who's never met a Republican or a conservative and is just so in their bubble that that comment made sense.
Let me explain it to you.
If you put 58,000 Trump supporters in the same place, it's safe to put your hat on.
There are 58,000 Trump supporters where you are.
You're surrounded by them.
You can put your MAGA hat on.
Nobody's gonna punch you.
Totally safe.
Nobody's gonna dox you.
Nobody's gonna take your picture with the intention of ruining your life.
Of course. Of course the rallies are going to be lit.
And they're going to be extra lit because it's all the people who couldn't show their support outside of the safe space of 58,000 or some number of Trump supporters.
Now, the other argument I heard, which was pure stupid, there are very few things that you can say, all right, you know, this is actually just stupid.
Most of the time you say, well, I have a different opinion or I have different data or Or I've considered more context than you have.
Rarely can you look at somebody's public opinion and say, um, that one's just stupid.
And it goes like this.
I don't know the name of the person who said it.
It was on MSNBC, I think.
No, it was CNN, I think.
And it was some expert who said the following.
Expert meaning pundit, not really expert.
But said the following.
That there probably is no shy Trump supporter...
Because the automated polls get about the same response as the human being poll.
And his thinking was that if a human calls you, you might lie, because you don't want that human to think poorly of you if they're not a Trump supporter.
And you are. So he's saying, well, but you're not going to lie if a computer calls you, because there's no person.
Is that the dumbest analysis you've ever heard in your life?
Has anybody ever heard of databases?
Does anybody...
Is this a pundit?
Is he the only pundit in the world who doesn't understand that if a computer calls you at home, it knows who you are, right?
And it knows who you are, and it's going to attach your opinion to your identity.
And somewhere that's going to be stored in a database.
Now, Trump supporters know that, Because we know what a computer is.
And if a computer calls you and asks you a question, do you think that you're saying something to the computer and then the computer is just flushing it and it stops existing the moment you tell the computer your opinion?
No, nobody thinks that.
They think it gets stored.
So if you really were worried about your reputation or getting on record as being a Trump supporter, and you should, because Democrats are directly, directly, no hinting going on, they're directly saying, maybe we should round up Trump supporters after the election.
They think Biden will win.
And they should be re-educated or punished.
So if you're in the class of people who half of the country, at least people within that half, are talking about finding your name on lists, seeking you out, and punishing you and or re-educating you like a Chinese Uyghur, yeah, you might lie to the computer.
I think you might lie to that computer a little bit.
All right, but here's what the shy Trump support people are missing.
The biggest part of the polling error is not shy Trump supporters.
Okay? And if you thought that I had been saying that, let me modify that now.
It's not the people.
They exist. I'm sure they exist, people who don't want to say the truth.
But there's a much bigger group Of polling liars.
And it's what I'm going to call the world's greatest dad joke.
You've heard me say this before.
Think about it.
Do you think that the...
And of course, Republicans are lying to pollsters like crazy this year.
Like they've never lied before, it's obvious.
Anecdotally, literally thousands of people, thousands, really thousands, of people have tweeted at me saying that they've lied to pollsters.
Now that's just people who tweet at me.
It's not like I did a poll and I scoured the country looking for anybody who lied to a pollster.
Thousands of people have just told me on Twitter, yeah, I lied to them yesterday.
Here's a text where I lied to the computer.
And so I think the much bigger category is the dad joke people.
The ones who aren't necessarily afraid of being on a Trump-supporting list, but they think it would be hilarious, hilarious to see more pictures of that Hillary Clinton supporter screaming at the sky after the result is known.
You know we want to see that.
We do want to see that.
That's a thing.
And the Democrats are completely blind to this.
The Democrats still think that a shy Trump supporter means you don't want to admit that you're a supporter, and they believe that the polls have adjusted to find those people.
So that now the polls have made their corrections.
Well, we're not going to make that mistake again.
And maybe, maybe they won't make that mistake again.
This is a new mistake.
If I'm right, and I feel very confident about this by the way, I feel very confident that the people intentionally lying because they think it's funny, because they think it's funny, is the biggest category.
And if this dad joke lands, and I think it's going to, it's going to be Epic.
It will be the best practical joke of all time.
It will be talked about for hundreds of years.
For hundreds of years, people will look back in history and they'll say, you know, it was the greatest practical joke in history that all the Trump supporters lied to pollsters.
I think that's where it's going.
And the thing that makes it a great dad joke, just in case you're not up on your dad joke humor, is because the left has made it so dangerous to tell your honest opinion if you're a Republican, they've made it dangerous to have free speech.
And so what would be funnier than screwing them with their own rule?
You know that would be fun, right?
Because the rule is you can't say you're a Trump supporter.
Did you make that rule? You didn't make that rule.
That is not your rule.
You're simply following the rules.
You're just following the rules.
And the rules say...
You don't want to say you're a Trump supporter if anybody asks.
I mean, we've been trained to do that, right?
So that's what makes it extra, super delicious, is that we would just be giving people what they asked for.
Demanded, I would say.
They demand that you not show any support for Trump.
They demand it. Well, be careful what you ask for.
Because you might get exactly what you're asking for.
And I think that's coming down the line.
Now, let me say this.
Somebody will be right and somebody will be wrong.
Some buddies will be right and wrong after the election.
You could be surprised.
I could be surprised.
The Democrats could be surprised.
Surprise is a thing, right?
You can all be surprised.
Personally, my head isn't going to explode no matter what happens.
And I hope that you're all at least mentally prepared that anything could happen.
I mean, just anything. Let me tell you the coup two plan.
Coup two is the second coup attempt, which I think is well underway.
And, of course, I'm speaking somewhat figuratively, or am I? Or am I? Is it a literal coup, or is it just sort of a lot of people who know what to do?
Was the Russia collusion plot, was that an actual, literally a coup attempt, or was it just a whole bunch of people who kind of knew what to do?
You know what I mean? Because the line between a conspiracy, an actual coup, and just a bunch of people doing what they think they ought to do, it's kind of a fine line.
You know, how many phone calls and meetings do you have to have before your bunch of people knowing just what to do It turns into an actual conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.
But here's what's shaping up.
Number one, let me say, the big picture is I think Democrats have two ways to win the presidency.
One way would be to get more votes in the Electoral College.
So they could win it fair and square, that's one way.
But there's a second way the Democrats could win the presidency that is the opposite of fair and square, And they have put all of those pieces into play.
So the chessboard is set up right now for the Democrats for a second way to win the presidency after losing the Electoral College vote.
And it goes like this.
Number one, make sure that your polls running up to the election are so fake that if the actual results are different from the polls, you could say, well, obviously...
This election was rigged by the Republicans or there was voter suppression or there was something illegitimate because it's obvious.
Look at what the polls said and then look how the vote went.
They're so different. It must be an illegitimate election for Trump.
So that's the first thing.
Make the polls look fake so you'll have an excuse later to say that the election was fake.
The next thing you want to do is accuse Trump of voter suppression and accuse Republicans of voter suppression.
So you want to get that story out there.
You don't want the first time the public hears about it to be after Election Day.
You want the public to expect Republicans to cheat so that if they've got anything that looks like it happened, they're already primed.
It's like, oh, I was expecting that to happen and there's my evidence.
So the burden of evidence can go way, way, way down if you've primed people to expect it to happen, because then confirmation bias is as good as evidence, as long as people are primed, and they have primed people for that.
So let's say that Trump wins according to the vote as it's counted.
They can claim it was rigged, and then let's say it goes to the Supreme Court.
You'd expect that to happen, right?
So it goes to the Supreme Court and let's say that the Supreme Court, wanting to protect its own credibility, doesn't want Biden to get elected because Biden will pack the court and make it basically a non-credible institution that was in the pocket of the presidency and the Senate because they can just add people to get any result they want.
So will the Supreme Court vote To make themselves irrelevant?
Because that's what backing a Biden presidency would do.
It would make the Supreme Court irrelevant.
Or it would risk it.
We don't know exactly what Biden will do.
He says he's going to do a commission.
But what if Kamala Harris is the president?
That could happen pretty quickly after a Biden win.
So you would expect the Supreme Court, not only because they're a conservative majority, But also because they don't want to make themselves obsolete, that they would back President Trump.
So whatever the question is, you know, does this vote count, or can these votes be counted, or is the election done, or do we have to wait?
Whatever the questions are that go to the Supreme Court, let's say they go for Trump, which seems reasonable.
So now the Democrats would have set the table by the fake polls They would tell people that Trump's going to cheat.
They would tell people that the Supreme Court is not legitimate because it's packed with conservatives.
And now, what would they do?
Well, that's not enough, right?
You need a little extra.
That wouldn't be enough to pull off a coup.
Because people would still say, well, you know, the Supreme Court said it, so I don't like it, but I'm going to live with it.
All right? Here's the other part.
If President Trump travels outside the White House, or he gets, let's say there's too much of a threat, and he has to leave.
Let's say 10,000 Antifa supporters surround the White House.
Could happen, right? Could you imagine 10,000, 20,000 angry protesters surrounding the White House?
Two scenarios.
One scenario is that the president or the first family are in the White House.
The other scenario is that he's on the road and he's traveling.
If the angry crowd reaches the defenses and starts taking a move on the White House to actually occupy it...
If the president or the first family are in the White House, you would expect that the security, which would be quite extreme, I would imagine, could shoot to kill.
Am I right? Now test all of these assumptions, because I may be wrong in my assumptions.
I'd need somebody like a Dan Bongino, somebody who actually knows what they're talking about, to tell me if my next assumption is correct.
And it goes like this. If the crowd of protesters outnumbers the security forces, it doesn't matter how much the security forces fight them with batons, if they're outnumbered, they're outnumbered.
So if you get enough protesters without deadly weapons, they can just sort of overwhelm the defense of the White House.
Now, if the president is in the White House, the security can start shooting.
Am I wrong about that?
Because that would be an actual risk against the president, and I think that would be a real risk.
They wouldn't have to shoot everybody, but they'd probably shoot a few people.
And that would probably be enough to stop the attack.
So am I right so far that if the president's there, they would use deadly force to keep the crowd away from the president?
Now, suppose the security says, we have to get you out of here, Mr.
President, and putting you in the underground bunker isn't good enough, because you don't want to be in the bunker below the White House if the White House is occupied.
That'd be the worst place to be.
So we're going to have to get you out of here.
Get on this helicopter.
Helicopter goes. Or let's say the president was just on the road for business.
If the White House is unoccupied by the first family, and let's say the people who work there know enough to get out of there, so it's basically an empty White House, would the security forces protecting it be allowed to use deadly force to protect an empty building?
You see where I'm going here?
I feel as though if the building is ever empty during whatever problems we have after the election, if it ever becomes empty of the first family, That the crowd, if it's big enough, and it might take 10,000, 20,000 people or whatever, if it's big enough, could they occupy the White House?
Because I don't see American security services slaying a bunch of people for property.
Am I right? We don't see them killing people to protect property.
And as valuable as the White House is, if there's nobody in it, It's property.
So, does Antifa know what I just said?
Yeah, they do. Of course they do.
They've been planning for a while.
Do you think that they're going to try to surround the White House if Trump wins?
100%. 100% they're going to do that.
If the president's not there, let's say they occupy the White House, right?
Now, you can imagine that, can't you?
All it would take...
There's a big enough crowd and the first family not being there.
That's all it would take.
Because I don't think we could ever put enough security there to stop 10 or 20,000 people coming over the wall without shooting, without deadly force.
So what happens, and here's the punchline, what happens if the crowd gets control of the White House, the Democrats get the Senate, and They hold the House and the trust of the Supreme Court is diminished.
What can they do then?
All they have to do from that point on is get the mainstream media to say Biden is the president.
That's it. That's it.
And it could be enough.
Because the mainstream media, we've seen that they can brainwash the public into any damn thing.
They would believe anything.
So if Antifa got control of the White House, the media declared that Biden was the president, and he goes back in because Antifa controls the White House, it could get really ugly.
It could. So I would look for where is the president going to spend election night, and I believe he said he might move it to the White House.
And I would think it might be because of that.
Somebody's saying, Scott, nobody's smart.
Listen to you, all in capital.
Nobody's smart listening to you.
Somebody's commenting in all capital letters.
Nobody's smart. Yeah, and if anybody shoots a protester, that's a bad look, as you're saying.
Somebody saying tear gas?
I don't think so. I think that the tear gas wouldn't slow them down.
Somebody says dogs?
Again, not enough of them.
and dogs would be violent.
Somebody says, we've been telling you about the mainstream media for years.
Well, I think we all knew what was going on there.
Militia? No, I don't think there'll be any militias around the White House.
Anyway, let's talk about some other things.
And then the last part of that is the 25th Amendment.
So you could imagine that the Senate and the House, if they were all Democrats, if they had Democrat control, they pushed the 25th Amendment...
Control the White House, do something to get rid of Pence, I suppose, and just pretend that Biden won.
It could happen. I don't think it's going to happen.
I think Trump will win.
I think there will be a legal battle, and then Trump will just be president, and there will be a lot of complaining.
Trump said he plans to claim victory.
Actually, he didn't say this publicly, but there are reports that he's telling confidants...
He'll declare victory on Tuesday night if it looks like he's ahead.
Do you think that's a good idea?
Do you think Trump should declare victory on Tuesday, knowing that there are lots of votes to come in by mail?
Do you think he should declare victory if he's ahead?
Now, of course, the criticism is that that would be a destabilizing thing, and it would be like a dictator trying to take control when he knows that there are more votes coming in and it could change.
Well, I'm going to have to back Trump on this one.
Strategically, he should claim that he won.
If it changes, he can make a second decision.
So you can always make the second decision.
I claimed I won.
More votes came in.
They look like they're credible.
Darn it, I guess I didn't win.
So I concede.
So he can always change his mind.
There's nothing that stops that.
But going first really matters.
So if he claims victory, and the votes temporarily indicate that, whoever goes first in claiming victory has a little bit of an advantage.
Because it's harder to say, no, you didn't, than it is to say, I won.
So if Trump goes first and says, I won, if the numbers support that temporarily, it wouldn't be the final number, I think it's just a good strategy.
Psychologically, to sort of make...
to be first and make the claim and let people argue against it.
The FBI is investigating the Texas incident where Biden's little bus, his Biden bus was surrounded by Trump pickup trucks with flags.
And in at least one case, one of the trucks made contact with a car that might have been a Biden car or something.
So we don't know whose fault that was.
I saw the video of it.
It looked like the truck's fault, but you don't know the whole story.
The video can be misleading.
um So they're investigating that.
But if you're a Trump supporter, how much do you laugh or enjoy the fact that Texas pickup trucks ran Biden's bus out of Texas?
He had to cancel the rest of his stops in Texas.
How much do you like the fact that it happened, even though maybe you don't condone it?
Right? So I would say I don't condone Any kind of dangerous vehicular activity, if there was anything dangerous.
But I enjoy it.
I kind of enjoy the fact that somebody did it.
I just think it's funny that they chased them out of Texas.
I tweeted a new analysis of mask effectiveness.
What do you think you said? So there was a new meta-analysis, which means they looked at a number of existing studies.
And what they did was they said, we have this criteria for which studies we will look at.
So they're not looking at anything from 2020.
They're looking at mask research and studies from before 2020.
And they picked only ones that they had decided there was a criteria that they had decided to Would be a good enough study.
Now the reason you do a meta-analysis is that you don't trust any individual study.
So you're not going to trust any one study.
You're going to look at a bunch of them and see if the bunch of them lean in the same direction or not.
So that's what the meta-study does.
And they did a meta-study, which means it did not include controlled, randomized studies.
It was a number of different things they looked at, different types of studies.
And they came to this conclusion, that the use of masks by healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80%.
80%.
So when they looked at the studies, they say masks work, and not only do they work, they work a lot.
80%. It doesn't matter if you're a healthcare worker or a non-healthcare worker, it works a lot.
So that's what the studies say.
Now, do you believe that somebody else could do another meta-analysis of masks and that their meta-analysis would show exactly the opposite, that masks do not work?
Of course.
I haven't seen one, but can we say with complete confidence that That probably there exists.
Doesn't mean it's right, but probably it exists.
Somebody who did a meta-analysis and found out that if they look at all the good studies, it shows they don't work.
Don't you know that exists?
Now, I'm on the pro-mask side of things in terms of saying that they work.
Whether you should wear them is a freedom question, which is different, but in terms of whether they would work if you wore them, my My common sense, my judgment says almost certainly yes.
Nothing's 100%, but it feels like certainly yes.
So we have one other experiment that gives you a little more information.
South Carolina, without trying to do an A-B test, did an A-B test.
And I've been calling for this before.
I kept saying, where is my city that's just like another city, where one wears masks and one doesn't, and they were in the same place with the virus at the same time, and everything looks demographically similar.
And then you can see, do the mask people get a good result and the non-masks don't?
But you have to be careful about picking an apple and an apple.
So that's always the problem, getting an apple and an apple.
But South Carolina... That's sort of a natural version of this, certainly far short of scientific standard, because you can't really control your comparisons that well.
But, so South Carolina, there were some places where they had mask mandates, and some places they did not.
And here was their result so far.
That the places without a mask mandate, so when they didn't wear masks in South Carolina in some parts, There was over a 30% increase in the coronavirus infections.
So 30% more infections where they didn't wear masks, but where they did wear masks, they saw in overall cases dropped 15%.
Is that convincing?
That's a pretty big effect, right?
The difference between a 30% increase versus a 15% decrease?
That's pretty big. But again, is that a scientific comparison?
No. You would need a lot more of these to be confident that you were seeing something.
All right. So I would say that while we cannot get to mask certainty, I would say that the weight of evidence seems to be in favor of them working somewhat.
All right. Let's talk about some hoaxes.
There's a hoax picture.
Richard Grinnell tweeted this.
Looks like a hoax. Biden wearing a mask in public, but then he's on an airplane talking to somebody not wearing a mask.
The hoax debunkers tell us that the mask-less picture is from 2019.
So that's probably a hoax if you see the maskless and then the mask to Biden.
There's another hoax where Biden, there's a video of Biden forgetting what state he's in, which he's really done a number of times, but this one was edited.
So there's a new one where it looks like he forgot the state, but he didn't.
So those are two things.
All right. And here's the last thing I want to talk about.
So somebody challenged me in comments because I had said, you know, where's a James Comey to talk about the Biden allegations of Hunter Biden and China and Ukraine and all that?
And I had stated that if the FBI or the news had been more forthcoming instead of disappearing that story, that it might have changed the result.
But somebody pointed out, and this was a perfectly good question, that I'm also on the record as saying that when Comey did his press conference in 2016 about Hillary's email, that I've said that didn't change any votes.
So how can I be consistent?
And saying that Comey talking about Hillary's emails didn't change any votes, but I do think that if there had been a Comey talking about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's connection, that that might have changed the vote.
And here's the difference.
Nobody cares about a technical infraction of email servers.
That's sort of just something that people talk about in the right wing.
I've never met any Democrat who cared about Hillary's email server.
Because even if it were true, I guess it's true that she had an email server that violated some regulations or rules or laws or something, it just never rose to the point of being terribly important.
I mean, in my mind, it was very similar to, you know, software packaging taking off the thing and, you know, agreeing to all the software restrictions, but you didn't really.
It's sort of a technical thing.
I don't think it would have moved anybody.
And none of that turned into anything.
In other words, there was nothing on the emails that later turned into something of substance.
So even at the time, even when the story first came out, I said, that's not going to change anything.
People don't care. But a story about somebody being influenced by China...
I feel like that would change votes, whereas an email technical problem, you know, even though there's a real thing to worry about, we never discovered the thing to worry about.
All right, somebody's telling me masks get filled with fungus and bacteria and all that.
Yeah, you know, I'm not discounting the fact that there are some downsides to masks and downsides to shutdowns and downsides to all of that.
I'm just saying that, by and large, if you want to get rid of the pandemic, masks are probably a big part of it.
Let me tell you what I think is the...
The school of the future and what it looks like.
Now that we're doing these terrible Zoom classrooms, you can get a much better idea of what school should look like.
Because once everything breaks, you can start thinking about from scratch.
Here is what school of the future would look like.
Number one, instead of having your teacher, the same one that you would have walked to school and had in a classroom, teaching you over Zoom...
You would have the best teacher in the world teaching everybody.
So there would be one best teacher for geometry and everybody would have that teacher.
Now, it could be one or it could be any best-selling teachers who have created content that might be recorded.
So it doesn't have to be a live teacher.
It could be the best Recorded lesson of a geometry lesson of all time.
And maybe you still need some teacher's assistance to answer questions and stuff.
But imagine it's the best of the best teacher.
How different is that from your average teacher?
And more importantly, how different is that from the bad teacher that they get in the inner city because they don't have a good tax base, can't pay people as much?
It's a big difference.
We are on the cusp of Of an enormous improvement in education, but right now we're captive to the teachers' unions.
So as things stand right now, after the pandemic, we'll go back to the same bad system that has been failing for years of kids being bored and going to class.
So instead, here's what I see as the future.
You will have theatres Instead of classrooms, so it'll be like a little theater with a big screen that everybody watches the same screen instead of having their own little laptops.
They might have their laptops too, but they'd be watching the big screen at the same time.
And you would go there with kids your age who are taking the same class.
So the number one big problem with Zoom school is that the kid doesn't get to leave the house, doesn't get to see their friends, doesn't get any social life.
Now we can't do that with the coronavirus, But as soon as that's over, it would make more sense to get rid of regular schools, have a place that the fifth graders can go to where there's some adult supervision, not necessarily teachers, and they can watch the best education in the world talk among themselves, form groups, do their homework, etc.
And I think that something like Amazon will be the source for that.
I think Amazon will be selling the world's best-selling lessons for $3.
So for $3, the entire class can get the best lesson ever created on this topic.
It's going to be a big deal.
And then the last part of this is I think we have to get rid of the antiquated...
A degree situation, where you can get a degree in Russian literature, a degree in this or that.
I think that needs to be replaced with something like a talent stack model, where you might not have something that would technically be a degree, but you've accumulated a bunch of learnings that fit really well together.
And so you've created like a superpower With your talent stack.
So there's got to be some way to get credit for having developed a talent stack, whether or not there's a degree that's associated with that.
All right. Somebody said that's called a resume.
Not really, because your resume is a little wordy.
And if you say, I have this skill, but on top of it I have this skill, you still have to work a little bit to understand that they work together.
But if you said, here's my talent stack, Here are the things that I think work well together.
That would be a pretty strong package.
All right. So that's where I think we're going with this, unless the teachers' unions screw us again.
And I'm going to try to join you tonight.
I don't know for sure, but I'll try to join you tonight.
I understand that some of you can't sleep unless you hear my calming words on these...
I do have, by the way, one threat against my house for election day.
So there's some online indication that there might be some trouble at my house.
I would like to suggest that if anybody was planning to create any trouble at my house, That you should really rethink that.
Because it would be a really bad, bad idea.
Export Selection