All Episodes
Nov. 7, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:06:46
Episode 1179 Scott Adams: Election System Claims and Accusations. Are Any Credible?

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Does every city have people who can change vote tallies? The Autist underground volunteer analyst army Dominion's secret voting software...a problem? Hammer and Scorecard vote changing software Adams Rule of Vote Tally Fraud Democrat enemy lists of Trump supporters ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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, the best part of the day.
Every single time.
Haven't been wrong yet.
And if you'd like to enjoy this broadcast, to the maximum possible extent, well, you know what you need.
You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, except vote counting.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
I feel the transparency on this election improving.
We'll get to the whiteboard in a moment.
Don't read ahead.
Don't read ahead.
Okay. All right.
I think you understand. I would like to begin by bragging about my wife, Christina, who got her pilot's license yesterday in record time.
Apparently, uh, It's either rare or unheard of to be able to get all of your requirements done that quickly.
But even more impressively, she learned to fly on tailwheel planes, the kind that do aerobatics often.
And they're much harder to fly.
In fact, people who have been professional pilots their whole career try to fly these tailwheel planes.
It means it has a little wheel at the tail.
Which is different than a regular plane like a Cessna.
It would have three wheels and it's much easier to land, which is the hard part.
And so Christina did her check ride yesterday and she's an official pilot.
So just had to brag about that a little bit.
Is it just me?
Or is there a little bit of a mixed feeling about the The idea that Trump might not become president for the second term.
Now on one hand, he was my clear choice and preference.
But you know, rarely are there things that are only good or they're only bad.
Most things are some kind of a mix of good and bad, and when things don't go my way, I like to find the good.
So if it turned out, And I'll tell you later that it's by no means certain that Biden became president.
I'm being completely honest.
I know this will sound like I'm joking, but I'm not joking.
I will find great entertainment in watching him try to do the job.
And I don't know if I've ever thought that about another president.
Generally, by the time somebody gets elected president, even if you don't like their policies, You say to yourself, well, Bill Clinton was very capable.
President Obama?
Very capable.
But President Biden?
One of the big points of having a campaign is that the campaign is so grueling and really tests the Everything from the stamina to the mental strength and the mental acuity of your candidates.
Biden is the only candidate who proved he couldn't do it.
And he got elected anyway, if the vote count holds.
And by the way, don't assume it will.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
And I think, have we ever had this situation where somebody proved he can't do the job by the lids and the low amount of effort he could put into it?
And when he did, it looked a little shaky.
So I don't know we've ever had this situation where somebody proved They're not physically capable to do the job, because it's a grueling job.
And somebody humorously asked on Twitter—I forgot to write down their name, so I can't give you credit—somebody said that everybody knows that the presidency ages you quickly.
And somebody said—I shouldn't laugh about this.
It's terrible. But somebody said how much— How much cushion does Biden have if the presidency ages you quickly?
He might be 15 minutes on out.
Now, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it might be dicey that he even makes it to January nomination.
I mean, because he's that age...
And because, again, he proved to us in the campaign that he can't handle a full schedule.
What happens when he goes from campaign mode, which is...
Let me tell you how hard campaign mode is if you're Joe Biden.
Here's the thing somebody wrote for you.
Here's you reading it exactly the same every time.
And close your eyes!
Imagine them coming out of the fields, eyes bulging, veins popping.
And he's just reading it. It's just the same stuff he reads, you know, his stump speech.
Now, I said during the campaign that by the end of the campaign, Biden was really good at delivering that stump speech.
And the speech itself, although it was, you know, filled with lies, as all political speeches are, it was persuasive.
He actually was quite, quite good.
And I'm being serious about that, because I think it's important to That you do compliment the people on the other team for things they do well because it gives you credibility when later you insult them.
And so I think that it was only at the end that Biden got that little speech really tight.
In the beginning it was a little shaky.
But how in the world is he going to actually go do the job?
I don't know. I heard a story, I don't know, a few years ago there was some city official who ended up getting, I think he went to jail for this, or at least he got convicted, of changing some votes.
So after the election, he got into the votes, and he had access to them, and he changed them, and he got caught.
And this raises an interesting question, doesn't it?
Because I said to myself, Does every city have a guy or a woman?
Let's just say guy for keeping it simple.
Does every city have a guy who has access to the votes and can just change them?
What is it on a spreadsheet or something?
What did you just change the numbers?
How the hell did that happen?
And don't you ask the same question?
If there is one city in which there was one guy whose job it was to have access, it included having access to the votes, and he could just go in and change the number.
Does every city have one of those guys?
And what was it that got him caught?
Because obviously he thought he wouldn't get caught or he wouldn't have done it.
So I don't know if they caught him by a coincidence, or was it an accident?
Again, I don't know the details, but was it obvious he would get caught?
Was there somebody whose job it was to audit things, and then they saw this, and they said, ah, obviously.
We always check this, and sure enough, this number doesn't match this number, so somebody changed the number.
Did that happen? Because I'd like to know that at least if there are just one or two people who have access to the votes in each city, I'd like to know that there's somebody else who audits them every time.
You know, not once in a while.
That's a big question, Mark.
Wouldn't you like to know that? And here's another question I have.
If it was your intention To send a signal that you are not rigging an election.
And that's why you wanted everybody to think, hey everybody, I'm totally not rigging this election.
Isn't there a certain way that you would act that would be compatible with what you're saying?
The words coming out of your mouth.
So if the words coming out of your mouth say, we definitely did not do any rigging, And I certainly want you to believe it.
There was no rigging.
I want to do everything I can to convince you there was no rigging.
Would you act the way Democrats are acting?
Because it doesn't seem compatible with the notion that they would like you to know that the election was so secure and so well done.
You can look at it all.
Transparency? Of course.
Of course you could have transparency.
Why not? The election was perfectly legitimate.
So, it's not proof of mischief that people won't let you look at the details.
There could be other reasons. You could imagine other reasons for each of their decisions.
One of the reasons you can easily imagine is that the news is fake.
So, for example...
Did you hear the story that Republicans were barred From being close to the vote counting.
So that they were told to be behind some barrier that's too far away with binoculars and they can't even use their binoculars.
You saw that, right?
It was on all the news.
At least it was on Fox News.
So the news reported consistently.
It was all over social media.
So it's just a fact, right?
It's a fact. The Republicans were not allowed close to the voting so they couldn't watch it.
Except I just watched a report on...
It looks like they corrected their own reporting.
It was true that Republicans were prevented, and they were too far away to actually watch.
But this was an incomplete story, apparently.
The real story is that there were Republicans who were allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder, and they were there, and they were watching.
There were other people who were not part of the core group who are shoulder to shoulder who were not allowed to watch, and that included both Democrats and Republicans.
So there were two rings of watchers, the close watchers who were close and could watch.
And then there were the other people who were behind the line just so they didn't get, probably just so they didn't interfere.
Now, is that the story you heard?
Is that how it was first reported?
Nope. So remember what I told you yesterday if you were here for my live stream yesterday?
A good rule of thumb in this fog of war situation where there's news coming out all over the place and you don't know whether to trust it.
It's a good general rule of thumb that 95% of these stories, maybe 100, but at least 95% of the stories will be fake news.
Do you know that?
Whether you heard there was a van full of ballots, or you heard there was a Sharpie thing, that the Sharpies didn't work and only Republicans got them, if you heard that somebody was throwing out a bunch of ballots, all these stories, the anecdotes, they're just flowing right now.
If you look at any one of those anecdotes, the odds of it being true, just that one thing, 95% chance it's not true.
And you should use that filter on every one of these things, right?
Now, at the same time I can say easily and quite confidently that 95% of those individual stories is fake, I can say at the same time, and there's no conflict between these two things, that there's a 100% chance there's fraud in the election.
Those are different.
The individual cases are just the things people notice, and it's confirmation bias, and it gets reported because it's exciting.
Those are almost certainly fake.
But I will dig into a little bit why I say that the election certainly has fraud.
We just don't know how much.
And you probably won't see much of the real examples in these news and social media reports and tweets.
But But let me...
Here's a funny factoid that, again, you should not put too much...
We'll talk about hammer and scorecard in a minute.
You shouldn't put too much weight on this following fact, but it's a fun fact.
So for entertainment, I'll tell you anyway.
Apparently, if you search on Google to look for trends in searches, you'll find that around October...
In the swing states, the states where the elections were closest, there was a lot of searches, and an unusual amount of searches, for finding out what the penalty is for election fraud.
So what's funny is, you could imagine there would be lots of reasons that people would be looking for election fraud information, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they were trying to avoid getting caught.
But it suggests that.
So it suggests, but does not prove, that there were people thinking about doing a little election fraud and thought to themselves, before I do my election fraud, maybe I should take 10 seconds to Google how much jail time I'll get for it.
So we don't know if that's why they're Googling it, but it's funny.
Here's a little factoid that's hard to get out of my head.
So Biden allegedly is going to have a 4 million person popular vote victory if the numbers come out the way they're heading.
And that would mean that he got more votes substantially than even Obama.
Do you believe that?
Does it sound reasonable that there could be more votes for Biden?
The least interesting...
Candidate of all time.
Now, of course, people were voting against Trump, and he creates a lot of energy, so it's not impossible.
It's not impossible that Biden would get more votes just because they're voting against Trump and has nothing to do with Biden.
But do you believe it?
I mean, it feels improbable, doesn't it?
But we did have record turnout, so you can't rule it out.
Now, no matter how many of these improbable things you see, that doesn't mean that there's fraud.
Because if you were to look at any big, complicated situation, you would find, every time, a whole bunch of seemingly too coincidental sorts of things happening.
So the fact that this election has a whole bunch of things that make your eyebrow go up Doesn't mean it's fraud because of that.
It just means that any complicated situation will be filled with confirmation bias.
So again, I'll get to the actual fraud allegations in a minute, but I'm just saying in general, no matter how many of these individual pieces of, well, that's suspicious, they don't all add up to anything.
They just don't.
And That doesn't mean there's no fraud, and it doesn't mean there is fraud.
I'm just saying, as a general statement that has nothing to do with the election, specifically, it doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you see.
It should not persuade you even a little bit.
There will always be lots of that, just because it's a big, rich, complicated situation with lots of people involved.
So if you see 20 examples of weird coincidences...
It means nothing. It really doesn't.
It doesn't mean anything. It could.
It doesn't mean it means nothing.
But you shouldn't make a certain conclusion from it.
Let me tell you what I see that you don't see.
And I'm going to tell you this to make you feel better if you're a Trump supporter.
And there's something I observe, because I just have a different...
I have a different window into some things.
You know, everybody has different access to information.
Because I do this now, I have more access to stuff that's happening before it gets in the news than many of you do.
Now, not more than, let's say, other blue check people on Twitter.
I don't have any super secret extra access.
But I have more than most of you.
And it just is sort of a natural result of lots of people knowing that I do this for a living, or at least it's part of what I do.
And here's how I see the world.
Much like a Movie that I've talked about before called Underworld.
Now, Underworld is one of my favorite movies, and not because the acting or the writing are so great, although I liked it all.
What I like about Underworld is the concept, and the concept is that although the humans don't know it, There's been this centuries-long pitched war between the lichens, the werewolves, and the vampires.
And that they do their fighting literally underground in abandoned subway places and tunnels and stuff.
And I've got to tell you, and I guess Harry Potter has the same kind of set up, Where there are wizards having these wizard battles, but the muggles, the human beings, don't even know what's happening.
So it's all sort of invisible to their perception.
And there's something like that happening right now with this election.
So the vampires and the werewolves are really fighting it out.
And I've been watching the fight.
And what I mean by that is that The result, not going Trump's way, activated an army of autists.
Now, I say this, I might be the only person who could use autism as a compliment.
Now, of course, the spectrum is gigantic and there are people of all types all over it.
But probably there are more people on the spectrum who are Dilbert fans Because Dilbert's an engineer and you could imagine he might be on the spectrum too.
So I probably have more...
I've probably had more contact with people on the spectrum than anybody on earth because they kind of rally around me.
They think I'm on the spectrum too and maybe I am.
So when I talk about autism, if anybody sees me tweet about it, just assume that My take on it is affection, meaning that I have a great affection for this part of the population, because it's sort of a mutual affection situation.
But some of the folks who could be, let's say, considered to be on that spectrum are the high-functioning math data analysis types, and they've been activated.
So right now, some of the smartest people on the planet Earth...
have banded together and are working through the data on this election.
Now, we don't have good, available, accurate data on everything we'd want, but there's quite a bit.
So you could look at the people who have died and compare that to the people who voted.
You can do all kinds of clever analyses to see if the data is normal for what you would expect to be random.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff you can do with either public, or at least you can get it, data.
And so while you're watching nothing happening except politicians talking to each other, I've got to tell you that there's a deep, let's say, external audit happening.
Meaning that if there's anything in the data that's going to suggest something happened, they're going to find it.
Because below the ground, there's a battle going on that is awesome.
It's awesome. It's literally the smartest people in the world for this kind of stuff.
Everybody's got a different kind of smartness, right?
Smartness could be talent, it could be musical.
But for this kind of stuff, you have people who are not ordinary.
Trust me. These are not ordinary people looking into this.
These are people who have never been activated or motivated like this before.
Yeah, somebody's talking about, was it Benham's Law?
There's a number of schemes for finding data that's not normal, to find data that's been tampered with.
So, the thing that you can rely on is if there's anything in the data anywhere that's...
Benford?
Benford's the law, I guess it's called.
If there's anything in the data, they're gonna find it.
They're gonna find it.
And I don't know if anybody's tried that before.
I don't know if anybody has ever weaponized the public intelligence and aimed it at this thing.
And not only are they working on it, but they have found each other.
So they're actually organized at this point, semi-organized, if you will.
So here's what could happen.
What could happen is this army of geniuses will find enough problems in the vote...
That they can take it to the Supreme Court and say, hey, Supreme Court, it looks like our vote is not credible because we found these anomalies that can't be explained by a fair vote.
And then what's the Supreme Court going to do?
Are they going to look into the data?
Well, they don't really have that capability.
They would have to listen to experts, etc.
And would the experts agree?
Nope. They never do.
So if it went to the Supreme Court, you'd have two sets of experts.
See if everything I'm saying so far sounds like it makes sense.
If it gets to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, not being technical experts themselves, would have to have witnesses.
If they do that, I guess they would.
And the witnesses would be an expert, let's say, on each side, at least one.
And they would listen to the experts, and one expert would say, yeah, this analysis shows there's definitely a problem.
We don't know it's a problem, because you'd have to really dig into it.
But there's enough here to show that the credibility of the election cannot be trusted.
Then the other expert would say, they're completely wrong.
They're looking in the wrong place.
They made the wrong assumptions.
You can't really draw this conclusion.
So we say everything's fine and their analysis that there's a problem is flawed.
Now you're the Supreme Court.
You've heard experts that you don't understand arguing things that you can't possibly confirm and the elections on the line.
If they decide we'll side with this group, it might Put Trump in office.
If we side with the other group, Biden's the president.
Does the Supreme Court want to pick your president?
No, they do not.
They do not.
There's nothing the Supreme Court wants less than to be blamed for picking your president.
They're going to need at least a little bit of distance from the decision so they can maintain their credibility.
So what would they do?
Faced with this situation, the balance of the republic is on the line.
Their experts have weighed in, and they can't tell who's right, because they're judges.
They're not technical experts.
They just know there's a dispute, and they can't tell who's right.
What would they do?
Well, I'm no legal expert, but I'll give you sort of the common sense direction it would go.
If I were the Supreme Court, I would rule to kick it back to the states and kick it back to the state legislatures who pick the electors who become the electoral college voters.
And I would say, we the Supreme Court have determined that the claim of fraud is at least credible enough to That you should not just have the election, you know, just count the votes and proceed.
You should kick it back to your state legislatures, because that's how it was designed.
The reason that we have an electoral college, I don't know if it's the only reason, but among them, is this.
This is based on what I read.
I'm not some constitutional scholar, so you should fact-check anything I say about the Constitution, for sure.
But my understanding is that the reason there is an electoral college is because you couldn't trust the popular vote in every case.
So the electoral college people, they're somewhat morally bound to go with the voters and vote the way the vote actually went.
But they are not legally required.
They're not legally required.
Now, if somebody says that the Supreme Court could ask for a do-over or a re-vote, true.
But could that be completed before January, before whatever legal...
I think there's a legal time when you have to have a decision.
So it might not be practical to do a second vote.
And if you did a second vote, what would make the second one more credible than the first?
Depending on what issues they found.
So I think there's a non-zero chance that the following will happen.
There will be enough doubt about the outcome in just these few states that matter.
There'll be enough doubt that the Supreme Court can't tell the difference if the vote was fair or not.
They will kick it to the states.
The state legislatures are Republican.
And they will say, under this unique situation, We would never do this in normal times, but under this unique situation, the Constitution has given us a tool, and we're going to use it, because that's why it was created.
The tool was for this, when you don't trust the result.
So, I don't think it would be a good thing for the health of the country if the election does not go the way the vote goes.
That's a pretty unstable thing.
But it could happen. So if you're thinking that this vote is over because Biden will have more votes counted, I would say that the Trump legal path is way better than you think it is.
We don't have visibility on it.
So it's possible that all the analysis in the world comes up with nothing, right?
Isn't that possible?
So that's possible.
We'll see. You know, one big advantage that Biden had in the election and in the campaign is that a lot of dead voters really related to him.
So I think that's why he got all the dead votes.
All right, I'm just kidding.
Now, when you see on social media that a whole bunch of dead people voted, probably not true.
It's probably true.
Well, I'll say definitely.
It's definitely true that somewhere in the United States a dead person voted.
Do we all agree that it happened at least once?
Now, probably it did not happen enough to change the votes.
But it looks like some places where it looks like dead people voted, what really happened, and we have one anecdote that could be representative of the rest, And the one anecdote is that in some cases where a voter, they did not have that person's birthday in their database, the database would default to 1901, I think.
And so it looked like a whole bunch of old people had registered and voted who would be actually so old that they're probably not even alive.
But it was just a database irregularity, and it didn't change anything.
They were real people who really voted.
But they looked like they were 110 years old because the data was wrong.
So I think that a lot of the dead people voting, at least in terms of the large numbers of them, probably not true.
The odds that some dead people voted, probably 100%.
But were there enough dead people voting to change an election?
Well, we don't know.
Let's go to the whiteboard.
Yes, we're going to the whiteboard.
Yeah, let's change my camera view a little bit.
Sorry. So I don't think my graph is necessarily accurate, so think of it more as a conceptual way to approach things.
So let's say if you were going to do some election fraud and each of the things that you considered had a different risk of getting caught, But also, each thing you considered had a limit to how many votes you could influence.
So let's say if you had something that was like fake ballots and you were going to deliver a van full of fake ballots and that's how you were going to cheat.
Well, how many fake ballots can you introduce into a system before somebody notices?
It's kind of hard to get away with that one, isn't it?
If you were going to put, let's say, a handful of ballots, I've got a little handful of ballots.
I'm going to sneak them in the pile.
Nobody will be the wiser.
What are the odds you could get away with that?
A little handful of ballots that were faked.
Well, I think there's a number of ways that the mail-in ballots are checked, the signatures are checked, etc.
But let's say you could get away with it.
You probably couldn't change many votes that way.
Because if you do it big, you're going to get caught.
It would just be too obvious. If you do it small, it doesn't change enough votes.
So it's barely worth doing.
Although you should assume somebody's trying to do it somewhere.
But how about the dead voter thing?
Your risk of detection if you had too many dead voters is close to 100%.
Right?
Right? And indeed, we know that because we've found a bunch of dead voters on the polls.
So depending on how many people you're trying to get away with, your risk of detection goes way up.
Let's say more people voted than there are people living in the district.
Well, too many dead voters.
It'd be obvious. So if you're looking for fraud, this is just a general statement about it.
If you're looking for fraud, the only place you really need to look is someplace where you have the lowest risk of detection with the highest possible number of votes changed.
And the only thing I can think of, and again, that doesn't mean it's the only thing, because it's the only thing my imagination can come up with, Is software.
A hack. Now, how could you hack a bunch of different states?
That'd be pretty hard, right?
It's got to be hard to hack even one state.
How would you hack a bunch of states?
And it'd be pretty hard, right?
Unless... Unless there was one common piece of software that was part of the voting election process in those states that was all the same.
And it was used by all the states.
Now, if that were the case, then that means there would be one place that you could make a change, and it would ripple through the whole system, and that would definitely get you enough, so that satisfies you could get enough to change an election, especially because software could be smart enough to only change votes where it's needed.
In other words, it wouldn't change all the votes in the country, It would change them only in those states where you knew in advance it was going to be close and it mattered.
That's it. And it would pick a couple votes from this precinct and a couple votes from this and just bump them up a little bit.
So you wouldn't see anything out of whack.
It would just look like you had a really good vote.
A lot of people came out to vote.
That's all it would look like.
So, what are the odds Somebody says, are you making this up?
Yeah, everything I'm saying now is only descriptive of what's possible.
Nothing I'm talking about in terms of the hacking is a report of something happening, as far as I know.
I'm not aware of anything that's been definitive like that.
But let me go to the...
And just because I'm seeing it in the comments so often, I want you to know that I do know that the software is called Dominion.
That's the name of the software, that all of the swing states, the ones that are problematic, they all use the same software.
So it's an outside company, a private company, or it might be public, but it's an outside company that makes this software called Dominion, or it's the company or the software, I don't know.
I think it's the company named Dominion.
So Dominion makes the software that goes into all of these states.
Hypothetically, and again, this isn't an allegation, I'm just saying hypothetically, if somebody changed just the Dominion software, or I assume it goes into some databases somewhere, there's probably at least two places that you could capture the vote and change it.
If that happened, would anybody know?
Now, you say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, if these governments...
Are you using software for the election, the most important, vital thing, and a third party, an outside company, is providing the software?
The minimum you can be sure happened is that the states have access to the code, and they can look at the software, and they can make sure that there's no weird stuff in the software, right?
That's what you're...
If you've lived in the world at all, you know that that's an obvious thing that's going to happen.
Obviously, the states are going to have access to the software, they're going to look at every line of code, and they're going to make sure that there's nothing sketchy in that code.
Right? It's obvious, right?
Of course they're going to do that.
Except, except the company says their code is proprietary, which means they can't.
It's proprietary.
They don't want their secret code.
To get out because the states looked at it.
So now this company, somebody's telling me Dominion is a private company out of Canada.
I think that's right. Fact check that for me.
So now we have a company that makes the software that because it's proprietary, nobody in our government knows what's in it.
Now I ask you a further question.
How many people within the company, Dominion, I don't know how many employees they have, but how many of the people who work for the company do you think have access to their own software and understand it and have access to all of it?
How many total people in that company, would you guess, can see all the software and understand it?
Here's my guess based on my experience in the world and being around software development a lot, etc.
Maybe two. Maximum.
Maybe two.
Again, I'll ask for a fact check on that.
But I've never seen a big, complicated software program where there were more than two people who knew everything about it.
Do you think that the algorithms used by the big tech platforms, Twitter, Facebook, Google, do you think there's even one employee who can have access to the entire algorithm and understands how each of the pieces work?
No. No.
That person doesn't exist because the algorithm is too complicated.
There are people who know parts of it.
And there are people who have access to it, but there is nobody.
And I say this without being close to it, but just logically.
I don't think anybody who knows this space would disagree with me.
Maybe. I'll take a fact check if you have it.
But here's the thing.
It comes down to maybe one or two people on the planet Earth Who had access to the software that's deciding who is the President of the United States.
If you want to fact check something, fact check that.
That there are only maybe two people, maximum.
There might not even be two.
At this company, Dominion, who would be the only ones in the world, and they might be Canadians, we don't know, who would have access to the whole code and know if it has anything in there that's bad.
Now, the rumor, of course, that you've heard from Sidney Powell, attorney for General Flynn, and from lots of other people you've heard say, that there are these software programs called Scorecard and Hammer.
I don't know if it's two softwares or one is the project name and one is the software, but they work together.
And allegedly, our intelligence services has used it successfully to change the votes in other countries, which is a hell of a thing to know, but I guess that's, you know, it seems likely.
You know, if we're not trying to hack the voting systems of other countries, what the hell is our CIA doing?
That's sort of their job.
We should be trying to hack them just like they're trying to hack us.
That's sort of what they do. So do we think, just with what we know of the world, do we think that our intelligence agencies have ever developed software which had the intention of changing the vote in other countries?
Well, I don't know.
But wouldn't you assume that they did?
And if they didn't, What the hell is wrong with them?
They should all be fired if they didn't do it, because it's the most obvious thing that they should be doing.
Of course our intelligence people should be looking to build software that could change elections in other countries.
Why the hell wouldn't we?
Now, once it's built...
Can you keep software in a bottle?
Is it the only way it can be built is by intelligence professionals for the government?
No. If they can build it, it can be built.
So it doesn't mean that that very same code was used against our own voting machines, but it does suggest that such a program can be built and it would be undetectable.
Are you with me so far?
That it could be done and it would be undetectable and certainly we've at least tried to do it to influence other countries.
It's almost a guarantee.
Now, given that there's only one place I can think of where you can move enough votes and still be completely undetected, it would be in software and it would be a hack and we have no visibility of it.
Let's say you go to the Supreme Court and you say the following.
I can demonstrate that there is such software as Scorecard and Hammer.
I'm guessing we can prove that exists, even if it only exists in a special place and has only been used once or something.
But demonstrating that such a thing exists, I feel like that could be done.
If you demonstrate that it exists and you demonstrate that all of the software for these key states that were close is run by a company who doesn't give you access to their code, and you take that to the Supreme Court and you say to them, the only thing we know for sure is that we can't depend on this software.
And so we have a vote, which many people question, For a variety of reasons, it could be confirmation bias, but the question is out there, so it matters.
And we can't check it because it's proprietary software and it's already done, right?
They could always change the software after the fact anyway.
So would the Supreme Court say, well, you're right.
We actually can't tell if we have a good election here.
So let's kick it over to the state legislators and the And let them pick electoral college candidates who will do what they think is right, given this horrible situation.
I don't know that that will happen, but it could.
Now, the Supreme Court is in a weird situation where they have two objectives, I would say, that are compete.
One is they want to be compatible with the Constitution.
But the other thing is they need to keep the Republic coherent.
So if you have a case where being true to the Constitution would coincidentally destroy the country, just because of some weird situation, then I think they would choose to not be true to the Constitution because their higher objective is to keep the country credible and keep our systems working and stuff like that.
So I don't know if the Supreme Court would ever want to change a result Even if they could, and even if they thought they ought to.
They might still just not do it.
Because they'd rather have a...
It might be better to have a fake vote result than to destroy the credibility of the system.
It just might be a better choice.
Legitimately, it might be a better choice.
All right, let me finish up about the hacking of the systems.
I'm going to make...
Let's call it Adam's Rule.
I'll just name it after myself because I haven't heard anybody else say it, but it goes like this.
Any software system that has the capability of changing an election will eventually be compromised by the intelligence services of at least one country.
It could be your own country, right?
So it could be the CIA compromising it for reasons that they hope are good for the country.
Or it could be a foreign country compromising it.
Because all they need to do is compromise the one or two people who have access to the code.
How hard would it be for the intelligence services of any country, any big country, to compromise one or two people?
It's what they do.
It's literally their job.
Compromising ordinary citizens, that's just a Tuesday.
So don't think that that's even hard.
It's easy. All they have to do is find out enough about these people until they find something that they've done that's blackmailable or something that they need that they can't get any other way.
And you can always find that.
Or you can just bribe them.
Bribery works almost every time.
So here's the Adams rule.
In a situation where you've got something that can be compromised, it's physically possible.
Because you just need to get to the programmers and corrupt them.
If it's possible, the security or the intelligence agencies from every major country that has an interest will be attempting to do it.
Now, will they succeed?
You would have to think on any individual attempt that they would fail.
They would fail this time.
They might fail at the next election.
They might fail at the one after.
But here's Adam's rule.
Eventually, they will succeed.
100% of the time.
You just have to... It just is a question of how long it takes.
It might take 10 years of trying with no success.
It could take 25 years of trying with no success.
But there's 100% chance that if enough...
Intelligence agencies, and keep in mind that also political parties might be trying to get into it, and various billionaires who have interests.
So there could be a lot of people who are trying to corrupt this thing, and they're going to keep trying year after year.
Maybe those two programmers who are the ones that everybody's trying to corrupt, maybe they're changed down eventually, and then new intelligence agencies start working on these new couple of programmers.
But over time, 100% of the time, An intelligence agency is going to break through.
So it's very much like, well, I don't need to give you a bad example.
I'll just tell you that they have such a big interest, and they have the capability, and they have no reason to ever stop trying, that they will just keep trying until they get lucky.
Somebody's going to break through.
Somebody's going to get that blackmail going.
Somebody's going to get a bribe together that works.
It's going to happen. You just don't know if it happened yet.
So let me say this about the voting system that we have.
I do not have evidence, me personally, I have not seen convincing evidence that our election system is compromised.
Can I say that as clearly as possible?
Because on social media, I'm being criticized because people imagine I'm saying the opposite.
I've seen a whole bunch of stories and reports and anecdotal reports of things which look like election fraud.
So far, I believe zero of them.
So that's my take.
My take so far is that none of them are true and also big.
Lots of them could be true but small and they didn't change anything.
But none of them that I'm aware of, just personally, are big enough that it would change the election And also look true, as far as I know.
That doesn't mean there's nothing out there.
It just means I haven't seen it in any way that would be credible to me.
But there's a 100% chance it either has happened or will happen in your lifetime.
100%. There's no way you can keep this sort of thing safe from all the people who want to get at it.
It just can't happen in the real world.
That's not even a thing.
So the fact that we don't have transparency on that code, it's a big problem and one that really needs to get fixed.
So it turns out some of the Democrats, believing that Biden has won, are talking about what lists they're going to put together of people who supported Trump and so that those people who supported him can be punished in a variety of ways To keep them from ever getting jobs again, for example. So AOC wants such a list.
And Jennifer Rubin said, any Republicans now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not follow the will of voters?
Basis allegations, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Should never be able to find a...
never serve in an office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position, or be accepted into polite society.
And she says, we have a list.
So now they're...
I don't know if it's the same list or two different lists of bad Trump supporters.
So in both cases, I immediately tweeted at them that I would like to be added to the list.
Somebody says you're not looking.
Somebody says you're totally wrong.
Somebody says loads of ballot dumps all for Biden.
Let me make a prediction.
So some of you believe that in the middle of the night, thousands of Biden-only ballots have been dumped at these places.
I'm going to bet that never happened.
Anybody want to take the bet?
And the bet will have nothing to do with the specific reports, or even how credible the people are who saw it and saved their witnesses, etc.
I'm going to bet the 95% that it doesn't matter what you saw, or what source it was from, or how absolutely believable it looked, 95% of all of those things are not true.
You just don't know which ones are in the 5%.
So if you're saying, I'm totally wrong because there's such good evidence that vans full of Biden-only votes showed up in the middle of the night, I would bet against that.
Not 100%, but 95%.
If you think the opposite, you're not dealing with the odds.
You could be right, because sometimes the 5% happens.
That's how odds work.
95% chance that they're fake doesn't mean they are fake.
It just means you ought to look into it.
Now, am I saying we shouldn't look into that?
No! No!
You should look into that as hard as you can look into something.
So let me be clear.
The question of whether there's enough there to look into it, 100%.
A hundred percent. We've got to look into those stories.
There's no wiggle room whatsoever.
We've got to get to the bottom of those stories.
But my guess is there'll be nothing there.
And part of it is because it would be hard to do that crime without detection.
The hacking is something you could do without detection, and you could get enough votes for sure that way.
So it's a whole different level of risk there.
All right, so I want to be on all these lists of bad I'm wondering if one of the big stories coming out of this election that once things settle down we'll talk about is I wonder if black people made themselves politically irrelevant.
It seems like that, right?
Did black voters become politically irrelevant?
Because Democrats didn't do a damn thing for them and they still elected Biden.
I feel like they proved that you don't need to do anything for them.
Now, I'm not saying that's how things should go.
I'm saying that strategically and in terms of whether they're getting what they want, I think they took a really big step in the wrong direction.
Because what the hell would Democrats do for the black population?
They have no reason.
They just don't have a reason.
So Trump did a lot.
You know, I don't have to go through the list of everything from prison reform to funding historically black colleges and opportunity zones and the Platinum Plan and all that.
So Trump did a lot and lost anyway.
Why would the next Republican do anything for the black population?
Because Trump proved it doesn't make a difference.
I mean, you did get a higher percentage than any Republicans got in a long time, but it wasn't enough.
So it didn't make the difference.
So I think both Republicans and Democrats got a lesson out of this election that is a really bad one if you happen to be black, because it kind of made the black voters politically irrelevant.
But at the same time, The Hispanic voters who came out for Trump in big numbers, I feel like they became much more politically relevant, right?
Because if you're a Republican, what did you learn from this election?
You just learned that with a little bit of help, if you're just a little bit good to the Hispanic voters, they're going to turn out.
Because they turned out without much, really...
Going for them, right?
I mean, the Republicans didn't try to target them.
They just said, hey, we like law and order.
And it turns out, surprise, surprise, other people like law and order, too.
So the Hispanics came out big for that, and probably liked some of his international policies as well.
I believe that if you were to look at, you know, what are the reasons that the election came out the way it's coming out, assuming it finishes with a Biden...
Victory, which is possible.
It's going to be because of the fine people hoax and the bleach hoax.
I believe that if you were to change just those two things, Trump would be re-elected easily.
And everybody's going to have their own list of one or two things that caused the election.
None of them are really sensible, because for an election to go the way it went, everything had to happen the way it happened.
So if you say, well, the reason Biden won was this one variable, that's just nonsense.
Sure, if you changed one variable, maybe he would have lost, but there were probably lots of those variables that if you changed it just a little bit, he would have lost.
So all the articles that you will definitely see, where all these pundits will say, the reason it went this way is because of this one thing, they're all ridiculous.
But I do think that one of those variables that had to go the way it went was the fake news.
And that if you change that one thing, which is the fake news, I think Trump would have been elected.
And I also have another theory that the closer the election is with the regular natural votes, the less the public matters to the outcome.
So if you have an election that's so close, like in some of the states we're going to see, as soon as the election is close, the will of the people becomes irrelevant.
Because the people couldn't decide.
They were close to 50-50.
So instead, since the people's will is irrelevant, it was a tie, effectively, it ends up being lawyers and political operatives and judges and Dirty tricksters and pranksters.
So those are the people who will determine the election.
So the founders built this system that depends entirely upon good people using their judgment and voting and participating and all that.
And that sounded good on paper, but the only time it doesn't work is when the population is naturally split.
As soon as you have a population that likes to vote close to 50-50 on their presidential elections, and you know that in advance, right?
Four years from now, do you want to predict the election outcome four years from now?
I can. It's going to be close to 50-50.
Just like always.
Recently. Now, under those conditions, we don't have a democracy.
Because the closer the election is, the less it matters what the people care about.
It only cares what the operatives care about after that point, because they're going to be battling about the fraud and the elections and the constitution and the rules, and you and I don't get a vote.
How much are you doing on the legality of ballots?
Nothing. Nothing.
Maybe you voted, but your vote just got thrown away.
Every vote in any of those cities that's really, really close, flush them down the toilet.
Republican votes, Democrat votes, independents, whatever, flush them all down the toilet.
The voter's will is no longer part of the process.
And that's only a unique situation where the vote is naturally close.
It just takes the public out of it.
So that's an absurd situation that we seem to have accepted as if it's normal.
So allegedly, and of course all news is fake, so I don't know if this is true, but it was in the news, the Republicans rejected several election reform bills from the Democrats.
So apparently Republicans have been the problem for reforming the election.
There was some rumor that it was because they didn't want Trump's election to be questioned, because if you questioned how good the election process was by trying to reform it, it would bring into question Trump's election.
So there's some thought that that's the reason.
But if Republicans failed to reform the election process, and then Democrats said, let me get this straight.
We're asking you to get rid of all the ways that people could cheat in the election, and you're saying that you don't want to do that.
That's right. That's what we're saying.
Okay. You know what's going to happen next, right?
Because if you don't fix those holes that we're clearly telling you need to get fixed, we're going to use those holes.
And we're going to get our president, because you failed to fix the election process...
And we're just going to walk through this big hole that we told you we'd like to close, but you assholes said you don't want to close it.
So watch this.
We're just going to walk right through it.
And I think maybe they did.
I feel like that's what happened.
I feel like the Republicans took a run at reforming the election process.
Republicans said no for political reasons.
And Democrats said, fine.
Fine. We'll just walk right through this hole and get our president.
And maybe they did.
Can't rule it out, but I don't know.
All right. Those are the things that I wanted to talk about.
Somebody says, I don't buy this.
Which part? Which part don't you buy?
Um... Alright, I'm just going to take a look at some of your comments.
So somebody's saying dark times ahead.
I don't think so. I don't think so.
You know, I use this word a lot, the zeitgeist, which is just the feel in the room or the general mood that the country has.
And correct me if I'm wrong, I see just no interest in a revolution.
I see no interest in a civil war.
If you gave most Americans, 95% of them, a chance to say, okay, even if you don't like things, would you rather just let it go?
Let it go for four years and take another run at it?
I think almost all Americans are on the same page, which is, we can hate the outcome That's not the end of the world.
Yeah, we'll just go four years and take another run at it.
So I don't see the slightest chance that it's going to be a bloody civil war.
And I just don't see any chance of that at all.
And it doesn't matter who won, really.
Whichever way it goes, I think we're going to have a peaceful transition because people want it.
Look at the stock market. The stock market was fine.
Apparently the stock market didn't care if it was Trump or Biden.
They just chugging along.
Somebody in the comments is asking me if I'm in Mensa.
The answer is no, but I used to be.
So you're not in Mensa unless you pay the dues.
I didn't see any reason to pay the dues, but I was in Mensa for a year or two.
Somebody says, I experienced very dark times during Obama.
I can't tell if you're making a bad joke or not.
Somebody says, if Biden goes hard for the guns, war will break out.
Well, of course it would. Yeah, if they tried to take away your guns at your home, war would break out.
But I don't think the odds of that are very high.
I don't see Biden trying to take your guns away.
That sounds like something he'd talk about but wouldn't do.
Stage three of acceptance.
No, I don't think we're at acceptance yet.
Like I said, the army of vampires and werewolves are fighting it out.
We don't know which way that's going to go yet.
But I'd bet on the vampires.
Will Trump prevail?
My last estimate was 60-40 yes.
And I don't think any of this is predictable.
Probably I would reverse that right now.
And I would say 60-40 that Biden will take the job.
But there is a solid 40%.
That's a pretty big percentage.
A solid 40% that the vampires and the werewolves who are fighting it out will find enough problems with the data...
Possibly a hack.
I don't know if you could put odds on that, but possibly.
And that'll be enough to throw it back to the electoral college and then anything could happen.
So somebody says to look into what somebody on Twitter is calling out as a problem.
So if you missed that first part, let me reiterate.
If you see somebody on Twitter calling out a specific fraud situation and it looks really, really convincing, it's a 95% chance it's false.
And it doesn't even matter what it is.
Just in general, no matter how convincing it looks, if it's an individual situation, 95% chance you're not seeing the whole story.
But still 100% chance that somebody's doing fraudulent stuff somewhere.
We just don't know where. All right.
I think we've done what we need to do.
And that's all for now.
Export Selection