Episode 1181 Scott Adams: Why President Trump Still Has the Advantage. Crazy, Right? Maybe not.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Statistical observations suggest vote fraud
Pennsylvania law on late vote receipts
Nevada and non-resident votes
Wisconsin anomalies all benefited Biden
Michigan anomalies all benefited Biden
Securing future elections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
The best time of the day, and this one's gonna be a burner.
Just like every time.
They get better all the time, really.
And all you need to enjoy it to its fullest extent, I think you know.
It's a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Because you want to fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And then you can join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except recounts.
It's called the Simultaneous Sipping App as an Alcohol.
Ah, how many of you have reduced this to habit so that it feels really good when you know it's going to happen and then it feels good when it happens and you feel good all day?
Well, if you haven't, you should.
So Joe Biden gave a speech claiming victory and calling for unity.
Well, it's about time, isn't it?
It's about time somebody called for unity.
Because if Joe Biden had not called for unity, where would we be?
Thank goodness someone thought to say a bunch of words in public, because that should fix things, I think.
Now, never mind that Joe Biden did base his campaign on calling Trump supporters effectively Nazis.
Now, of course, the fine people hoax was the center of his campaign.
The second part of his campaign was the drinking bleach hoax.
But in any case, he has branded all Trump supporters as supporters of basically a Nazi.
So after that being your campaign, how exactly are we supposed to feel about this unity stuff?
It's a little hard to feel unified when someone has branded you a Nazi and members of your party are literally forming lists of Trump supporters so that they can be punished in the future for having political support of Trump.
Now, good luck, Joe Biden, getting all your unity.
I would say that would be a case of too little too late.
Too little, too late. A number of world leaders are congratulating Biden, and although we could argue that it's not official, and I will in a little bit, I feel as though you could forgive the leaders who feel this is just sort of the polite time to do it.
And I saw some pushback on Netanyahu because he finally congratulated Biden.
But I think it's fair to let the other countries just do sort of the standard traditional thing you do when it looks like an election is basically over, according to them.
So I don't think we should make too much of that.
They're just doing what they need to do to be polite.
I don't have a problem with that at all.
Did you see all the cities erupting in celebration?
I had weird mixed feelings about this, at least preliminary outcome.
I'll tell you later why I think it's going to change.
But I kind of liked seeing my fellow Americans be happy for the first time in four years.
It's hard to watch giant throngs of people Being desperately unhappy and depressed and they think their world is ending and they think Hitler is running the world and all that stuff.
And even though I was, you know, mostly on the other side from them politically, I kind of enjoyed watching them be happy.
I have to admit, I had mixed feelings about that.
All things being considered, if we could find some situation where most people are happier, but maybe I don't get exactly what I want, I'd be okay with that.
Because I'd rather most people are happier.
That would be better than me getting, I don't know, a tax break or something like that.
But we'll see if that holds.
And of course, there are lots of other variables, aside from being happy and running around in your pajamas in the streets.
So let me ask you this.
If Biden, let's just say, hypothetically, and I know it's crazy, what I'm going to say next, it's crazy.
So just think of this as a thought experiment Not anything that you have to worry about in the real world.
Suppose the election got reversed by the courts.
Would Biden supporters say, oh, okay, well, you know, we were wrong.
I guess the vote didn't go our way.
And now that the vote has been reversed, would they encourage Biden to give a concession speech?
Let's say that The count was unambiguously reversed, and there was no doubt that Trump had actually won, and it's a big surprise, just hypothetically.
Do you think they'd ask Biden to concede?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I don't think it would go that way.
But let's talk about...
Oh, one more thing first.
So I saw on Fox News site, they're talking about how Biden is looking to reverse America First policy.
Now, the great thing about calling your policy America First, which is what Trump did, is that if anybody tries to reverse it, they're reversing the America First policy.
Which there's nothing you can say about that that sounds good.
Because you're thinking, uh, you're the president of the United States.
Why would you want to reverse the policy that put the country you're the president of first?
So it has that little bit of Antifa quality.
You know, the brilliance of Antifa is that they're anti-fascist.
So if you're anti-anti-fascist, By definition, you're a fascist.
That's how words work.
Well, Trump has one of those working for him.
America first. I'd like to reverse that.
Oh, you would? Well, that doesn't sound too good, does it?
So Biden would have to deal with that if he indeed becomes sworn in as our president.
But how likely is that?
Now, when last I updated the slaughter meter, it was at 100%.
Prior to the actual election.
I haven't updated it, but I did say subsequent to that, that it's closer to 60-40, 40-60.
I'm going to keep my odds of Trump eventually becoming a second-term president in 2020 at 60%, which is 50% better than Biden's chances.
And I will now make my argument for why Trump actually has a 60% chance of becoming president still, still much better than Biden does.
You ready for this? Now keep in mind some context, right?
So some of the context is about me as a A public prognosticator, I guess.
So keep in mind that when I predicted Trump would win, I was treated as an idiot for a full 18 months.
But then, it came through.
Keep in mind that when I said Kamala Harris would be the candidate, even after she dropped out of the primaries...
I had to endure many months of people saying, geez, Scott, can you just give it up?
And then, of course, she became the vice presidential pick.
And most people, including Democrats, would say she is sort of the real president or will be or something.
So I would say I stuck that one out against all odds.
Likewise, when the The Vegas shooter was thought to be ISIS before we knew who it was.
I said it's not ISIS. And then ISIS took credit.
ISIS took credit for the Vegas shooting.
And still, after ISIS took credit, I said it wasn't ISIS. And then it wasn't.
So keep in mind that I have a track record of three ridiculous public predictions.
Ridiculous. And you could argue that all three came in.
The Kamala Harris one is more of a judgment call.
So, because I kind of like when that happens, I'm going to stay with it.
So I'm going to stay with my prediction that despite losing the election, Trump will more likely win the election in the end.
The most unlikely, ridiculous, I would say, almost reckless prediction, wouldn't you say?
Really crazy. That's where I like to be.
I like to be in crazy, in crazy place.
And here we see in the comments that I am delusional.
That's where I want to be.
So if you're thinking right now, oh, you know, you got lucky a few times.
I'll give you that.
I'll give you that you did get lucky on some big ones.
But you're just really frickin' crazy now.
You know, this time, Scott, you're crazy.
Could be.
Entirely possible.
I give that a full possibility.
But here's my argument, and when I'm done, see if it changes your mind.
Okay? Here's what would have to be true in order for the election to be overturned.
Are you ready? So see which of these individual things that I talk about you disagree with me.
Because if you don't disagree on any of the individual things, you might want to agree with me on the big picture that they create.
So individually, would you say that Democrats had a motive to cheat in the election?
Everybody? Did they have a motive to cheat?
Yes. Not only did they have the motive, they had the motive of all motives.
Indeed, has there ever been a motive to do anything illegal that was better or stronger than this motive?
Remember, half of the country was having mental illness that was extreme because of this president, and they wanted to get out of that feeling.
Plus, they had convinced the public and themselves that Trump was basically Hitler.
And if you had a chance, let's say, to break a rule or a law, and you might even go to jail if you got caught, but if you break this law, you could remove Hitler from office without any bloodshed.
Would you do it? Would you be motivated to break a law If you thought the result of breaking that law was removing Hitler from office, of course you would.
I would. Let me say as clearly as possible, if I believed what the Democrats believe, that Trump is Hitler, and I could find a way to fudge the election and break the law to get rid of that guy, I would do it. Is there anybody here who wouldn't do that?
Because let me say, if you wouldn't do that, you're kind of an asshole.
Because you would let Hitler come to, you know, you wouldn't take a little bit of chance to get Hitler out of office?
Really? I think you would take that chance.
Most of you would. So, on the question of did they have a motive, I think that's 100% yes.
We'd all be on the same page on that, right?
I think even Democrats would agree that given the extent of their feelings, the motive part is pretty solid.
But motive isn't enough, right?
Just having a motive doesn't prove anything.
You know, we have all kinds of motives to do lots of things, but we don't do them because we don't want to go to jail, or maybe it's not possible.
So, motive, I think, yes.
And emphatically, yes.
In fact, more motive than there's ever been motive for anything in the world of motives.
It's the number one motive thing other than I don't know what.
Could there be a higher motive than this?
I can't think of one. All right, what about the opportunity?
Because they'd have to be able to do it.
There would have to physically be a way to do it.
Do you believe that there is physically, that it's actually possible that they could have changed enough votes to rig the election in their favor?
Now, I would say that there are some things, you know, some specific kinds of fraud that you really couldn't do in gigantic numbers because of the nature of it.
It would just be hard to scale some sorts of things up.
But... Is it impossible to change the programming of whatever is counting the votes?
Is that impossible? If insiders thought they were getting rid of Hiller, and they had the power to change the software code, would it be impossible to do it?
No, no.
Nobody thinks the software is impossible to hack, right?
Nobody thinks that employees are impossible to bribe, or maybe they don't even need a bribe, because maybe they want to get rid of Trump too.
So certainly you could get people who are insiders, who have access to everything, you could certainly get insiders to do what you wanted them to do, because they probably want to do it anyway.
If you didn't blackmail them, if you didn't bribe them, they just want to do it anyway.
It's easy. The Programming ability, if you had access to it and you had the intention of doing it, would be easy.
So there wouldn't be any hard technical problem involved, right?
Now, suppose you wanted to do it in a more grotesque way, not an elegant, graceful way.
Suppose you just wanted to show up with a bunch of...
This has been reported on social media, and we don't know how true it is.
But it's just been reported on social media, so I'll just put it out there in a what-if.
Is it possible, I'm not saying it happened, we're just talking whether it could be done, to arrive in the middle of the night with trucks full of ballots that have been filled out for one candidate for not the other?
Is it physically possible that they would show up and do some massively obvious thing Like, have all the ballots in the truck be for one candidate.
Could you do it?
Well, you could do it.
You know, the risk is getting caught, right?
That's the risk.
But could you do it?
I feel like you could.
Now, maybe later they would be reversed or something.
You know, maybe you'd get caught.
But it's certainly physically possible.
Would you all agree that if you don't We'll look at this separately.
But if you don't look at the risk of getting caught, you could hack it, you could have an insider, you could deliver fake ballots, you could rig the counting machines, right?
Physically it's possible.
We also have lots of evidence of individual local races that have been rigged in the past.
Right? We also have Blagovich.
Do you remember Blagovich?
He was, if I have this story right, he was the governor of Illinois.
Went to jail because he tried to sell a Senate seat.
Now, that's a guy who knows government corruption.
He was corrupt.
He went to jail for it.
He tried to sell a Senate seat because, as governor, he was able to...
I think he had the right to fill a Senate seat with a Republican or Democrat or whatever he was.
Democrat? Yeah, I guess Democrat.
So he had a choice of doing that, and he...
Offered it up for sale.
Now, his opinion, and he just offered this yesterday, I think, is that the democratic cities have been faking elections for decades.
And that it's not something that happens once in a while.
It's the normal baseline.
Right. So now, do you believe Blagovich, who went to jail for, you know, state corruption...
He went to jail for it.
So you've got to feel that he might have known some other people who might be sort of in that mindset or doing those kinds of things.
So he says, oh yeah, there's no doubt about it.
It's basically every major Democrat city.
It's every time, and they've been doing it forever.
That's a pretty big Pretty big claim, isn't it?
By a person who you would imagine would be close enough to things to know that that's true or false.
Now, Trump did, I don't know if he commuted his sentence or pardoned him or whatever the word is, but Trump did get him out of jail before his term was over.
So, you know, Blagovich has maybe some reason to be, you know, nice to Trump in return.
But I don't know if he would make a claim like that That's such a big claim that all the major democratic cities are rigged elections.
That's a really big claim.
I don't know that he would do that just as to return a favor.
It's just such a big claim.
So we have opportunity.
We have motive. So the only thing that's sort of missing is do you think they could get away with it?
So, if you believe they have motive, you believe they had the opportunity, then the only thing that would stop them is thinking that they would get caught.
Or, you might think that they will get caught and it just hasn't happened yet.
Do you think that Democrats who, let's say Blagovich is right, let's say they've been cheating in every major city, every election, For decades, would they be worried about getting caught?
I wouldn't be worried about getting caught if it's the same crime I've been doing for 40 years.
I don't worry about that at all.
I'd be like, well, they didn't catch me last year, they didn't catch me the year before, and they didn't catch me the 39 times before that.
I think I'll take another go at it, right?
So, somebody's reminding me that Blagovich was backfilling Obama's Senate seat that he left for the presidency.
Just for the full picture there.
So, I believe that even if you were to take a hundred Democrats and say, okay, all you hundred Democrats, you have the motive, it's physically possible, would you do it?
Most of those Democrats would say, I know I have the motive, and I know I could do it, but I'm not really the lawbreaker type.
I'd rather not go to jail.
My family doesn't want me in jail.
So I wouldn't personally do it.
So if you take 100 Democrats, I think most of them, 95% or whatever, could easily come down on the side of, I'm not going to break the law.
That's not what I do.
But you don't need 95% of them.
You only need 5%.
You only need 5% of the people who could do the crime to say, I'll do it.
Right? You don't need the other 95.
You just need 5.
What are the odds that...
I'll just pick a number for a conversation here.
What are the odds that 5 out of 100 Democrats would be completely willing to do the crime...
They'd have the motive, and they'd have the opportunity, and they'd know exactly how to do it, because they'd been doing it for decades at a smaller scale.
I would say the odds of a crime happening under the conditions that I just described, 100% strongest motive anybody ever had for a crime, to get rid of Hiller, in their minds.
Opportunity? Of course.
Of course. Who would doubt that there's opportunity?
Thinking they can get away with it?
Don't you think they've been getting away with it for decades?
Do you think Blagovich is wrong?
Because you would have to think there's something about what I just said is wrong for you to think that there wasn't a lot of fraud.
Now, was there enough?
If you added it all together, would it change the result?
Well, let's dig down a little bit.
Let me give you some things that people are seeing.
And I tweeted a few long threads where the data nerds are digging into this.
If you dig into the data, it turns out that the data is suggesting, and this is just publicly available data, or stuff that you can buy from a database, I guess, but it's stuff that just the public has access to, and if you look at it, Are there any anomalies that stick out that would suggest that there was something massively wrong?
And the answer is, yeah.
Yeah. So you can look at the threads, and you'll see a bunch of examples where, in some cases, 200% of the registered voters voted.
You'll see cases where...
One of the strongest cases goes like this.
We know that Trump was ahead in some states...
And then late at night, things reversed.
Now, the details of why it reversed, that's a separate story.
But we can look at just the data and say, does that data look like it could have happened naturally?
And here's the story that we're being told.
The official story is that the early count was a certain kind of voter...
And that when you counted all those certain kinds of voters, whether they be people who voted in person, people who vote early, people who vote late, that there's a correlation between those kinds of voting and whether you're a Democrat or a Republican.
And so, there might be a natural and anticipated reason Why the vote could be biased in one direction early when you're counting a certain kind of vote, but then maybe you get votes from a different part of the state, or it's people who voted in a different way, and they skew maybe the other party.
So that's the official explanation.
It's just that you were counting different baskets of votes, and they skewed in different ways, and that's just the way it worked out.
Maybe. But the data geeks said, well, if that were true, let's look at something else that would probably be true at the same time if that official explanation is true.
And so they looked at the returns from the same wards, so the same geographical place, and the people who voted in the same way, the same way physically, like a ballot versus in person.
And if you look at People who voted with the same mechanism and from the same place, you find out that before midnight, they were pro-Trump, but after midnight, the same place with the same voting technique became strongly pro-Biden.
Huh. Huh.
Do you think that happened by accident?
Is it a coincidence that the same location, the same basket of people voting the same way, Suddenly turned after midnight.
Anything's possible.
But statistically, you can sort of dig in and say, all right, it's possible, but the odds of it happening in ward after ward after ward is basically zero.
Basically zero.
Now that's just one of a whole bunch of statistical observations, which if you looked at any one of them individually, you would say, ah, impossible.
So there are things such as the nature of the totals themselves, there's a natural distribution of digits if things are natural, and the Biden votes don't conform to the natural arc, whereas every other vote, whether it was for Trump or Or for independents or downed ballots or anybody else.
Every other vote followed this curve that you expect if it's natural voting.
And the Biden votes violated the curve violently.
So that would also be, statistically, extraordinarily strong evidence of major fraud.
Could we be wrong about any of this?
Of course. Of course we can.
Somebody's asking me for the sources.
See my recent post today, and I think that lists most of the sources.
Yeah, so Benford's Law is what we're talking about, which has to do with the natural distribution of digits if numbers had occurred randomly or naturally versus being rigged.
So those are a few of the things that we have.
I think you should expect more.
So here's the big point.
I think the odds that Democrats would try to rig things are basically 100%.
Odds that they could, and they have the ability, one way or the other, the ability, 100%.
The odds of them thinking they could get away with it Well, you don't need everybody to think that, remember?
You only needed a few people to do the deed who thought it was worth it.
And of course, there's a 100% chance you could find a few people who have the ability and the motive and want to do it.
So there's a 100% chance they have the motive, a 100% chance they have the opportunity, and a 100% chance people would actually take the chance.
Now here's the next interesting part.
If that happened, it would have happened at a large enough scale that the data geeks will find it for sure.
For sure. And I'm going to tell you that if the people who are looking into this don't find it, I'm going to be really amazed.
Like it would be the most unexpected thing that happened to me all year, is if the people who are looking into this, and these are the right people, trust me when I tell you that the A-team is looking into this data, and not just a few of them, a lot of them.
And the A-team, meaning the smartest people in the country, basically, for this kind of stuff, for data stuff, they're picking it apart, And they're not finding nothing.
They're not finding nothing.
They're finding something.
And here are a few other things that are wild cards.
There's an article in American Thinker by Jay Valentine.
Now, you need to fact check anything I say on these topics, but let me give you some of the things that are brewing.
So I guess Judge Alito from the Supreme Court ruled that the votes that came in, and fact check me on this, I think it's the votes that came in after midnight have to be separated for counting.
Now separated means that they're leaving open the possibility that they will be disallowed because they came after the deadline.
My understanding is that Pennsylvania law is so clear that That if the Supreme Court had to rule on it, they would likely rule that the law had been violated if any of those votes are counted, because the law is so clear.
Don't count any votes.
Somebody's saying after 8pm.
So do my fact check about what time it is that is the before and after.
So I've heard midnight, but I've also heard 8pm.
I don't know which one is right. Then I've also heard...
That those separated votes were not counted.
So fact-check me on that, because the article assumes they were counted.
Somebody on Twitter, just a random person, says, no, no, no, that's wrong.
Those were not counted, but I don't believe that.
It seems far more likely that everything was counted, unless they have already...
If Pennsylvania has not already disallowed them, they're counted, right?
Because you have to count everything that's not disallowed.
I don't see there's any wiggle room with that.
It's either disallowed or counted.
There's not like a middle ground there.
So they're not disallowed as far as I know.
That was the whole point of the ruling, is to create a situation where you could later disallow them if you decide to.
Apparently there are enough of them that if they were disallowed, Pennsylvania would go to Trump.
And then you become so close to that 270 number that you need one other thing to go your way if you're Trump.
Do you think one other state could go Trump's way?
Let's say hypothetically Pennsylvania goes the way the law requires.
That's all it would take.
All it would take is for Pennsylvania to be settled the way Pennsylvania's own law Very clearly says it should be settled, which is not counting anything that came in late.
Then Trump has Pennsylvania.
Are you worried yet if you're a Democrat?
If Trump gets Pennsylvania, would you still feel confident that no other state could have a change in result?
Well, here's another one that Jay Valentine mentions in American Thinker.
And look on my Twitter feed if you want to see any of these articles.
Now, again, I'm not the one who can fact-check this.
I'll just put it out there that it has been asserted that the following is true.
Nevada has a whole bunch of California residents who also have a place in Nevada.
Many people in California may have gone to their second house in Nevada because California was closed down for COVID and maybe Nevada had a little more freedom.
Or maybe they were just there anyway and they received a ballot.
Is it possible that some tens of thousands of Californians received ballots in both California and in Nevada?
And Could it be possible that there were tens of thousands of Democrats who received these ballots in Nevada and said, you know, California's already taken care of.
I've got a ballot for California, but that one doesn't really make any difference, because we know how California's going to go.
That's going to go for Biden.
But I'm not so sure about Nevada.
Nevada could be close.
So I've got a choice.
I've got two ballots here.
Because I've got these two homes.
Which one am I going to fill out?
I might fill out the Nevada ballot, even though I'm a resident of California, which would be disallowed.
Now, you know, whether or not that's called illegal or not, I don't think anybody would go to jail for it if you have two homes and you fill down a ballot for your other home.
I doubt that's a jailable offense.
And I don't think anybody would be thinking of it as too big of a risk.
After all, the state sent them the ballot.
If you're in Nevada and Nevada sends you a ballot and your name is on it, does that seem like a big risk?
Even if you knew you shouldn't fill it out?
It doesn't feel like you'd go to jail for that.
At least, it wouldn't feel like it to me.
And some people might say, I don't even know what's legal.
If they send me a ballot, I'll just fill it out.
I'm not going to think about it too much.
So there is one theory that says that once they do a recount and they subtract out the people who are not actually allowed to vote in Nevada, Trump wins Nevada.
If Trump gets Pennsylvania and Nevada, he's the president for a second term.
How unlikely does it seem to you that those two things could happen?
Does it seem unlikely to you that the Supreme Court would rule to disqualify ballots that came in after the deadline?
And Pennsylvania seems like there's a pretty good chance that's going to happen.
I don't know, it's not 100%, but there's a pretty good chance.
How about the Nevada thing?
I wouldn't put as high of odds on that, because we don't know how many people there are.
So maybe they find them all and there's not enough to change the result.
That's possible. But what about Wisconsin?
What about Wisconsin?
It turns out that those people studying the data are finding quite a few problems in Wisconsin.
It would seem that Wisconsin...
Either has the biggest set of coincidences ever seen in an election and anomalous outcomes, or, given that every one of those anomalous outcomes went for Biden, or it's obvious massive fraud, which would also reverse the count and give Trump the win.
Or, what about Michigan?
Similar situation.
The data geeks are poring over Michigan and saying, ah, we got questions.
And we got big questions.
Not little questions.
Really, really big ones.
As in, big enough that they would change the outcome of the election.
I'm not talking about a postal employee who threw away some ballots.
I'm not talking about grandma fill down a ballot that she shouldn't have.
I'm not talking about a little extra ballot harvesting necessarily.
I'm talking about something big.
So you might see something big coming out of Wisconsin and or Michigan and or Nevada and or Pennsylvania.
So Oh, thank you from Israel.
I love you too.
Now, here's what you would need to believe in order to believe that Biden will be sworn in in January.
Are you ready? All right, so this will be a summary list of things you would have to believe.
To believe that Biden will be sworn in.
He's obviously been elected so far.
And I do believe, and I agree with Netanyahu and the other countries who have congratulated Biden, that according to our customs and our system, it is appropriate to congratulate Biden and Harris.
And as an American, I do it sincerely.
Which is separate from the question of, is the outcome likely to be reversed?
Because I think the odds are favoring that right now.
But I still am an American.
I'm still a patriot.
I still respect the system, and I respect the voters.
The system has told us that the voters have spoken, and this is our result.
I will respect that, Fully, but I don't lose my right to, you know, have a legal challenge.
Let's say, you know, the campaign doesn't lose its right.
So you can congratulate Biden and Harris.
You can be completely sincere.
It's the most American thing you could do, which is, again, like everybody says, a peaceful transfer of power.
It's one of the most respected things in the world, maybe.
What is more respected Than the American tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
I don't think there's anything that's as...
Maybe nothing's as important as that.
It's sort of the prime thing that holds everything together.
So I respect that.
And if it changes, it changes.
But at the moment, congratulations.
That is sincere. All right, so here's what you'd have to believe to think that we can go from congratulations, you won, all the way to January...
Sworn in. You'd have to believe that despite being brainwashed, this is Democrats, being brainwashed that Trump is Hitler, Democrats did not attempt to stop Hitler.
Does that seem likely?
Based on the reactions you've seen and the dancing in the street when they think that Biden won, all the rhetoric, everything you've seen on social media, do you think that the Democrats did not believe that Trump was...
A threat to our very survival?
Of course they did.
Is there anybody who believes that Democrats were just playing politics and, oh yeah, we said he was Hitler and we said he would destroy the world, but we didn't mean it.
That's just sort of a political thing we say.
Do you believe that?
Or do you believe they believed it?
Because I believe they believed it.
They acted exactly like they believed it.
And they did not act in that sort of weird hypocritical way where you say things but then you act the other way.
No. They said they believed he was Hitler-ish and they acted that way completely consistently for four years.
Would you agree? They acted consistently with the belief that he was Hitler.
So, I don't think you could believe that Democrats thought there was no risk of a second Trump election.
So do you believe that Democrats would not act on this belief?
Do you believe that? All these people who have rigged elections in the past, they know how to do it, all they'd have to do is just do it again.
Just do it again. Maybe crank it up a little bit, but just do it again.
And they could get rid of Hitler, and they wouldn't do it?
That's a hard thing to believe.
And do you believe there was no practical way to do it?
There was no physical way to change a vote?
You don't believe that, do you?
Because you've seen it done on small scale, so all you'd have to do is more of it.
You've seen computer software be hacked.
Hacking software is the most common thing in the news, it seems like.
So you know that's possible.
So you know there's motive.
You know there's People who would do it, you know that it's possible.
And let me put it this way.
If by the end of December, we have not learned that there was massive targeted fraud, and I'm going to use the word targeted because this is really important, not widespread, that's what the news is trying to fool you with, They're trying to brainwash you with the word widespread.
Because widespread says it happens in your town too.
And it probably didn't.
I would be willing to bet that my little suburban town probably didn't have any voter for it.
You know, I live in the kind of town where it's entirely possible there wasn't a single instance of a vote that was illegitimate.
You know, I just live in one of those sort of golden towns that doesn't have much crime or problems.
So I'm sure it's not widespread in my town, so that's not my claim.
My claim is not every town did a little bit of fraud.
My claim is it would only have to be in a few cities.
You know, you get your Philadelphias and your Detroits right, and you're in pretty good shape.
So you'd only have to do it in a few places, and it can be done, has been done in the past.
Motivation to do it is through the roof.
So I'll tell you this.
If by the end of December we have not determined with really, really solid proof that there was massive fraud in those key states, then everything I know about the world is wrong.
Everything I know about the world is wrong.
Because in my filter of the reality I live in, That fraud had to happen.
Because it had all the requirements.
And when it has all the requirements, it happens every time.
So if it didn't happen this time, when not only did it have all the requirements, but they were through the roof, it wasn't just met the minimum requirement for some fraud.
This was a 10 out of 10 on everything that would have that be true.
For fraud to occur.
It's possible the motive is through the roof, and they've gotten away with it in the past, and there's somebody willing to do it.
10 out of 10 on every one of those.
So that's what you should expect.
Expect some really interesting news in the next few weeks.
Now, let's do a little mental process here.
And I know that sometimes I like to give you more optimism than maybe is called for, but you don't mind that, do you?
Does anybody mind?
Because it's one thing if you put too much optimism in a medical question like coronavirus.
Maybe that's a little dangerous, especially if you're the president.
But you don't mind a little extra optimism, even if it's not 100% accurate, right?
So I'm going to give it to you.
We might be entering your best-case scenario.
For Trump. For those of you who are Trump supporters, there's a non-zero chance, I don't know how I could put odds on this exactly, but there's a non-zero chance, and it's a pretty healthy chance, that you're entering the best-case scenario, and it looks like this.
The worst-case scenario...
Would be a narrow, illegitimate-looking victory for Trump.
What would be happening in the country right now if Trump had won in a narrow victory that the other side thought looked a little iffy?
Riots, right?
We would have massive social unrest if it had gone the other way.
But it didn't.
So now we're here.
Now you see all the Democrats celebrating in the streets, legitimately happy that they got what they want, although the vote seems weirdly high.
It does seem weird that Biden would get so many more votes than even Obama, but you can rationalize it.
You can say, eh, maybe because they hated Trump that much?
They were really good at getting out the vote?
Better than the Obama era?
Okay, maybe.
Possible. Suppose anything's possible, even though they didn't go to Biden's rallies that they voted.
You know, it's a strange world.
Could happen. But here's what's the setup.
If the Democrats are celebrating and saying, we got rid of the evil Hiller, we're the good people, we finally got rid of bad people, Yay, we Democrats, we're the good people.
Look at our pure souls.
Look at how good we are.
Those deplorables, they are in the dustbin of history.
Yada yata yata.
Woo woo woo. And then suppose, again, just a mental experiment here, suppose in a few weeks, Democrats would be presented with irrefutable proof That they stole the election, just hypothetically.
Suppose it could be proven in such a clear way that even the Democrats would say, no, we didn't.
Oh, I guess we did.
What would happen?
Suppose they went from severe celebration to learning that their team, the Democrats, just hypothetically, Had absolutely, with no question about it, stolen the election.
Takes a little bit of the fight out of it, doesn't it?
You see where I'm going with this?
It could be the most peaceful way that Trump could do a second term.
The thing that would take the energy out of what would be an obvious violent protest if Trump just won outright, they would understand...
And this all depends on them believing that the election was stolen because the evidence just is irrefutable.
So that irrefutable part is really, really important to the story.
So I think that they would have to say, at least the moderate wing, of which there are many, because Biden got elected, allegedly, I think the moderates would say, oh, I guess we sort of do have to re-vote on this one.
It's more likely that would go to a re-vote.
And what would happen if they re-voted and they got rid of the fraud?
Well, if it was the fraud that caused Biden to win and they got rid of it, it would look like a valid election in which Trump won.
And it would look as though the Democrats were the bad ones all along if they had actually stolen the vote, hypothetically, allegedly.
Now, what if, during the time that Biden is the presumptive president-elect, what if coronavirus gets solved?
And what I mean by solved is solved in the media.
And you're already seeing little hints of it.
People are forwarding tweets to me about the media saying, hey, we just found out that you can have outdoor concerts safely if you follow these procedures.
Do you think you would have seen that story a week before the election?
Do you think the mainstream media would have written a story saying, yeah, I think we can go back to mass outdoor events right away, Because we've done some research and if you just wear your mask and do some basic stuff, you're fine.
Do you think you would have seen that a week ago?
What if in the next several weeks, the media is so over...
Let's say they're a little too on the nose and they just tell you the coronavirus isn't such a big problem after all.
And then Trump becomes president again.
They could solve his biggest problem.
Just by changing the narrative that, oh yeah, a lot of people are dying, and that tragedy is exactly the same tragedy it was before.
It didn't get better if a thousand people a day are dying.
But maybe we've normalized it.
Maybe it's a risk we're willing to take.
Maybe we just try harder and get on with life.
So it's possible you could take the steam out of the revolution, get your Trump re-election, Coronavirus, at least in our minds and the way that society is treating it, could be way less of a problem just because they overcompensated by trying to make it seem not a problem for Biden.
And we may end up with a President Trump.
It's entirely possible.
Now, the other possibility is that we end up with two presidents.
Now, I had predicted that this was the likely outcome.
That no matter who won officially or unofficially, that we would reach a point, and I don't think we're there yet, so it's still a prediction, that we'll reach a point where CNN will declare that Biden is the president or president-elect, and that Fox News will be reporting that President Trump won re-election.
So that's a pretty bold prediction, given that I'm making it today, when Biden's already been declared president by most of the people who do these things.
So that is my continued prediction, that we still have in front of us a point where there are two presidents, or two realities, if you will, in which CNN says that Biden is the president, and Fox News says that Trump is re-elected.
Alright. Do you think we could fix elections in the future?
I put out some ideas, and this is yet another area in which I don't have any expertise, but it doesn't stop me from talking about it.
So if I were going to build a replacement for our voting system, here is what I would have in it.
Number one, you'd have to have a way to keep your vote private, right?
You'd want to know that if you use an app, let's say, That that data would be sent to the database and it would somehow be separated from you or encrypted in a way that it would be hard to tell what you voted for.
So you need some kind of privacy which I guess would just be encrypting.
Let's say your vote got encrypted and it got encrypted with your identification but the only person who had the key to unencrypt it was you.
So let's say that after you had voted You could go in, and you're the only one, because nobody else has this key, and so you can go in and you can check that your vote got registered all the way to the endpoint with your name.
But nobody knows it's your name.
You're the only one who can unlock that.
So the first thing you'd have is to keep it private.
Second thing, you'd have to have a way that the individual could check the path of their own vote all the way to confirmation at the end.
Then you'd also want a way to identify people with the app.
And I'm seeing in the comments.
We have a lot of good ways to do that.
Now, the old iPads had the fingerprint reader.
That's one way. There are retinal scans.
You've seen those clear...
What do you call them?
The devices in the airports where they look at your retina and that's your identification.
I signed up for that just to see what it was all about.
And it works. So I go to the airport.
I just walk up to the machine.
It looks at my retina.
I don't have to show my identification.
I don't have to take out my identification to fly.
Did you think that would ever happen?
Did you ever think that you could get on an airplane after 9-11 without showing any identification, just your eye?
Well, that's the current situation.
So you could certainly build that into, I assume, you could build that into your phone.
So you could have facial recognition, retinal scan, which is different from facial recognition.
You could have fingerprints if you had that kind of device reader.
And I would also add that you should do a five-second video in which in the five seconds you say your name and you hold up, maybe you hold up your ID. So it's just the five seconds after you vote, your vote doesn't count until you do a five-second video selfie and you say, I'm Scott Adams. I just voted.
Here's my driver's license.
And it just gets paired and encrypted with your vote.
So if ever there's a question about who actually had the phone in their hand and was pushing those buttons, you can just play the video.
And it's time-stamped.
And you know that, at the very least, you know the person who was supposed to be voting had the voting app in their hand at the time that the vote was registered.
It doesn't mean somebody else didn't push the button, but that'd be pretty close.
Then I had suggested the following idea, and somebody had said blockchain would be a better solution.
I'm not convinced that's true.
Jason Chaffetz, you know him from Fox News, ex-representative.
So Jason Chaffetz weighed in on my tweet about this and suggested that blockchain...
It was a way to get the most secure and yet checkable, auditable voting system.
So if you don't know what blockchain is, the simple explanation is this.
It's a special kind of database in which things are added to it continuously.
And those things, usually transactions or information data, is added to it.
And what makes it special is that the database is distributed across the internet in different physical locations and there's a way to audit it.
So if anybody tried to change it after the fact, it would be immediately discoverable.
So you can't change the record after it's there.
It's permanent. And that's what makes it special.
It's not like a regular database where you could put the votes in the database and some hacker could come in And just switch a bit.
And then you'd be like, well, I guess that's the total.
So the blockchain, think of it as a special database that nobody can change without being immediately identified.
And in other words, it has an audit trail that is just rock solid.
Now, if you get to a deeper level of understanding of blockchain, is everything I just said still true?
Probably not. Because I think with blockchain, there's the simpleton's understanding of what it does, which is the version I just gave you.
And then there's the people who really, really know what they're talking about version, in which they start giving you some doubt.
It's like, well, you know, somebody could do something, or somebody could do some mischief, if they really knew how.
So... That's the part that I, since I don't have that deeper understanding of blockchain, I don't know if it's the solution, but it's where I'd be looking for one.
It's the first place I'd look.
But here's the other idea I suggested that would not require blockchain, or blockchain could be part of this idea as well.
And it goes like this. So you could have both.
Blockchain plus this, if you really want it to be secure.
And it goes like this. Suppose your app It takes your data and then sends it to three separate, private, blind companies for processing and storing.
So every vote, imagine, goes to three different paths, to three different companies who don't know who the other companies are.
So each of the three has no idea who the other two are, and neither does anybody else, except somebody in the government who set it up in the first place.
Those three companies don't report any data until it's all done.
And when it's done, they all report their totals.
And they have to be the same.
Because if anything got altered in the process, the other two companies wouldn't know that one of them was cheating, so they wouldn't know how to match their total to the other total.
Now, could that be, you know, could you get an insider in all three places to cheat across the three?
Yes. So you do what banks do.
You don't let the same staff stay in the same jobs long enough to be corrupted.
So banks famously don't like to have four-day holidays because there are some kinds of corruption that you need to be on the job as a bank employee to cover yourself up every few days.
So banks just say, all right, you're going to take four days off and you can't come to work even if you want to.
And during that four days, they find all the little white-collar crimes because they surface when people aren't there to keep covering them up.
So you could have a situation where the three different companies are rotated every year.
So even if you knew what they were last year, you wouldn't know what they are this year.
Let's say the person who's managing the process can never do it for more than one year in a row.
So there's a bunch of little things you could do to make it really hard to have fraud.
Now, I may have forgotten some things, but it seems to me that this system, even if you imagine a bunch of things that could go wrong, it feels better than the current system, doesn't it?
So I put that out there so that smarter people can tell me whether a voting app that...
Has facial recognition, a way for you to audit it, keeps your vote private, and has blockchain or blind companies or something to make sure that you got the vote rate total.
Would that work? Is there anybody smart enough out there to say, oh yeah, that would totally work, or not?
All right. We did see that a lot of the celebrants for Biden have filled the streets, And we will be watching to see if there's a big super spreader situation and the infections take off.
Because if the infections take off now, Trump can always claim it was the Biden celebrations, which I'm sure would happen.
All right, just looking at some of your comments.
Yes.
Somebody says they used to work in IT and you get audited while you're on vacation.
Yeah, exactly. They want to audit you when you're not there so that you can't keep covering your tracks.
A billion dollar Bitcoin wallet was confiscated by the Feds on election night?
Well, we want to know more about that, if that's true.
Joe Biden is at church while Trump golfs.
Does anybody have a problem with Trump golfing after the work that he put in for the election?
If there's anybody who earned themselves a round of golf, it was Trump.
I don't know if Biden earned himself a round of golf the way he campaigned.
He didn't work that hard. But Trump earned a little golf.
All right? I think we should be happy about that.
So I would expect that most Republicans and Trump supporters are going to be cooling their enthusiasm because they don't know what's going to happen with the legal challenges.
And I think most people who have not delved into the, let's say, the data part of it, I think a lot of normies, the people who are not that into the details, will assume the election's done and it's not going to change.
And I think that they'll just...
I think that they'll just adjust.
Now, one of the questions you might have, or maybe you don't, why would I assume you would have this question?
I'm having the weirdest experience in the aftermath of this election, and I want to know if anybody's having the same one.
And what it is, is a weird mixed feeling.
So, I'm seeing lots of answers about the golfing, but as soon as those answers scroll by, I want to ask you this.
If you were a Trump supporter, and you believe that he lost the election, let's say, what was your baseline happiness change?
Did you find yourself going into a depression that you think will last?
Because that's what happened with the Democrats.
A lot of them went into a literal, physical, mental decline.
Have any of you experienced that?
Because I experienced the opposite.
And I didn't expect it.
So here's what I experienced.
What I experienced was like, oh, you know, I wanted it to go the other way.
But then, so that was my brain.
So my brain was like, oh, darn it.
I'm a little surprised.
I expected it to go the other way.
I feel like it would have been better if it went the other way.
So that was my brain talking.
And then my body weighed in.
And my body had the opposite opinion.
My body actually felt better.
My baseline happiness is really, really high right now.
And it's not just because I think there's a high likelihood the result will be overturned.
I'm not even looking forward to that.
Because I think that could be a lot of trouble.
It could be a destabilizing thing.
But you realize that even being a Trump supporter, and even when things are going your way, there's a certain level of stress that comes with that.
I walked outside for the last few days Feeling that people didn't want to kill me.
And I mean that literally.
I mean that if Trump is out of office, then whatever, you know, severe irrational hatred people had for me, you know, as a presumed supporter of the president, that they would lose the fire of hatred, you know, that they'll never forgive me.
But there's a difference between, you know, oh, you did something that year and we didn't like it, but we've sort of forgotten it, versus I want to kill you right now because I'm in mental distress over your president, you support him, I frickin' hate your guts.
And I feel like I was living in a world where I was severely hated just for existing.
It was like...
I'm pausing to decide if I want to really offend some people.
Why not? You'd be disappointed if I didn't, right?
And I would like to say that there's a difference between being racist and being offensive.
Being offensive means you're an offensive person.
Being racist could also be offensive.
You know, obviously it'd be offensive.
But it's different.
You could just be offensive, just be sort of a jerk, without being a racist.
So I'm going to split the difference here.
I'm going to say something that's offensive, but it'd be crazy to say it's racist.
For a little while, being a Trump supporter felt like being black.
Pretty offensive, isn't it?
Pretty offensive!
Now, I don't mean that I could ever understand what it means to be anybody else.
I don't understand what it's like to be a woman.
I don't understand what it's like to be gay.
I don't understand what it's like to be black and would never make those claims.
Nobody can understand other people at that kind of a level.
But, just on, let's say, the intellectual level of walking into a crowd and being worried that people would know who I am.
And being worried that somebody would think less of me or would treat me poorly or would be whispering behind my back, having a horrible thought about me, just because I was in public.
Have any of you felt that?
That just being in public, if you had been identified as a Trump supporter, it's a little uncomfortable.
You know, you hear the stories about black Black people go into a store and then they feel that everybody's watching them because there's the bias that there might be some shoplifting going on.
And imagine that. That would be just horrible.
Imagine going into a store and thinking that you're being watched for shoplifting.
Well, I don't have to imagine that.
Because it's the way I feel every time I go into a store.
I don't have to be black.
I already think I'm being watched as a shoplifter all the time.
And, you know, I make sure if I pick up an item that I hold it, you know, where it could be seen before I pay for it.
I'm always worried that I'll be seen as a shoplifter in a store, and I don't shoplift.
So I guess I can feel that a little bit, although obviously I don't feel there's a racial component to it.
So, that's my bottom line.
Intellectually, I would prefer that Trump had won.
Physically, and how my day-to-day life goes, it's a little more comfortable than it was.
It's a little more comfortable than it was.
And I feel it quite a bit.
And that's not nothing, by the way.
That's not nothing. Somebody says, man up, Scott.
Man up for what?
What exactly am I not manning up for?
That's a weird comment.
Aside from my new taxes.
Yeah, let's talk about taxes.
If you believe your taxes are going to go up to the Biden promised levels, you would have to believe that the mainstream media and the Democrat politicians would want to substantially raise their own taxes.
Because remember, Jake Tapper is rich.
Don Lemon is rich by normal standards.
These are the same people who would get absolutely just molested on their taxes.
Do you think that the same media that desperately wanted Trump to leave office, do you think they want their own taxes to dramatically rise?
I don't know. Maybe.
But I've got a feeling that if we get a Republican Senate, and then we don't get a lot of fire from the left-wing pundits asking for a tax raise on themselves, and people don't get too excited about raising their own taxes.
You know, it's kind of rare.
So, I don't know about the odds of those taxes going up the way it's promised.
The odds of them going up a little bit, probably pretty high.
The odds of taxes going up, I'd say, are high.
But the odds of them going up as much as has been promised, lower.
All right. Somebody says Black Lives Matter is still lurking.
Don't kid yourself. Well, I believe that they were protesting last night, were they not?
So yes, there will be some more Black Lives Matter protests.
That's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you later.
All right, all you YouTube people, I have signed off on Periscope, and you have my full attention.
Oh, I like it when you say good things about me, so you can say more of those.
Thank you. Last time we fired a one-term president, we elected his son.
Yeah. Oh, that's interesting.
Right, when Bush Sr., he was a one-term president, and then his son got elected.
So maybe Don Jr.
could be. And, of course, people remember that Al Gore was the president-elect for 37 days until he wasn't.
So we do have precedent that Biden could be president-elect until he isn't.
Is Trump playing it right?
Well... Probably yes.
Probably yes.
So Trump is on record as saying there's massive fraud.
I think he will be proven correct.
So I think the evidence will eventually back him.
We haven't seen it yet.
So if you're saying, but Scott, I haven't seen any evidence of that, I would agree.
You've seen suggestions of it.
But I would bet that you're going to see some good evidence eventually.
And not too long from now.
Yeah, you know, I don't think you can say enough about the fact that if there had not been coronavirus, and therefore there had not been the change of how voting had been done, that maybe we wouldn't have this result.
So did the voters select Trump, or was it the change in the voting process that selected Trump?
Because to me, it looks like if we had used the same process we always use, despite the coronavirus risk, probably you would have been elected.
