Episode 1174 Scott Adams: Election Day in America and What to Expect
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Love for President Trump feels reciprocal
Post-election chaos scenarios
The stock market does NOT "vote" for tax increases
Impressive brainwashing accomplishments
Hammer and Scorecard, vote changing software
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Having a little technical difficulty, but I feel like I solved it.
For some reason, YouTube doesn't like to connect if I set it up too early.
So, I'll adjust on that.
Good morning everybody! Good morning.
Big day. Big day, the future of the country, the United States, the future of the world.
It's all on today.
How do you feel? You feel good?
Well, I'll make sure that you feel better by the time you are done with this periscope.
And one thing that will certainly make everything better, you probably know what it is.
It's called the simultaneous sip and all you need is Is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea, a stein, a canteen jug or 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including democracy.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Ah. I feel the integrity of the elections improving.
With one sip, that's all it took.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
There are many things today.
One of them is that although our rate of coronavirus infections in this country is zooming up, there's a surge, it seems that the rate of deaths is not zooming up.
It's closer to flat.
And so I'm curious.
How could it be that although the infections are zooming up, that the number of deaths stays roughly the same?
The only way I can understand that is if our ability to treat those patients and their ability to hide the vulnerable is exactly keeping up With the rate of increase.
What are the odds of that, right?
Because you would expect that those two rates of change to not be in balance.
Being in balance would be the biggest coincidence.
What you would expect is that infections are zooming up and deaths would zoom up even if we're better at treating them, right?
You'd expect that Maybe not as fast, but it would be kind of normal to be, you know, half as fast or something.
Or let's say we were getting so good at treating people that even though the rate of infection was zooming up, the number of people dying was zooming down or even trending down.
But that's not happening.
The number that are dying is just this sort of a flat line while the number of getting infected is going through the roof.
It could be a coincidence.
It could be that those two rates of change, how well we protect and how well we treat people who get it, is exactly keeping up with the surge in infections.
Maybe? Or is it just that there's a several-week lag between infections and deaths?
So you'd need something like a one-month lag for those numbers to start conforming.
And that's just about now.
So if we don't see a big increase in deaths in the United States, we have another mystery, which is why is it so balanced?
All right, I did a walk around last night, took a nice walk.
Beautiful night last night.
And I was looking for campaign signs.
And found, in the end, I found three Biden houses.
Three houses with Biden signs on the lawn.
Number of houses with Trump signs in my neighborhood.
Now, I live in blue California.
So the number of Trump signs in my neighborhood, zero.
No, not a single Trump sign.
But. But.
There were a suspicious number of American flags flying yesterday.
Never noticed them before.
They looked like they had just been put up.
So how would you like to be the candidate, let's say Joe Biden, and you're running against a candidate whose political logo is indistinguishable from the brand of the country?
Trump actually became synonymous with the American flag.
Now, Republicans already had a bias in that direction, but because you feel a little uncomfortable putting up a Trump sign, but you might feel a little bit more comfortable putting up an American flag.
The American flag just became a substitute for a Trump sign.
How would you like to run against that?
I mean, really, running against the guy who is now synonymous with the American flag?
That's a tough one.
That's a tough one. And if I were a Democrat today, there would be some kind of a song or sound going through my head.
What would it be?
Hmm.
Might sound...
Might sound something like that.
All right, so Rasmussen did some research, and they were asking who people expected to win in a sort of an optimist versus pessimist sort of a situation.
And Trump voters expect a winner today more than Biden voters do.
So Trump voters are expecting that we'll know the winner today.
More so than Biden voters.
And let's see.
Yeah, that's the big difference is that Trump supporters expect something today.
Now, how would you like to have Biden as your champion and knowing that he's the guy who would surrender the fastest?
Because he would, right?
Let's say the vote is ambiguous, and we get to a place where it could go either way, you know, there's an argument, you're just not sure even who won.
Which one of those two players, Trump or Biden, is more likely to say, I think I'll concede for the benefit of the country because I want to be a good character kind of a person?
It's kind of Biden, isn't it?
Biden is the guy you'd expect to cave first if he thought there would be trouble or something.
So I'd hate to have my champion be the guy that I'm pretty sure would surrender first in a fight.
So, of course, the big question is the shy Trump supporters.
Will they show up?
And how many of them are actually shy?
And I want to get this on the record in case it's right, because it would be great to be right about this.
I feel like the larger group is the dad joke people.
And by dad joke, I mean the Republicans who lie to pollsters, not because they're necessarily shy, or not necessarily because they don't want to be in somebody's database as a Trump supporter, But because they think it's hilarious.
And because they don't trust any of the professionals or any of the experts at anything anymore.
And so my belief is that enough people got the idea, enough Republicans and conservatives, got the idea of lying to pollsters that it just became a thing.
Now, when I do my...
My unscientific queries on Twitter and ask people how many have lied to pollsters, there's a lot of you, as in hundreds of you, responding just to my tweet.
Now, let's say you're a Democrat.
And you hear that one person's tweet, now I've got 590,000 followers, but on any given tweet, they don't all see the tweet, right?
Some subset of that see the tweet.
And if you had heard this and you're a Democrat, what would you feel when you thought, wait a minute, Are you telling me that there are two reasons we might not be picking up Trump supporters in polls?
One is that they're shy, but I wasn't worried about that one because I think the pollsters corrected.
So they figured out how to correct for those shy Trump supporters.
So that's not a problem.
But what's this bigger group you're talking about, Scott?
This dad joke group?
Who just think it would be funny and subversive to lie to pollsters?
They don't really exist in big numbers, do they?
Yeah, they do.
Yeah, they do. - That's true.
Now, we don't know if it's enough to win, do we?
I mean, we don't know for sure who's going to win.
But if you're telling me there are not a lot of dead joke Republicans who lied to pollsters, that much I can tell you I'm very confident about.
I don't know if it's enough.
Nobody knows that.
But there are a lot of them.
There are a lot of them.
Let me tell you something else that you probably don't realize.
If you're a Biden supporter and you're not good at math, let's say you believe that Biden is up by pick a number.
Let's say you think Biden is up nationally by four points, whatever, five points.
Let's say you think that's the number.
He's up five points nationally.
Do you understand that it would only take A few percent of those people, in other words, all it would take is that half of those people lied, two and a half people, two and a half percent, in order to erase the five percent.
Because you understand that if people lied, they said they were Biden supporters, so that adds one to Biden, but it also subtracts one from Trump.
So if you reverse that, it's a two-vote swing.
So that five percent margin you think you have That's not 5%.
That's 2.5%.
Because if those people leave, they're going somewhere and they're not going home, they're going to Trump.
So it's not really a 5% gap or whatever you think it was, 7%, 8%, whatever number you decided to believe.
It's half that. And then when you half it, you get really close to the margin of error for the polls themselves.
Meaning that you're already within striking distance if you just cut it in half.
So I think it's going to be quite a nervous-making day for Democrats.
Again, we don't know who's going to win, but I'd be a lot more worried if I were a Democrat, for sure.
And of course, they also have the PTSD of 2016 hanging over them.
So if you were on the winning side in 2016 and you wanted Trump to win, you just had a good day.
Maybe a really good day.
I know I did. But if you were a Democrat and it was just a crushing defeat and it gave you PTSD and, as Andrew Sullivan said, he actually went into a clinical depression after Trump won.
He's not alone.
A lot of people went into clinical depression after Trump won.
I think that's definitely a thing.
So you would have that in your mind, like this gigantic weight, because you're like, oh, not again, not again.
But Trump supporters don't have that weight, because, well, if you lose, you're going to be unhappy, right?
Everybody who loses is unhappy.
But you don't have that PTSD thing hanging over you.
It's not going to be twice as bad.
It'll be new to you if it happened.
So, it's much worse for Democrats.
Tucker Carlson did an episode yesterday that I thought was one of his more brilliant monologues in the beginning.
He talked about why it is that voters don't just vote for Trump, but in many cases they seem to love him.
Actually be in love.
What's up with that, right?
Because you see a lot of people who support Joe Biden.
But correct me if I'm wrong, you don't really see voters who are in love with him.
And I say in love like it's almost romantic, because the affection for Trump is really, really personal.
Am I right? The Trump affection is about the person as much as the politics.
There's something they like about him.
Now, I get that half the country has a negative reaction, and they're violently opposed as much as people love him.
But he certainly stokes emotion.
He certainly gets your emotions going.
The Amish actually had a Trump caravan with Trump signs and their little horses and carriages.
If you hear that the Amish have gone for Trump...
Yeah, that's what you hear in your mind.
And so what Tucker surmised, his hypothesis is that the reason that Trump voters are in love with him, and not just supporting him politically, is that they feel he's the first politician that loved them.
And when I heard that the first time, I thought, it does feel like that.
It does feel like that. He is the blue-collar billionaire kind of guy.
And if you were in the Midwest, you'd lost your manufacturing job, etc.
Wouldn't you feel that Trump actually cared about you?
Which is interesting because the biggest complaint about Trump is a lack of empathy.
Right? That's the biggest complaint.
But I would argue that there are two ways to show empathy.
Right? One is the things you say.
I sure do feel bad for you.
I will fight hard for you.
Words are part of how we detect empathy.
But Trump is not that guy and never has been.
He's not the empathy in words guy.
And when he does it, he has to do it as part of his job.
But when he does it, it's It doesn't touch you like somebody else, like a Cuomo or somebody who's real good with that emotional type of speech.
But the thing that Trump does is he does what he said he would do, which is he would help a certain class of Americans.
He's basically shoving a boot up China's ass and For the swing states, if you think about it.
I mean, he basically is just putting his whole damn boot up to the brim in President Xi's ass to get some kind of relief for people who have manufacturing jobs.
He's taking the manufacturing right out of there.
Maybe put it in Puerto Rico, he says.
I don't know if that's the best idea, frankly, because of hurricane risk, but in terms of having an important manufacturing asset there like pharmacies, pharmaceuticals.
But let's say we could protect them from a hurricane.
It feels like that's a pretty plausible explanation from Tucker Carlson.
That the people who vote for him actually feel that he cares about them, and it's based on what he does.
It's not based on his words, which I think is very Midwestern, wouldn't you say?
If you don't understand sort of that part of the world, let me explain it to you.
It's about what you do.
It's not about your colorful words.
We're not too interested in your flowery explanations and your big vocabulary.
Words are good, but what did you do?
What did you actually do?
And Trump wins on that.
Another hypothesis is from an article I tweeted around this morning that I thought was fascinating.
So you have to know that the person who wrote it is a person of color, I think, I don't know, Middle Eastern maybe, in terms of heritage.
So I don't know too much about the writer, but was not a generic white guy.
That's the only point I'm trying to make.
So not a generic white guy wrote the following hypotheses in his article, which was very good.
And he says the thing that people are missing...
Is that minorities don't like each other.
Now, that's why I say it's important that this was not written by a generic white guy.
There are just some messages that sound better coming from different people.
And so a person of color can write that, and you can say, okay, I'll take that seriously.
If some generic white guy writes that, you say, ah, racist.
Right? So, and his point was that, for example, I'll just give you one example.
That black men, I don't know if he said men or just black Americans, are pretty strong on border walls because illegal immigration competes for jobs.
So if you're in the black American voter category, you're saying to yourself, wait a minute, Trump is protecting me.
I'm in the exact group of workers in America who are at risk, and Trump is protecting me.
So maybe you feel a little bit racist yourself, meaning that minorities often have negative feelings about other minority groups, and so you shouldn't expect that everybody is just anti-Trump, because they might also be Anti some other minority group that they think Trump is against, or at least his policies seem to be not stacked in their favor.
So that's an interesting wild card that I hadn't really thought of.
And getting back to my point about people falling in love with Trump, there are little things that the Trumps do that bond you to them, and you could easily miss them.
You could easily miss them.
I'm going to give you an example of something that Don Jr.
did this morning. It's a very small thing.
It's just the smallest little thing.
But it's that X factor that bonds you to somebody, that makes you not just like them, but just you're bonded to them.
And it goes like this.
So you may know that Mark Schneider, who's active on Twitter and talks about nuclear power, he's a nuclear power advocate, and he got banned from Twitter, suspended, I guess, suspended, for the following tweet that I'm going to read.
And I think if you get banned from Twitter, you're still allowed to be on Periscope.
That's true, right? So Mark, if you're watching, and you might be, I'm going to read your tweet that got you suspended on Twitter, and I don't know why.
And I'll get to the Don Jr.
part of this story in a minute. So here's what Mark tweeted that got him suspended.
He said, Seems like Biden is trying to lose at this point.
Lady Gaga insulted Americans with her redneck video, and now she's going to campaign with Sleepy Joe in fracking country.
Pennsylvania will be called for Trump at 9 p.m.
Eastern Time. Now, what part of that gets you suspended?
I had to read this ten times, and I still don't know what is it about this that gets us suspended.
Because, let's just break it down.
Saying that Biden is trying to lose, does that get you suspended?
Lots of people have said that. That's actually a fairly common tweet.
Lady Gaga insulted Americans with her redneck video.
Redneck's not a banned word, is it?
I don't think so. Lady Gaga, that's okay.
She's going to campaign with Sleepy Joe, that's okay.
In fracking country, it is.
And then the last sentence, maybe this is what got him suspended.
I don't know. Yeah, suspended from Twitter.
Where he said Pennsylvania will be called for Trump at 9pm.
Are you telling me that an ordinary citizen...
Can't make a prediction about something fairly ordinary.
What could be more ordinary than predicting a candidate will claim victory?
That's the most ordinary thing you could say.
So what about this guy him banned?
Or suspended?
Is the right word, I guess.
I don't know. And this is extra bad because wouldn't you like to be on Twitter today?
If you're a real active Twitter user, as Mark is...
Being banned on Election Day for something this lame is really cruel.
Today's the day you want to be on Twitter.
So I'd like to see that certainly reversed today if it's possible.
Mark Schneider on Twitter.
All right. Here's the Don Jr.
connection. So I saw the tweet.
Somebody else took a screenshot of the Of the tweet that got Mark suspended.
We think it is. Maybe it's not that tweet, but I think it is that one.
And I retweeted that with my own comment, which was, what the F? Except I spelled out the F word.
So my only tweet was, what the F? So here's the Don Jr.
connection. He's the son of the sitting president of the United States.
And he retweeted my tweet, I'm going to use the full word because we need to use it in this context.
The story isn't this good without the actual F word in use.
So hide the kids. There's an F word coming.
So Don Jr.
retweets me without comment, just retweets my tweet that says, what the fuck?
And in that moment, I felt bonded to him, to Don Jr.
Because he's not supposed to retweet that because there's an F word there, right?
He's the son of the president.
He's not supposed to take this kind of risk.
But not only does it, of course, it agrees with his political opinions on censorship against conservatives, but it also seemed supportive of Mark, meaning that he took a little personal reputational risk, Don Jr. did, to retweet an F-word supporting Mark Schneider.
Because he's just an ordinary American who seems to be getting screwed by a social media platform at the moment.
So it's such a small thing, right?
Because he could have easily ignored that tweet, just easily.
Would you have known if he had ignored it?
You wouldn't know if he'd ever seen it.
So ignoring it would be the easiest thing he could have done.
No risk, He doesn't get in trouble for retweeting an F-word, doesn't make him look crude to some people.
But he didn't. He just said, I'll retweet that.
It's so small, but it's those little X-factor things that bind you to somebody.
Because you see, he took a risk for a stranger, an American.
And I tweeted this provocatively.
I said, you know, when you go to vote, do you want to vote for the candidate whose followers would stop to help you change a tire in a dangerous neighborhood, or would you rather vote for the candidate who...
Who wouldn't do that? Basically, you could break it down.
You could make it simpler and just say, how about the candidate who wouldn't do that?
You know, they're followers, not the candidate.
And when you watch the rallies, do you see any angry people at a Trump rally?
You really don't, do you?
And there was a trans...
I never know the right vocabulary, so I'll...
I will couch this by saying, I don't know the right vocabulary, but I'm not trying to be insensitive or anything else.
But somebody who identified themselves as a trans person said that I'm wrong and that it would be more dangerous for this trans person to be in a Republican neighborhood than in a Democrat neighborhood.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe it would be more dangerous for a transsexual individual to be in a Republican neighborhood than in a Democrat neighborhood?
You know, we're just looking in general, as a general average?
I don't feel like that's even close to being true.
Indeed, let me state something that might surprise you a little bit.
But from the first moment that Trump Have you heard any Republicans saying anti-gay stuff?
Because I haven't.
It's like Republicans just stopped caring completely.
And why wouldn't they?
Is there a Republican that thinks they should be in your pants?
No. No.
There are no Republicans who think that they should have a vote about your genitalia.
Now, they were concerned about gay marriage at one point.
That seems to have passed.
But that was more about their tradition, you know, their religious tradition.
It wasn't so much anti-gay.
I know you think it is, and certainly I'm in favor of gay marriage, so I was never on that side.
But it was more about them preserving something that they thought was their special cultural thing.
It wasn't anti-anything, in my opinion.
That's just my take on it.
But I've not seen anything that would even suggest, even remotely, that Republicans are somehow anti-LGBTQ. I don't see it at all in real life.
All right. If Trump wins re-election, and I think he will...
The pundits who got everything wrong again, how are they going to explain how they were wrong?
The first time they used Russia collusion, I suppose they could use, you know, voter suppression again.
That would be an obvious one.
But I feel like they're going to fall back to, well, they're more racist than we thought.
Well, it turns out I underestimated how many racists there are in the country.
I think that would be their fallback excuse.
Kind of derivative of last year.
Here's another thought.
Fast forward to the future.
It's one month from today.
So close your eyes, go one month into the future.
And let's say Trump won.
All the Democrats...
Who thought it was a good idea to run Joe Biden against Trump?
Are they going to look back at that decision as possibly a little bit flawed?
Because they chose someone who's decaying right in front of us to run against the most energetic force of nature the country has ever seen.
In retrospect, Once you get past the noise of it all, as soon as it slows down a little bit and you can start to think a little more calmly and objectively about what we've experienced for the past year, if you're a Democrat, are you going to say to yourself, I think we picked the right person?
I don't feel like it.
I feel like they're going to feel really embarrassed about the fact that they picked Biden.
Because You know, I've told you this story.
When I met the president in the Oval Office in 2018, he asked me who I thought, way back in 2018, who I thought would be the candidate.
I said I thought it would be Kamala Harris.
He said, the president said he thought it would be Joe Biden.
I said, it won't be Joe Biden because he doesn't stand a chance against you.
He would be the weakest candidate.
And my thought at the time goes like this.
If you took President Trump and then you started selectively removing all the things you like about him, it's like, all right, he's going to be tough with China.
I like that, but let's remove that from him.
He's going to be a real fighter.
He's going to be tough on immigration.
All the things you like about him, just take them out of there.
He's got high energy.
He can really persuade.
He can get things done. He can kick some butt.
Take all that away from him.
What would you have left?
Joe Biden. You would have Joe Biden if you took everything that's good away from Trump.
That's what would be left.
Now, so in my mind, he was the worst matchup.
The best matchup would have been somebody different, like a Hillary Clinton.
Because Hillary Clinton doesn't look like a weak version of Trump.
Hillary Clinton looked like Hillary Clinton.
She was her own person.
If Trump had run against, let's say, Elizabeth Warren, Just to pick one example.
I think she would have lost. But nobody would have said, huh, Elizabeth Warren looks like just a weak version of Trump.
Nobody would have said that.
They would have said she's just Elizabeth Warren.
Likewise, Kamala Harris.
They would have just said she's Kamala Harris.
But Joe Biden looks like the version of Trump after it's been beaten to death.
You know, that's just a bad matchup.
So that's why I thought he wouldn't get as far as he's gotten.
So I was wrong about how close he would get.
And if he wins, I'll be really wrong.
I'll be happy to admit that, by the way.
By the way, let me say this as clearly as possible.
If I'm wrong, I'm not planning to be wrong, but if I'm wrong about who wins the presidency, I'm not going to be embarrassed about that.
And I'm certainly going to be completely public about it.
Because you shouldn't be concerned about being wrong about something you couldn't possibly know.
You know, we're all just predicting.
If the stock market is up today, and I think it is, last I checked, it's not because all the smart people are expecting their taxes to go up.
You see where I'm going with this?
Why would it be that the polls all say Biden's going to win easily, but the stock market...
Doesn't usually vote for tax increases, which is what higher stocks would be telling you.
They'd be telling you that if the stock market thought Biden was going to win, then the stocks would be going up on a tax increase?
That doesn't happen.
Stocks go down if you think taxes are going up.
So I think the stock market has voted for Trump, or voted that other people will vote for Trump.
So if I knew that the stock market was up and my candidate was the one pushing for higher taxes for those very people who buy stocks, what would I start to think?
Yeah.
Here's another good point from Gunland.
What's his first name?
Is it Martin or something?
Big money manager guy, CEO and chief investment offices of Double Line Capital.
And he's saying, why is it that Biden is so worried about Trump claiming victory?
And I thought to myself, well, why wouldn't he be?
Why wouldn't Biden be worried that Trump will claim victory?
Why wouldn't you be worried about that?
And Gundlach makes a good point.
If the polls are correct, and Biden also believes the polls, there's not really any chance that Trump is going to be able to claim success, right?
If the national polls are even close to being credible, The vote will be just so obviously Biden that Trump doesn't really have any path to claim that he won.
So it must be, and this is a pretty good thinking, I would say, it doesn't have to be right, but I think it is, that Biden's internal polling doesn't show him being that much ahead.
Right? Because why would Biden even care?
What Trump does. If he's going to win by nine, he doesn't care what Trump does.
Trump would be irrelevant forever if the polls are cracked.
So, somebody in the comments said, I'm bald and so I'm not credible.
That might be true.
Dr. Bandy Lee, do you remember Dr.
Bandy Lee, was the one who was going on television saying that President Trump had mental problems?
How long ago? A couple years ago?
And she got in trouble for a tweet.
Now, if you ever believe that Dr.
Bandy Lee was credible and smart, because she has credentials, and she was saying the President is mentally incompetent, just consider what she tweeted.
And I guess she had to delete this tweet.
She got in some trouble.
She tweeted, Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler.
Lee began, quote, at least Hitler improved the daily life of his followers.
What? Had discipline and required more of himself to gain the respect of his followers.
And she goes on, but it doesn't matter.
So Dr. Bandy Lee, famous Trump critic, Decided to go with a comparison of Trump to Hitler and praise Hitler's qualities of improving the daily life of his followers, his discipline, and requiring more of himself.
How dumb do you have to be to praise Hitler on Twitter and think that's going to go okay for you?
So, whatever you thought of Dr.
Bandy Lee when she was criticizing Trump...
Just keep in mind that she also praised Hitler, so that's part of the context.
The biggest trick that the media has ever sold to the public is the following trick, and it's a really good one.
This is the best trick in terms of brainwashing that I've ever seen.
It's monumental, and it goes like this.
That Trump is the one responsible for the country being divided.
Now, because he's the most interesting, provocative person, because he's the president, he gets the credit and the blame for lots of things that aren't exactly all his fault.
So any president who has a good economy gets the credit, even if they didn't do anything.
Any president doing a bad economy I don't know if that sentence made any sense.
I was winging it there. We think he's the cause of things because he's in our minds, and he's the president, and he's on TV, and he says things, and then people do things.
So you think he causes everything.
He's the cause. But that's the trick, because the cause of the division in this country has been, for a number of years, fake news.
Far and away, it's the fake news that causes the division.
There's a mental experiment that I ask Democrats to do, which is that imagine the news had been reported just straight news with no fake news.
How would they report each of the things that you think is a scandal with Trump?
Well, the Charlottesville fine people hoax would never have happened, because if they'd reported what he said...
He said he disavowed the racists there.
On the same day, they said he was praising them.
It just didn't happen. It was fake news.
So Spose had never been reported.
Right? That's very different.
The country would feel very different without that fake news.
What about the fake news that he suggested drinking bleach for coronavirus, or the fake news about shithole countries, or the fake news about any of it?
You can just go right down the list.
Russia collusion. How about the fake news about Russia collusion?
If you removed all of the fake news, it would just be Trump making claims.
They'd report on his claims.
They'd report on what the other people said, too.
But they wouldn't be brainwashing you.
They'd just be telling you what's happening.
If we lived in a world with real news, Trump would not be that divisive.
He'd be a little divisive.
But it would be, on a scale of 1 to 10, if 10 is where we're at, Take away the fake news, Trump would be a three, maybe a four, tops.
The fake news causes the division, and they have the power not only to cause the division, but they have the power to blame somebody else for it.
It's like your boss, right?
Your boss has the power to give you an assignment and then make sure you fail at it by not having the right resources or information or whatever, And then your boss can give you a bad performance review for the problem that your boss created, and then your boss can fire you for the problem that your boss created.
100% of it.
That's the situation the fake news has put the country in.
They can create the problem, They can assign it to somebody, and then they can make them lose the election, just like a boss.
So that's the world we're in.
All right. So we're going to see today, and unless there's a Trump blowout that's so overwhelming that it can't be denied, and I don't think I don't think that's probably going to happen.
I think it'll be at least a little bit close in the total vote, if not the Electoral College.
Electoral College might be more of a gap.
But you're going to see the mainstream media and the Democrats running a brainwashing psychological operation on the country.
And it goes like this.
And they're already signaling it pretty clearly.
Biden has already said that he would take the job of president if the fake news declares him the president.
Think about that. Biden actually said that without the words fake news.
So Biden has said that if the news organizations declare him the winner, that he'll give a victory sort of acceptance speech and declare himself the president prior to being sworn in, but the president-elect tonight or tomorrow or whenever there's a result.
Now, that tells me That the fake news guessed to decide who's president.
And if you didn't think that was true, consider all the things they've sold.
They sold the fine people hoax.
Half the country bought it.
They sold Russia collusion.
All kinds of things.
Drinking Clorox.
Just an enormous amount of fake news has been sold to the public.
And they have proved the concept works.
They have proven they can disappear the Hunter Biden laptop story.
They could just make it go away successfully.
They made the biggest story in the country just go away.
They have that kind of power now, the fake news industry, if you will.
So it seems to me that if Trump wins, they have plenty of cause to say there was voter suppression, wouldn't you say?
There's no doubt that That there will be enough anecdotal bad things happening in local places that both sides will be able to claim the election was rigged, even if it's not.
Even if all of those things put together didn't add up to anything, both sides will have all the fodder they need to claim it was an illegitimate election.
You all know that, right?
Nobody's going to be surprised when the losing side claims the vote was illegitimate.
We all expect that.
Given that, and given that the mainstream media can create a reality that isn't real, but people will accept as real, they can simply say Biden won.
And half the country will believe it.
And then it's just a question of how many people act that way.
Right? Suppose, just take it down to an employee level at the White House.
You're just an employee.
And let's say you work, I don't know, security?
Or maybe you're one of a facilities people.
I'll make it really basic.
I imagine that there's somebody whose job it is, it's fair to say, is a facilities director or manager for the White House.
There's somebody whose job it is that when there's a transition of government...
That they get the moving trucks and they move out the old stuff from the people who were in charge and they move in the new people and they assign who gets what office and all that.
So there's somebody whose job it is to make sure that the right people have the right stuff in the White House.
What if that person is a Democrat?
Right? What if the facilities person looks at the mainstream news and says, well, you know, The mainstream news says Biden is my president.
So I'm going to order my employees to move the files and personal effects of the last administration out on Inauguration Day.
And I'm going to tell my people to move in, Joe Biden's staff.
What happens then?
Would the security people say, wait, wait, wait, you can't do that because I don't think Joe Biden won?
What if that happens? What if the facilities person is lining up the trucks to move Biden into the White House, and the security people are saying he didn't win?
What then? Right?
What then? You know, somebody is saying in the comments that most guns win, but I don't know that it would come to that, because it feels more like a bureaucratic problem.
It feels more like People with no guns standing in the White House saying, but I think Biden's the president.
Look at CNN. They just declared he's the president.
And then the other one would say, but I'm watching Fox News and they're not so sure.
So what do I do?
I feel like that's what's coming.
What we don't know is how individual citizens will act if they're told there are two different presidents.
Here's what I don't think.
I don't think it'll be a civil war.
I think it will be frustrating, sometimes hilarious, very interesting, fascinating from beginning to end, a study of human behavior and brainwashing and everything else.
But it's not going to be a shooting war.
I'm not going to say that nobody will We're going to get hurt in the next week because it's a big country with lots of crazy people.
But we're not going to have a civil war.
It's just not going to happen.
We will have this bureaucratic, Supreme Court, fake news mess, probably.
The only way to avoid it is a blowout in one direction or the other.
But it looks like we're heading toward the fake news running what I call coup two.
Coup two involves the Biden people simply acting like they won, and the news simply supporting them, and then seeing if everybody else will just go along and see if they'll act like Biden won too.
So that would be coup two.
And that is mostly what I wanted to talk about.
Checking my notes. I think we're good.
Alright, do you have any questions that you would like to ask me?
I'll tell you, there are a lot of things that don't matter in this election, and the number of things that don't matter is pretty large.
For example, you heard a lot about the candidates making their, quote, closing arguments.
Closing arguments.
I don't think their closing arguments mattered at all.
Do you know anybody who even knows what their closing arguments were?
I don't.
I saw in the comments I've been asked about this thing, hammer and scorecard.
Have you heard those words?
Hammer, these are projects, project hammer, project scorecard.
Have you heard of those? So on Steve Bannon's The War Room.
He had General McKearney, retired general, who claims to have close personal knowledge to a software program that can change votes after they've been made.
He claims, if I have this right, that our intelligence services created the software to use on other countries to influence their elections, and the claim is that we've used it.
And that some election, unstated, don't know which ones, were actually influenced by a software program that I guess could be inserted in somebody's database and move votes without anybody knowing it.
The claim is that the Democrats have access to this tool and that they will use it to influence the votes after they've been cast.
So the votes will get into the database The software will get into the database, switch some votes, and it'll be just enough to win.
So they won't make it so obvious that you would know it happened.
It'd be, you know, cleverly picking a person here or a person there, spreading it around, you know, so it's not all in one state or something that would be obvious.
Now, the source for this is a retired U.S. general who has an excellent resume.
Do you believe it? Do you believe it?
I'm finding it difficult to believe.
Not impossible, because it falls into the category of things that totally could be real.
Totally could be.
But... I don't know.
It also has the sound and feel of something that's not real.
But it could be. So I would say that's a wait and see.
But we'll be waiting and seeing forever because we would never use it.
Somebody in comments is saying they used it in Canada.
I don't think there's any proof of any of that.
So let us not assume that just because it was on a podcast, it's true.
I assume...
Let me give you a complete assumption.
My complete assumption is this.
Whenever there's a possibility to do something that has an enormous upside potential, you could gain a lot if you did it.
Not always, but you might gain a lot.
And the risk of getting caught is minuscule.
It always happens. Always.
So if you have that condition, and there are enough people involved, so you don't have one honest person who doesn't do it, but if you have enough people involved, it's possible, there's a big upside gain, and the odds of getting caught are minimal, and I would imagine that they wouldn't make a software that could do this unless it could also cover its tracks really, really well. Because if we made a software that was intended to change elections in other countries, And why wouldn't we, really?
I mean, think about it.
Do you think nobody at least tried to make a software that would change the elections in other countries?
Of course we did.
Of course. If our intelligence agencies had never at least tried to do that, I would think they were not doing their job.
You should at least have the option, if you know what I mean.
So, I don't think they would build such software, because it would have to be quite sophisticated.
And if you could build something that sophisticated, Couldn't you also cover your tracks?
Couldn't you also pretty easily make it hard to discover?
So I don't know that we would ever know.
We'll just know we'll have an election, there'll be a president, and who knows.
All right. So be smart today.
Be brave.
And when the brainwashing comes, and it will, it will come, because they've signaled that pretty clearly, be immune to Be immune to the brainwashing.
The slaughter meter is at 100%.
And by the way, I noticed that Fox News is running a little area on their website where they have an actual digital meter, like a gas meter, that will tell you the odds.
So on any given time, they'll estimate the odds of somebody winning.
And it's basically the slaughter meter, except the Fox News version of it.
Somebody says, how would this software work given vastly different voting systems among the states?
That is an excellent question.
As you know, all the states do their own thing.
But you would only need to compromise the key states and then only a few counties in the key states.
So you might only have to influence, let's say...
Three databases.
Three states where the election information is consolidated for the state before it's reported at a federal level.
So you figure all the individual reporting machines, etc., are going to go into one database in each state, I assume, right?
Isn't that a fair assumption?
Every state has one database that ultimately all of the different voting machines, the paper ballots and everything will go into.
Right? If you have a database in each state and there are only a few states that are critical, you just have to compromise maybe three databases?
And they would not be the voting machines.
They would just be the database that has the data from the voting machines.
So maybe compromise three of them, and you could throw the election.
That may be simplistic.
Perhaps they have ways to check against exactly that, but I don't know.
All right.
Oh, Senate predictions.
Here's my Senate predictions.
I think the Republicans will do better than the polls suggest.
I don't know if they'll hold the Senate, but they'll do better than the polls suggest because I think that lying about what senator you're going to vote for is sort of so adjacent to lying about what presidential candidate you support that I would expect people to be consistent.
In other words, if they lied to a pollster about who they're voting for president, I think they would also take that lie to the Senate and say, oh yeah, I'll be voting for that Democratic senator, sure.
So if there's a shy Trump supporter or a dad joke Trump supporter group, I would expect not all of it, but some percentage of it to be influencing the polls of the senators.
So I think the senators will do better, Republicans.
Did I vote? I did not.
I did not. Because I didn't want to vote until it was the last minute.
Because it's funnier. Alright, that's all I've got for now.
