All Episodes
Nov. 6, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
58:13
Episode 1178 Scott Adams: Election Hallucinations and Absurdities Everywhere. Let's Discuss Over Coffee.

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Targeted fraud vs widespread fraud No media concern over foreign interference? Pennsylvania technical problem to Supreme Court? Election fraud claims being disappeared by media Suppressing President Trump's tweets Deplatforming popular conservative voices ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
Hey everybody.
Come on in. It's time.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
One of my window shades didn't go down, so I'm a little over lit today.
I like to be lit, but not over lit.
That's too much.
All right. Now, Some of you may be a little bit stressed out today, not too happy if your candidate is not doing what you wanted, but you're going to feel better after the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better It's called the simultaneous sip, and it will even remove fraud from the election.
Just watch. Go.
Ah. So, let's talk about all the things that are happening.
One of your comments is off-color, but funny, so I'm not going to mention it.
So I'm experiencing a phenomenon today.
I don't know if any of you are, but because I'm a public personality, I get this special treatment.
And what I'm getting is I would label them pre-mockers.
Those of you who are asking about YouTube, YouTube is up and running.
I'm looking at it right now. The comments are coming in.
So if you can't see it on your end, there's something weird going on.
But I'm getting what I'll call pre-mockers.
And what pre-mockers are, are there people who are mocking me, but not for things I've done.
They're mocking me for their hallucination of what I'll do next.
I don't know if I've ever seen that before.
Maybe I have.
But there's a whole cottage industry of blue-check people who just want to be mean, I guess.
And they're coming into my timeline saying things such as, well, let me predict what Scott will do.
He will claim that the president was captured by aliens, and I'm thinking, no, I probably won't do anything like that.
Why are you pre-mocking me for something you're imagining I'll do in the future that I clearly would not do?
Wait till I do something.
Mock me for what I do.
Somebody says, Scott 2024.
You know, I'm fairly sure that I could win an election, but I don't know that I would want the job.
I mean, I really wouldn't.
Weirdly, I have the kind of skill set that could win an election, but I definitely wouldn't want to.
I mean, I don't like meetings.
That's my problem. Alright, some other news.
There's a huge jobs report beating expectations and driving the jobless rate down to 6.9.
6.9 is around Obama level, wasn't it?
When Obama took over, it was much better when he left.
But we've actually beaten the jobless rate down to...
The borderline of normal.
I mean, 6.9 is way too high.
But it's sort of in that range where it's been, even if the world wasn't coming apart.
So we're not quite.
We're getting close to it.
So that's great news.
You know, I often say that luck is, you know, 80% of success.
And whoever becomes president, be it Biden or be it Trump for a second term, He still has a non-zero chance that that could happen.
Whoever is our next president, look what they're going to inherit.
Think about it.
The next president is going to have a world at peace.
The United States won't be at war with anybody, which is unfortunately...
Kind of rare for this country.
So we won't be at war.
Probably the Middle East will continue its trend toward just more peace.
North Korea probably will just stay the way it is.
Doesn't seem to be bothering us at the moment.
And so the world itself is just sort of peaceful.
So whoever is president of that It's got a natural advantage.
It's one less problem. Whoever is president in 2021 will be president when coronavirus gets beaten back, probably.
I think second half of 2021 is when we'll start to say, well, it looks like we beat this coronavirus, one way or the other.
So whoever's president is going to get the credit, right?
If Trump were president, they'd say, well, it should have happened faster, but at least you You know, you led us toward the end of this.
If Biden is the president, it's going to look like he cured coronavirus.
Because luck and timing are just so important to how people see you.
And then what about the economy?
Again, the advantage that Obama had is he came in when the economy was at a bottom.
And if it improved at all, it was going to improve in big percentages, which it did.
And because of the coronavirus, whoever comes in next...
It's going to have the same situation.
Trump is enjoying it at the moment because he's the president, but I would expect 2021 would be a very successful economic year, all things being equal, because the coronavirus will be lessened and the jobs will be coming back, etc. So it's a really good time to win the presidency because I think it's going to look really good.
Now, Well, Biden could ruin it.
Think about this.
If Biden becomes president, he would be inheriting a situation that's really good, except for the coronavirus, which will probably take care of itself, essentially, by next year.
So I don't know if we've ever been in better shape as a country, if you think about it.
So will Biden want to make radical changes To a country that has an economy roaring back, no wars, what kind of big changes do you make when things are going Pretty well.
Yeah, we'll talk about fraud.
We'll get there. Alright. So, somebody's going to be very lucky.
Here's my take. No matter how much fraud we think there was in this election, let me make some general statements that we'll all agree with.
Start with agreement.
It goes like this.
If you have a big, complicated system, it doesn't matter whether it's the voting system, or it's a big corporation, Or just any big, complicated system with millions of people involved and different rules and lawyers and stuff like that.
As long as you've got lots of people involved, there will be errors.
Let me put it this way.
If we re-ran the vote tomorrow and exactly the same people voted, do you think we'd get the same outcome?
I don't think there's any chance we would.
Think about that.
If we re-voted tomorrow and just said, all right, we better just do it again, and hypothetically, it's not really possible, but imagine that only the exact same people voted.
Would the count of the vote be the same?
And the answer is there's not even a little chance that it would be the same.
Not any chance.
Statistically, zero, basically.
Now, would that difference be big?
Well, Statistically speaking, you could expect that it probably would not be.
Because if the typical kind of mistakes that we make in our election were so big that, you know, you could notice them, we would already have noticed them.
But here's the thing.
Errors and fraud are not evenly distributed.
Meaning that, let's say that the total amount of fraud and error in the whole country was, you know,.05 or something, whatever is a small number to you.
If it all happened in one place, it changes the election.
Could it happen all in one place?
Suppose it happened in Philadelphia.
That could change the election.
Suppose it happened in Detroit.
Just one place.
Could that change the whole election?
Yup. Yeah, good.
So, it can be simultaneously true that there has never been widespread fraud, emphasis on widespread, and yet the fraud there is can completely change the election.
Now, I'm not saying that happened.
We don't have direct evidence that that happened.
But I'm saying that Two things can be true.
There could be no widespread fraud, which, by the way, is what CNN is reporting.
So they're starting to disappear the story that there's any problem with this election because they think Biden's going to win.
And the beginning of the disappearing is how they choose words.
And choosing that word is really, really careful.
There's no widespread fraud.
Because you know you'll see anecdotes and allegations of individual things happening.
So they have to convince you that any kind of fraud would have had to been widespread or it wouldn't have mattered.
Right? But that's just not true.
The fraud that would be the most effective would be not widespread.
It would be concentrated exactly where you needed it, when you needed it.
So... Here is the situation.
Republicans are claiming that there was specific targeted fraud.
That's the claim.
Specific targeted fraud in those areas that are the most important.
And CNN will report that there's no evidence of widespread fraud.
That's not the claim.
The claim is not widespread fraud.
The claim is specific targeted fraud.
So that's the first part of how the mainstream media will disappear any controversy so that Biden can have a good presidency if he ends up winning an end.
So I say that this is an ideal opportunity to really find out how much fraud there is, what the baseline is.
Because you know there's some, right?
It's not zero. If you have a big system like this, somebody's frauding a little bit.
We just don't know if it matters.
And I've not seen evidence that it's big enough to matter, but that's what we're looking for.
So I think that it would be a good thing for the future of the country That even if it doesn't change the outcome of this election, I wouldn't mind at all taking this excuse to do a deeper legal dive and really just look under every rock, check every signature, and really just find out what we're dealing with.
Because the very next election, you know, the next midterm election, probably going to be a lot of mail-in votes.
So we better figure it out no matter which way it goes.
Now, just for fun, I've been saying that a couple of ways to put a filter on what we're watching is that we're a simulation, or, and this could be an either-or, it could be connected, or that artificial intelligence is already running the world and we just don't realize it yet.
And here's how we play this fun game.
You say to yourself, If it is a simulation and the way it's going to end up is the best movie, What would that look like?
If you were the movie writer, you could say, okay, let's give it a twist at the end.
What would be the best twist?
Then alternately, and I'll tell you what that is in a moment, alternately, if AI was in charge, what would AI want to happen to the extent that an artificial intelligence can want something?
So it's the AI version of wanting.
It's objective, if you will.
And it turns out that they're the same.
Now, I don't know, is that a coincidence?
Or is that built into this little mental experiment?
I don't know. But it goes like this.
If we're a simulation that's going to turn out like a movie, this is the third act.
The third act is by definition where you, the audience, have given up that your hero of the movie, let's say Trump in your case, can prevail.
Have we not reached that?
Have we not reached the point where rational people who would like Trump to win are saying, uh-huh, looks like it didn't happen.
Looks like the numbers have turned.
So, if Trump has lost, and that's the way it's going to go, it would feel exactly like it feels right now.
It would feel like it's slipping away, and then it just slips away, and everything felt just like it should have felt.
The other possibility is the third act, that the way you feel right now is exactly the way you're supposed to feel, because that's how the movie was written.
You're supposed to feel like all is lost, until the twist.
So what would be the twist that would satisfy the movie, if it's a simulation, and also, coincidentally, satisfy what AI would want?
Somebody says you're going off the rails.
This is just for fun.
If you can't hang with this, you should go somewhere else.
So don't complain that it's not true, because you'd be missing the point if you're complaining that it's true or not true.
It's a filter on reality that can either predict or it can't, and we're checking to see if it predicts.
Here's what both the simulation, if we're like a movie, and it's the third act, and the AI would both want.
And it goes like this.
They would want you to think that Trump had lost in the narrowest of margins until there was some technical legal twist.
Or maybe some other twist, like finding some fraud.
But the best would be a technical legal twist that changes the result at the last minute.
Now, why would that satisfy both the movie and the AI? Well, the movie wants the most surprising twist that only comes at the end when you've already given up.
There's no way, and then the twist.
So that satisfies the movie.
It would come from nowhere.
What satisfies AI is that AI wants as much conflict as possible But keeping us alive.
Because AI needs conflict for AI to reproduce.
Because the more conflict we have, the more algorithms you're going to need, the more they grow in importance.
So at this point, both the simulation and the AI predict that there's a twist coming.
And that twist will give you a Trump presidency with less credibility than the first term.
Because that's what the movie would be, and that's what the AI would give you.
So what would that take?
Well, there's one legal challenge that could do it.
Now, I can't handicap any legal challenges.
I don't have that kind of background.
But it's out there, and it goes like this.
Apparently in Pennsylvania, was it their court system that decided that they could count the votes after the election?
But the state legislature had not made that decision, and they're the only ones who can make it constitutionally.
I think I described that right.
But the point is, there's a technical situation in Pennsylvania that is real and observable.
In other words, nobody would question the following statements.
That the Pennsylvania courts made a decision...
That is really the domain of the legislature.
I feel like that part everybody would agree on.
It's legal stuff, so I can get lost in this pretty easily.
Don't take me too seriously on any legal stuff.
But let's say that's the case.
There's a technical violation.
Let's say it ends up in the Supreme Court.
And I don't even know if that's possible, by the way.
I don't know if that question can get to the Supreme Court.
But let's say it does. You've got a situation where the Supreme Court, if it were a narrow margin with Justice Roberts, you know, narrowly conservative, he might make a decision that's good for the country and good for the court that isn't exactly interpreting the Constitution.
And I'm not sure that that would be the worst thing in the world, right?
It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for the Supreme Court to make what I'll call an adult decision as opposed to a technically correct decision.
It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
But Justice Roberts doesn't have that power anymore because the conservative majority has been increased with Amy Coney Barrett.
So, if this Pennsylvania technical problem is real...
And it looks real. And it gets to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will have two choices, I think.
Again, I'm not really the good one for analyzing legal stuff, so I'll do my best.
If anybody can correct me in the comments or later, that would be appreciated.
But you would imagine that these literal conservative judges would say, hey, just tell us what's in the Constitution.
What does the Constitution say, and did they follow it?
You would imagine the conservative Supreme Court Justice would say, look, I'm not trying to change the election.
I'm just saying our decision is that wasn't constitutional, so it doesn't count.
That could happen.
That could happen.
Alternately, the conservative judges could say, yeah, technically that's a violation.
But it's more important to get a vote count that the public is willing to think is credible.
So my guess is that even this conservative Supreme Court Would have to think really hard about creating an illegitimate outcome, even by following the rules.
They might be better off not following the rules to get an outcome that looks more fair to the public.
It's possible, even though they're conservative judges.
So the point is, there is a path still.
Not just that one.
But it could happen.
So you might get yourself a President Trump, and you might get it in the least credible way to Democrats.
Meaning that if Trump became president on a technical, legal...
A legal thing, and it was because he packed the courts with his what the Democrats will think are illegitimate, you know, packed the court with illegitimate, you know, Amy Coney Barrett because of the process they thought was rushed or whatever.
So that would be the ultimate bad situation is a less credible President Trump.
Although, you know, I have to say that I'm having some mixed feelings about the whole thing.
You know, if it's up to me, I prefer Trump wins.
So let me say that unambiguously.
If it's up to me, I prefer Trump wins for a variety of reasons.
But suppose it doesn't happen.
Would it be the worst thing in the world...
That I don't spend my days defending Trump, but rather I do the far easier thing, which is criticizing Biden all day.
Because criticizing Biden all day long is going to be easy, and nobody's going to hate me for it too much, right?
As long as I'm fair, not just being crazy.
And I feel like it would be easier, so it's not a complete loss, and I would feel Maybe I would be safer if I walked outside.
So anyway, it won't be the end of my world.
But weirdly, a lot of people, trolls, are coming at me lately as if they think it will be the end of my world.
They seem to think that I will fall apart or I will be destroyed forever or shamed into oblivion or something if Trump doesn't win.
And that is such a complete misreading of who I am as a human being that it's jaw-dropping.
The last thing I'm going to be crushed at is a political outcome.
That just doesn't touch me personally.
I enjoy it as entertainment, in a sense.
Now, of course, I don't want my taxes to go up, but that's a separate decision.
So there's a rumor that I think has been debunked.
We don't know yet. The rumor that President Putin has Parkinson's and is planning to step down.
I think some British papers were reporting that, but Putin denies it, so who knows if that's true.
But if it is true, it would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
If it turns out that Putin has Parkinson's, wouldn't that explain why all those mail-in ballots have shaky signatures?
I mean, that guy must be exhausted, what with all of his foreign interference and stuff.
And let me ask this question that is one of these red pill kinds of questions.
So in 2016, it is reported as fact, and it's in the history books as a, it's a fact.
It's just a fact that Putin interfered with the 2016 election, and it mattered, according to the Democrats.
So Democrats believe that Putin, by making a few dozen Facebook memes that almost nobody saw, and those memes look like they were made by children, The belief, the popular belief, is that those changed the election for Trump.
Democrats believe that, that it made a difference.
So why didn't he do it again?
Why didn't Putin or China or anybody else, Iran, why didn't anybody interfere with the election this time?
Is this the first election that we've never had foreign interference?
Or is it the first time they've never been caught?
Or was it never really a thing ever?
Because if we're not talking about it at all in this election, it wasn't real in 2016.
Are you with me on that?
That either it was real in 2016 and probably something like the same amount happened in 2020, or it probably didn't happen at all in either case.
Now when I say it didn't happen at all, I don't mean that there was not a Russian troll farm that made some memes.
I mean that whatever happened was so trivial that it basically was zero.
So it was either zero before and it's still zero, Or how do you explain that every foreign country just decided not to interfere this time?
Are you telling me that you don't think foreign countries had a pretty big rooting interest in this?
I would say they had a really big interest, especially China, right?
And Russia, and Iran.
Our biggest rivals and frenemies had a lot of incentive.
But this year, huh?
This year, nothing.
Doesn't that tell you that whatever the narrative is that's being fed to the public is clearly fraudulent?
I don't know what the truth is.
Again, I don't know if there was foreign interference all the time.
I don't know. What is the baseline truth of this?
I just don't know. But I know that what we were told isn't true.
Right? I mean, the only thing you can rule out is the official story.
That's the only thing you can rule out.
All right. And at the same token, if those few dozen Facebook ads, allegedly from Russia, probably from Russia, Change the result of the 2016 outcome.
Why weren't any Republicans or Democrats using that clever meme trick of making a few dozen bad memes that looked like they were made by children, spending $100,000 total to run these ads?
If it works, why weren't both parties doing it?
Because it would be legal for them to do it.
It's only illegal for Russia to do it.
So if Russia did a small test in which they proved that these few dozen lame memes with no advertising budget worked, then the Democrats should be doing it.
Because it worked.
Right? Unless it never worked, of course.
Um... So somebody asked me to mention Robert Reich.
So there's the conversation about the, what do they call it, the Truth and Reconciliation Board or something?
Some kind of an official group to re-educate Trump supporters?
I don't think you really have to worry about that.
Do you? I mean, it's pretty chilling that anybody's even talking about it, and I know, slippery slope, etc.
But I don't feel like that's real.
I could revisit that later.
So let's talk about the votes.
It looks like Georgia flipped narrowly for Biden, and that would be a necessary state for Trump to win.
But, as Matt Gaetz points out, we don't have the military votes yet.
So the military votes, if you imagine that they skew Trump, could flip it back to Trump.
What about Pennsylvania? Well, legal problems and Arizona still has a mathematical path to become just barely Trump country.
So here's something that could happen.
Georgia could flip back to Trump on military votes.
I don't know the odds.
I don't know the odds at all, but apparently it could happen.
Pennsylvania could go Trump, depending on a variety of legal things and And just whatever the final count is.
Nevada has a legal challenge that looks like it has a little bit of meat.
Something about out-of-state people voting, but I don't know if that's enough to change it.
And Arizona could just go Trump.
So don't we have a path where Georgia flips back with the military votes, Trump holds Pennsylvania, and Trump wins Arizona outright?
Is that path not still open?
Because everything's changing by the minute.
It's possible to change while I'm on Periscope.
But how unlikely is that path?
Somebody in the comments is saying, Oh my God, Scott.
Scott, you told us they would hunt us down.
I think there will be some trouble, meaning that Trump supporters will probably be singled out and they'll have some problems.
So I think that that part's true.
What's not true is that there'll be a Truth and Reconciliation Committee where you'll all be pulled in to, I don't know, confess to the committee or something like that.
So I don't think it'll be any state-managed Process to hunt down Trump supporters.
I do think that on an individual basis, on an employer basis, it's going to be a divided country for all those reasons.
All right. So it seems to me that there's still a path.
Let me tell you about some of the fraud things that are being at least alleged.
So here are some of them.
Before I tell you these, let me give you some context.
Here's the thing I learned when I was a bank teller years ago.
I learned that these two things are both true.
I've used this one before, but if you're new, you haven't heard it.
See if you can figure out how both of these things could be true.
And they are true, by the way.
That all bank robbers get caught.
When I say all, I mean 95%.
So 95% of bank robbers get caught.
So that's the first fact.
Well, the second fact is that 95% of bank robberies are unsolved.
Now, how can it be true that almost all bank robbers get caught, but almost all bank robberies are unsolved?
How could they both be true?
And the answer is that bank robbers keep robbing banks until they get caught.
So they can rob ten banks, nine of them they don't get caught, the tenth they do, But it's known that once they start, if you get nine successful bank robberies in a row, you're going to try a ten.
So they pretty much all get caught while each individual one doesn't.
Keep that in mind as to how you can be fooled by this kind of information.
So you can easily be fooled if you haven't integrated all of the information.
So here are some of the things we're hearing.
We're hearing something about Sharpies being given to Republicans that would make their votes Invalidated, I think you'll find that one's not substantive.
So I think Sharpiegate will go away.
I do believe it's possible that somewhere Republicans were given Sharpies while Democrats were given regular pens.
I don't know if it made any difference.
There was a story of a van full of Biden-only votes showing up late at night and There's a woman who makes that claim.
So there's a real person who says, I personally watched this van show up.
It had only Biden votes, which would be impossible, etc.
It's one person, and I feel like if that were real, it would be on both networks already.
So I think there's something wrong with that story, but I don't know what it is.
I'm seeing questions about the watermark.
So there's some rumor, I don't know the details, Some of the ballots had a watermark on it to track fraud.
And that watermark has allowed them to, in fact, track some fraud.
I don't know if that one's true.
So I'm going to put a low odds on that.
So you see what I'm doing here.
I'm creating the same situation as the bank robberies and the bank robber.
It could be, almost certainly, that there was fraud somewhere in the country.
So it can be true that there was fraud...
At the same time, it's true that every single example or allegation of fraud is not real.
Do you get that? It could be true at the same time that there was fraud, not necessarily widespread, but in some places.
That could be true, while it's also true that 100% of the examples are not true.
Everybody gets that that can happen at the same time.
And I think that's sort of what we're seeing, you know, these stories.
There's stories that only Biden votes showed up at the end.
I doubt that would hold up.
There was a report yesterday that 14,000 dead people voted in Wayne County, which is Detroit.
But that's still being looked at.
That still has some life.
But I guess the list doesn't show dead people.
The data they were using is people over 100.
So there was an assumption in this analysis that the people over 100 were probably dead and some of them were confirmed to be dead.
But we don't know yet if this was a major problem or a minor one.
So that's still being looked at.
I would say the dead people voting is guaranteed to be real in the sense that at least one dead person voted in 2020.
Do you agree? Do we agree there's a 100% chance That at least one dead person voted in 2020, meaning a fraudulent ballot.
We just don't know how big it was.
So that's the mystery.
We've got the video of the lady filling out multiple ballots at a counting station.
Now here's a little lesson for you on understanding reality.
The worst analysis mistake you can make is to assume that if you can only think of one reason for an observation, That's the reason.
Because you can only think of one explanation, so that must be the one.
Consider, though, that your imagination is not that good.
And lots of times when people can only imagine one explanation, I can imagine seven.
Because I imagine things for a living.
It's literally what I do when I get off of this livestream.
I'll go imagine things in a Dilbert comic and I'll write them down.
So imagining alternate possibilities is what I do professionally.
I almost always can at least imagine several different explanations for the same fact.
So you saw the video of the woman filling out, apparently, a bunch of different ballots herself as some kind of counting facility Where she should be counting and not filling out ballots, right?
So what other explanation could there possibly be for why there's a video of a woman clearly filling out ballots, a bunch of them by herself?
What other explanation?
Is there any? I'll give you one.
Maybe she was testing the document reading machine to see if she used a Sharpie, if it would register.
Right? Now, I'm not saying that's what happened.
I'm saying if you didn't imagine that scenario, there was at least one possible explanation that you didn't imagine, which doesn't mean anything about what the outcome is.
I'm just making a Making a comment about the limits of our imaginations.
Don't assume that because you saw it with your own eyes that you interpreted it correctly.
Remember, the Covington kids you saw with your own eyes?
It just wasn't true.
Remember the fine people hoax?
The people who believe it think they saw it with their own eyes?
On video! But it didn't happen.
The people who believe the drinking bleach hoax Are positive they heard it and saw it with their own eyes.
But it didn't happen.
So if you were positive you saw that woman filling out things and you saw it with your own eyes and there's no other way that that can be explained, well, there probably is.
There probably is.
Somebody says it could be staged.
Correct. It could be just a fake video that was completely staged.
What are the odds of that?
Very, very small. But it's a good example of how there could be another explanation.
So there you go. It's called duplicate ballots.
I don't know what that means.
Yes, and maybe it was fraud.
So you can't rule out fraud.
It's called curing.
What is curing?
You mean filling in the boxes better?
Could it be that it was a bunch of ballots that were poorly filled out, but a human can clearly tell what was intended?
So all she was doing is drawing thicker lines over the weaker lines as somebody did with a pencil or something?
Maybe? Somebody says recreating torn ballots.
Suppose there were torn ballots that couldn't go through the machine, and all they wanted was to create a fake one that would go through the machine.
So they make a duplicate to run through the machine, and then put a note on the original so it doesn't get double-counted.
Maybe? Maybe?
Alright, so just don't imagine that you can think of all the explanations.
Some other alleged frauds.
There's the mailman with the trunk full of ballots that tried to get to Canada.
All of these anecdotal stories are like, they all have low credibility individually.
And then there's non-residents voting in Nevada.
That's almost certainly true.
We just don't know the extent.
Don't you think there's a 100% chance that at least one person who used to live in Nevada but moved away got a ballot and filled the deal?
At least one.
We just don't know how many.
Let's see. Then there's the poll observers who were prohibited in Pennsylvania, I think.
I'm not sure about other places.
So Republicans were very aggressively prohibited from observing the results in Pennsylvania.
Does that mean that if they had observed the results, they would have observed fraud?
Well, again, can you think of any other reason...
Why? Democrats would deny Republicans an opportunity to do what the law requires, which is observe the vote.
Can you think of any reason that they would do it other than they plan some fraud?
I can. I can think of another reason.
They just don't want to be bothered by being picked to death about all their decisions.
They just think it's easier and faster, and they just don't want to be bothered with having to answer to somebody looking over their shoulder.
Now, I'm not saying that's the reason.
I'm not saying it's that, and I'm not saying it's because of fraud.
It could be that they don't want the Republicans to claim fraud because they saw something that maybe wasn't fraud, because it would give the Republicans something to claim.
So there's no excuse for violating the law if the law says Republicans get to observe.
So that's just a violation of the law.
And I do think it would not be unreasonable to throw out all of those ballots or to require them to be recounted with Republicans looking at them.
Somebody says, Scott, you disappoint me.
Well, I'll cure that by blocking you.
Here's what I don't want to hear from any of you.
You can disagree with me on anything, but don't misinterpret me and then misjudge me.
That is just so boring that I'm going to block you for that.
That's what this gentleman was doing, although he didn't give details.
He's disappointed in me.
For what, exactly?
Because I don't believe all of the claims of fraud?
I just told you there's a 100% chance of fraud.
100%. I just don't know if these examples are the proof that anybody wants.
So don't misinterpret me and then criticize me.
You can criticize all you want, though.
Just don't misinterpret before you do.
And then what about vote harvesting?
So there are claims of vote harvesting, but I don't know if it's illegal where it was done.
So again, I don't know if that one will turn into anything.
Now, it might not matter that these individual cases are not persuasive if there are enough of them.
Oh, there are a couple of other fraud claims.
One of them is that There are a number of vote totals that are not random.
In other words, there are a number of reported totals by, I don't know, precinct or whatever, that have 0-0 at the end of the total, and way more than chance would suggest, so it looks like people filled out things illegitimately.
So the data people are looking at whether the numbers reported could have happened by accident.
So that's still fruitful.
And they're still looking at the dead people with databases compared to the people who voted.
Trying to clean that up a little bit as we go.
And I think that's going to be fruitful too.
I just don't know if it'll be fruitful enough.
Somebody's saying in the comments that Georgia announced a recount.
Well, that makes sense. I thought you could announce a recount until you had a total.
Is that different by state?
Because they don't have the military ballots, I think, unless they did get counted today.
Alright, so I think the Trump team still has some valid allegations, ones that will stand up, we just don't know if they're big enough in impact to change anything.
Somebody says Project Veritas sees postmarks being changed in Michigan, so that might be another one.
So there's a 100% chance that fraud happened, and we Whether or not the Trump administration can find specific examples that are big enough to matter, that's the whole game right now, isn't it?
Unless you can create enough doubt that the doubt itself pushes it to the Supreme Court and then somehow the Supreme Court can save it for you.
I don't know that that's going to happen.
All right. I find that I was strangely troll-free in 2020.
Compared to 2016, it wasn't even close.
And I can't tell if it's because of how clever I was.
Meaning that I learned that I can block comments, at least block myself from seeing them, by keywords.
And my trolls were so organized that they used the same keywords all the time.
So I just figured out what keywords my trolls use, and I blocked just those.
And I had this delightful Twitter experience with very few trolls.
But a bunch of them have figured out these words that I haven't yet blocked, so I've got a new batch that got through my screen, but I think I tightened that up.
So my life on Twitter is much better without trolls.
It's not as good as being on Locals, by the way.
If you don't know, I'm also on the Locals platform.
Locals, just like it sounds, dot com.
And over there, it's people who want to be there, so there are no trolls.
And that's a much better experience.
And I do stuff there that I don't show in public.
Here's how the mainstream media is trying to disappear the story of any irregularities in the vote.
And irregularities could include, you know, up to the point where Trump could win, I suppose.
So you can see it beginning to happen, and here's how it happens.
The first part I mentioned, they will deny a thing that nobody's claiming and hope you can't tell the difference.
Somebody says voter role discrepancies is what we should be looking at.
The difference between who is eligible to vote and who did vote And looking for places where more people voted than there are people who can vote.
So that was one of the comments.
And maybe, maybe that'll be something.
But anyway, here's what the mainstream media will say.
And I'll use an analogy to make this case.
Somebody just said, I'm a disgrace.
We'll hide that user.
Goodbye. All right.
So the mainstream media is going to deny the wrong thing and hope that the public can't tell the difference.
So the Trump administration will say there was targeted fraud in a few places.
The mainstream media will look you in the eye and say, there's no widespread fraud, which of course is not what's being reported.
Rather, it's targeted fraud.
So they'll just turn it into widespread so they can say it doesn't happen.
And the public will hear it and say, Well, the news says there's no widespread fraud, and they won't make the connection that that was never the claim, that the claim is that it's targeted, of course.
Widespread fraud wouldn't do anything, because the only way widespread fraud would work is if it were massive and nobody noticed, and that kind of doesn't happen.
But you could have targeted fraud where the people who notice are all in on it, so that you could get away with that.
The other thing that they're doing is there's absolutely no reporting, as I said, on foreign interference.
Why is the mainstream media no longer reporting on foreign interference?
Do you see the reason?
If Russia had interfered with the election, it would make a Biden victory, which they expect, illegitimate.
So suddenly, Russia doesn't interfere anymore.
Now, if Russia had interfered successfully, wouldn't that tell you that there's an even greater chance that some individual cities and precincts also interfered?
In other words, if the mainstream media puts it in your head that Putin or China or Iran could interfere and did this year, it's easier to believe that Democrats also interfered.
So they want the entire idea of interference to not even be anywhere in your brain.
Do you see that happening right in front of you?
So the setting the table to disappear the story that there's anything wrong with the election...
It's being set up right now, right in front of you, and you can watch it happening.
So without the foreign interference story, and by putting in that word widespread, they can get most of it.
And then they can label anything that has maybe a little meat to it.
They can label it baseless.
Do you know why they can label it baseless?
Because they haven't looked into it.
So they can label anything baseless simply by deciding not to report on it.
That's what makes it baseless.
It's baseless because they don't look into it.
So they'll be baseless, And widespread.
No foreign interference.
This is all how to disappear this story.
And then there will be the conspiracy theories word so that they'll be able to sort of sweep their hand at all the conspiracy theories.
So if they can debunk several of the specific allegations, which will be easy, right?
If there are 20 allegations, How hard would it be to find that three of them are not real?
It'd be easy, of course.
If there are 20 allegations, I guarantee that at least three of them are not real.
Closer to 20 of them are not real, but at least three.
So then the mainstream media can say, look at all these ridiculous rumors that have already been debunked.
The Republicans claimed A, B, and C. And all of them have been debunked as conspiracy theories.
So can we really take the other things seriously?
Can we take those other claims seriously?
Because look at these other ones.
They're just conspiracy theories.
I mean, we're not going to spend our whole life looking at one conspiracy theory after another from Republicans.
If we've debunked three of them, walk away.
Right? So that's what's shaping up.
And It's exactly like you thought.
Then you're also seeing the pressure on large Republican platforms.
I believe Steve Bannon got banned from Twitter forever, right?
Alex Jones already gone, right?
President Trump, his own tweets are being suppressed, right?
Now, you might say, but Scott, Scott, Scott.
In your opinion, they were not credible people or that's no big deal because they're not the normal Republicans.
They're sort of edgy people.
But what's important is they had big platforms.
So a lot of Republicans would hear a different version through these platforms than they would hear through the controlling mainstream media.
So the controlling mainstream media is picking off One dissenting platform after another and shrinking the total amount of energy that Republicans have for any message.
So you can see it all coming together.
All right. That is pretty much what I wanted to talk about today.
And do they hope Q will shut up?
Yeah, and Q would be another one.
So I'm not the one who's saying that Q said anything real.
I don't know if Bannon is saying things that are real or not.
I have no idea. Alex Jones has some mix of things that are real and are not.
I can't tell the difference most of the time.
But that's not the point.
That's the excuse that's being used to de-platform them.
But it's more about the energy and the noise and the power that's being diminished.
It just... It takes down the power from the Republicans.
I would have to say that my own social media platforms were not affected in the last several months, that I can tell.
In other words, my user growth on Twitter is off the charts, 600,000 followers on Twitter.
That doesn't look like it's been Um, compromised in any way in the last several months.
I did think that, you know, back in 2017, 16, but I haven't seen it lately.
And likewise, um, Even YouTube, which used to demonetize basically everything I did and minimize it so it just couldn't grow.
In the last few months, since around May, my YouTube traffic took off and most of it gets monetized after an appeal.
I still have to appeal it almost every time.
So the algorithm demonetizes me automatically, but at least we get it reversed on appeal most of the time.
And the growth of subscribers went crazy.
So if I only look at my own experience as a user, I don't think I got any kind of pressure on my account that I could notice.
Now, I remember we did have that problem earlier in the year that probably continued, which is people get unfollowed automatically.
That's still a giant question mark.
It's only a question mark as to why it happens.
It's confirmed, I would say, that it does happen, and it happens a lot.
Alright. How can this happen, somebody says.
I don't know which part. Do you think that's fair?
Fair is a word for children and idiots.
Because the world does not have any fairness.
Fairness is not an objective standard.
It's just how you feel. Two people can have a different idea of what's fair.
So I try to avoid using that word unless I'm talking about somebody else using it.
I don't like to say things are fair or not fair because that's just subjective.
Somebody says Cernovich's periscopes were throttled.
Could be. The lefty truth squad will come after you.
I kind of like the fight.
Is there anything wrong with that?
I do worry about myself sometimes.
Do you ever have those moments where you wonder about your own mental health and you think to yourself, well, if I'm worried about my mental health, maybe that means I am sane because a crazy person wouldn't know they're crazy.
And one of the things that I worry about in myself is that I sometimes enjoy fights, meaning that if the leftists come for me, It's kind of exciting.
I think I like the attention more than I'm worried about the outcome.
Or I like the fight, or I like something.
There's something about it that on an irrational level I'm drawn to it.
I have to tell you that I received a threat on social media that something would happen at my house on election night.
Now, if I were normal, my reaction should have been, oh my God, I have a security threat.
I don't know if it's real or not, but I better treat it as real.
It could be a person or an angry mob at my house on election night.
And instead, my first reaction, and again, this is why I worry about myself, My first reaction was, well, that's going to be fun.
I imagined an angry, uncontrollable mob forming in front of my own house while I'm inside, and I couldn't get worried about it.
I should. I mean, if I were sane and normal, I would say to myself, oh, that's a bad problem.
I'd better think about this all night.
And I couldn't. I just couldn't get worried about it.
And I thought how fun it would be if an angry mob showed up at my house.
That's all I could think of, is how fun it would be.
And that's not good.
That's not good at all.
Yeah, I do love a good fight.
I'm pro-Second Amendment, and it wouldn't take people long to figure that out.
So I feel like I'm a lot safer than you might think.
And my house has a unique quality to it.
I won't describe it in detail.
But if you got inside my house, you'd be in a lot of trouble.
You'd be in a lot of trouble if somehow you actually got inside.
That would be the worst thing you'd want to do.
And I won't tell you more about that.
Just assume that Getting inside my house, even if you're armed, it's just not a good play.
Just believe me when I tell you that.
Export Selection