Episode 1182 Scott Adams: Why Does Trump Try to Take Credit for Unverified President Elect Biden's Work?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
What if massive election altering fraud is discovered?
A post-Presidency Trump media platform?
Tom Arnold imagines my despair
The final constitutional election deciding option
Following the constitution is a "dirty trick", "a coup"?
The persuasion bubble being formed around Biden
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of the day.
Don't you feel better already just knowing that the simultaneous sip is coming and the hour that you like better than any other hour is about to begin?
Oh yeah, oh yeah, it's that good.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Did I see that the machines were unapproved update the night before?
Yes. We'll talk about all of the things in a moment.
But in no particular order, here's a question I was wondering today.
If by coincidence, all of this happened at once, let's say.
Let's say you got red-pilled, born-again, woke, and you got TDS all at the same time.
Would they cancel out Or would some of them make the other ones worse?
I'll just leave you with that.
You can think about that. Well, the big news today is that the Joe Biden pre-administration, unverified president-elect, he's killing it.
He's killing it.
Not only has Joe Biden developed in just a few short days of being a presumptive unverified president, Apparently he's caused Pfizer to have a great success, 90% effectiveness with their COVID vaccine.
And we could have some number of it by the end of the year.
Stock market is surging.
Joe Biden is making me richer by the moment.
Thank you, Joe Biden.
And with any luck, with any luck, The Republicans will maintain the Senate, and Joe Biden will not raise my taxes.
He'll cure the coronavirus.
And it's all good for me.
So, we got that going on.
Now, I don't know if you saw that Scaramucci tweeted that Joe Biden has already come up with a coronavirus vaccine.
And the world is so crazy...
The people couldn't tell he was joking.
So in case you saw that and you don't think he was joking, he was joking.
No, Anthony Scaramucci does not believe that Biden came up with a coronavirus vaccine in five days after being elected.
But he tweeted it and it was pretty funny.
I would like to get your agreement that we can spend the entire day today on social media arguing about the word accepting.
Because the Democrats say that Republicans are not accepting the result of the election.
They're not accepting it.
That's right. They're not accepting the result of an election that is part of a process that's still in motion.
And could end up with the opposite result.
But you, Republicans, you're not accepting.
You're not accepting the outcome of a process that hasn't finished.
So what is wrong with you people that you do not accept that you can't see the future?
Are some of you so limited that you don't have the ability to foresee the future with certainty?
How do you not know That the ultimate outcome of all these legal challenges will be nothing at all.
How do you not know, with all of your ESP and ability to see the future, how do you not know that it's over already?
Or is it?
Or is it?
We'll talk about that.
One of the most interesting ideas that I've seen coming out of this election week is that Trump should just declassify everything.
Just everything. Now, when I say everything, it's not really everything, because if it's military secrets, you don't want to declassify those.
But just in terms of what our government has done to us and for us for the past several decades, including big stories from the past, whether or not Trump can succeed in his challenges to the election, wouldn't you like to see him just declassify everything?
Now, let me draw a picture for you of something that could happen.
You can put your own odds of it happening on here, but I want to tell you it could happen.
Completely possible.
That Trump could declassify so much stuff that it ends up half draining the swamp With just one act of just declassifying a bunch of stuff, then suddenly the swamp is going to get a little smaller when we find out what's in there.
At least half of the swamp.
But the other thing that could happen, and again, you can put your own odds on it, if there are any Democrats watching this, the odds you would put on the following thing would be zero.
Probably. That would not be rational, because everything has a little bit of a chance.
But you would probably say zero.
And Republicans might say a little higher chance that the president will succeed in showing that there was massive voter fraud.
Now, imagine if he did.
And again, I know Democrats are going to say, that doesn't exist.
There's no evidence of massive widespread fraud.
We've been through this, Scott.
It's been studied many times.
Scott, oh, you know, it's been studied many times.
There's no fraud. But what if there were?
Just imagine with me.
Close your eyes.
Imagine the veins bulging.
Now that's something else. But just imagine that the president did these two things and maybe even left office.
Right? So we don't know how it all ends.
But suppose he did these two things.
Declassified a whole bunch of stuff.
And then proved that the election was fraudulent in some massive way.
Would you say, no matter whether he stayed in office after that or not, would you say that he did a lot to drain the swamp with those two things?
Even if he doesn't end up prevailing, and that's the end of his terms, even then, if he declassified everything and also proved that there was major fraud, Maybe not enough to change the election?
Don't know. But that would go a long way, wouldn't it?
In terms of saying that he drained the swamp.
It doesn't fix all the money problems, but it would certainly be a big bite out of it.
Here's what I think would be the most baller thing that Trump could do.
I want to be very careful that you hear this next part.
He's not going to do this.
So what I'm going to describe next is not a prediction.
It's not even a suggestion.
I'm just saying that if you're looking at all the possible things that could happen, here's one of them.
And it's a fun one.
And it goes like this.
Why is George Washington so revered in our history and in our minds?
Well, a lot of reasons.
First president, general for the Revolutionary War.
So he has lots of things for which you would give him lots of credit.
But I would argue that in terms of his total myth, the thing that makes George Washington number one in our minds, is that he walked away from the presidency when it was his to have.
In other words, he served as one term And then easily he could have become practically a dictator because he had so much love and power at that point that if he wanted, he could have turned the whole American experiment into a dictatorship.
Now, some historians might disagree with me.
They always do. But he's famous for walking away from power.
And that little model of behavior became the model which has rippled through time to the point where one of our most valued, you know, I guess, traditions is a peaceful transfer of power, and also the fact that we don't have dictators, we have presidents, and, you know, you've got to go after a while.
It's four years, it might be eight years, but you've got to go.
That's not negotiable.
You've got to go sometime.
So there's this weird situation which is formed in which you can imagine the following sequence of events.
Now again, you're not going to put necessarily big odds on this happening, but completely within the realm of possible.
And it goes like this.
President Trump challenges the vote, discovers that there is massive fraud, and it reverses the election.
Let's say there's so much fraud.
Again, I know you think that the odds of finding this are really, really small and zero if you're a Democrat, but just work with me until I complete the picture.
Let's say he does find massive fraud, and it reverses the election.
He is inaugurated as the new president of the United States, but he can see that the country is on fire.
Could you imagine?
Could you imagine what the Democrats would be doing If after all this celebrating and winning, it got reversed by the courts, can you imagine?
Oh, the country would be on fire, even though the law had been followed, the Constitution had been satisfied, and in this hypothetical, the president got fairly elected after the legal system fixed any alleged hypothetical frauds.
And then imagine the following.
The moment he's...
The moment he's done with his inauguration for the second term, he turns to Mike Pence and says, I resign.
I resign.
It's all you. Because the things that Trump has changed could largely stay in place under a President Pence.
But his personality would be taken out of the fight, and that would take all the steam out of the opposition.
And so the best thing for Trump's legacy, ironically, might be to give up power.
But you can't give it up until you have it.
So if he were to concede now, that would look a little quitter-ish, wouldn't it?
A little bit exactly not why you voted for him in the first place if he did.
If Trump conceded without putting up a hell of a fight, he wouldn't be the guy you wanted for the second term anyway, would he?
Do you want a second-term president who has no fight left in him?
Right? It solves itself.
If Trump didn't fight, you also really wouldn't want him for your second-term president.
If he does fight, well, he's the person you elected, if you voted for him.
And if that fight gets him into office, well, that's exactly why you voted for him.
Because he can fight, and he has a pretty good history of winning.
So imagine a President Pence pardoning, or whatever the right legal words are, President Trump for all current and future legal problems that arise out of the presidency or even before, I suppose.
And then the President with a clean slate and a President Pence who is maintaining Trump's legacy.
Imagine President Trump then retiring and starting his own media platform.
How successful would a Trump startup, or maybe he buys some existing property, but if a Trump media platform arose with a President Pence, so that Pence had the full firepower of the Trump media organization newly formed,
which would be pure fire, giving Pence all the air support he needed to move things forward, What would happen to Trump's legacy?
It gets pretty close to George Washington, doesn't it?
If any of you remember when Trump was first elected, I very unpopularly said he should really think about being a one-term president.
Because I think the disruptors work better as one-term presidents.
Because they cause so much disruption that even as they're fixing things, there's also disruption.
And, you know, maybe that's, by their nature, that should be a limited-time engagement, because the country can't take so much psychic stress to get things done.
So he got a lot done, and if the things that Trump already got done were simply continued in some form, it'd be a pretty strong package, and he would be the George Washington of our time.
And his legacy would be, I think, legitimately...
Not that it would happen in real life, but I think he would legitimately be one of the top five presidents of all time.
So I think he would be in the same conversation with Washington and Jefferson and even Lincoln if he walked away.
But, like I say, if he walked away, I'm not sure he would look like the same president you thought you wanted.
So don't expect Trump to become suddenly not Trump at age 70, whatever.
So it's not a prediction, nor is it a recommendation.
It's neither a prediction nor a recommendation.
So when you later mock me for being crazy, just remember you're mocking something that didn't happen.
I didn't say I recommend it.
I didn't say it's likely to happen.
So there's nothing to mock here, okay?
Put your own odds on how likely it is and then go home.
All right. A lot of well-meaning people are suggesting that Trump should concede.
I saw that Piers Morgan said it.
He's been a big Trump supporter but also critic.
He does try to at least be reasonably critical and supportive when it makes sense.
I'll give him that.
But now, Piers Morgan says it's time to concede.
Here's what I say to Piers Morgan.
Piers, do you know what President Trump knows?
Because I don't think you do.
I don't think you do.
Do you think that President Trump...
Has more current information than you and I do about the likelihood of finding massive fraud, you know, big enough to really make a difference.
I'm not talking about the hundred dead people that allegedly voted somewhere and probably didn't.
I'm not talking about the alleged, you know, postal employee who threw away some ballots.
I'm not talking about the little stuff.
Do you think it's possible that Trump knows more than we do And that in, let's say, a week, we might know it too.
So I would say that if the president, who clearly knows more than we do about what's coming, if he's decided to stay in it, I say, I think I want to wait and see.
I think I'd wait and see.
Now, Tom Arnold came over to dunk on me on Twitter.
And let me read his dunking statement here.
So Tom Arnold said to me today, he goes, I bet losing sucks, Scott Adams.
But good lord, man, stop whining and coming up with crazy-ass nonsensical and stupidly complicated excuses.
It's beneath you.
Maybe not. But it is beneath 7.8 billion other people.
America voted. You lost.
Put on your big boy panties and congratulate us.
Now, first of all, if I've taught you anything, it's that the biggest illusion in life is that other people think and feel the way you do.
I remember when I was a teenager, and I would have a crush on some teen girl, and she wouldn't like me back the way I liked her.
And I would think, well, this doesn't make sense.
She must not understand how much I like her.
Because if she knew, she would like me back the same amount.
Isn't that how it works? When you're a teenager, you think, well, doesn't my liking you force you to like me back the same way?
I'm confused. I'm liking you.
Nothing's coming back. Why is this not working?
And then, eventually, with maturity, you learn...
The people are so different that you can't even often even imagine what they're thinking.
Literally, you can't even imagine it.
But in order for us to navigate life and deal with other people, it is necessary for you to make assumptions about what other people are thinking.
Because you couldn't operate in life without making assumptions all day long about what people are thinking.
It's just that we're not good at it.
And that's the illusion of life.
You have to do it.
Because otherwise you couldn't deal socially.
But you're terrible at it.
We're awful at doing the thing that we have to do, which is imagining what other people are thinking.
So when I'm watching Tom Arnold and other anti-Trumpers come over and try to dunk on me, they usually say something like Tom Arnold said, I bet losing sucks.
And I'm reading this tweet and I'm thinking, um, does it?
Let me check. Let me see if losing sucks.
So I went to my stats, and I checked to see, okay, my locals subscriptions are way up.
Locals is the platform I'm on where I do the stuff you don't see here.
And, okay, so far that looks good.
And then I went over to see how many people watched my live stream yesterday.
Normally my live stream would get 50, 60,000 viewers.
Yesterday my live stream had a quarter million.
So I'm getting five times more attention.
So that's good.
What else should I be unhappy about?
Let me check my stocks.
Holy shit!
Okay, I'm not unhappy about my stocks.
My net worth just reached its highest point in my life.
Literally today.
That's actually a true statement, that today, literally right now, my net worth reached its highest point.
Thank you, President Biden.
Am I unhappy yet?
I'm still talking about politics.
And I'm not spending a lot of time excusing something that Trump tweeted, which is never a fun day anyway.
I can't find the part where I'm unhappy.
I wake up for the last several days, and I think, is there going to be some kind of weird depression sets in?
Am I going to wear a pussy hat and yell at this guy?
But it didn't happen.
And I'm thinking the Democrats and people on the left are suffering, I think, a sort of universal illusion that the way they felt when Trump won would be in any way similar to the way that we would feel if Trump lost.
It's not even close, is it?
Is it my imagination that the Republicans, the Trump supporters, are having some kind of a feeling that I will describe, which is disappointment, right?
Disappointment. But disappointment is a normal feature of life.
Disappointment doesn't change your life.
Disappointment doesn't make you go from, you know, happy to unhappy.
You get disappointed all day long.
What do conservatives do when things don't work out?
Blame themselves, right?
Isn't that first? The first thing you do is blame yourself.
Ah, I could have worked harder, you know, should have tried to convince more people.
But also you're looking at, you know, the details itself and saying, well, things would have been different if this had been different and that would be different.
But that's just a hobby.
It's a hobby to look at what happened and say it was because of this variable or this variable, when in fact it was all the variables.
But it's just a hobby to say, I think it was that one variable that's the one that mattered.
Watch me do it right now.
I will now do that hobby where I act as though there was one variable that was the one that mattered.
This is my opinion, and it's my real opinion, by the way.
If at any time during the election cycle, President Trump had called a press conference and said, look, I just want to settle one thing.
Biden is running his campaign based on the fine people hoax.
I want to show you the video in front of the world.
I want to show you the part that he quotes, and then I'm just going to let the video play so you can see the part that the fake news doesn't show you.
There's nothing else I'm going to talk about today.
This is just a press conference to show you that this is the alpha hoax, and it was never true, and see for yourself.
And then he just plays it, just stands aside, and just plays it.
And he gets to the point where he says, without any prompting, after he'd said, find people on both sides, without prompting, you let the video play, and he goes, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, they should be condemned totally.
And on that sentence, he should just turn off the video, look at the crowd, and say, all I'm asking is that you put a little bit of scrutiny on your own media sources.
This lie is one of the worst lies in American history, and you bought it completely.
And it probably changed your opinions about the other allegations against me, and made you think maybe those are true.
Because if this one was true, it might influence you on the other ones.
People are making a big deal about this one, so you feel like this is true.
If at any time the President had simply made a special press conference just about that, just on that one topic, and didn't take questions, this is important, don't take questions, and then just walked off.
That video would exist forever, and all of his supporters could You know, retweet it every time somebody brought up that rumor.
Every time Biden would say it again, it would be attached on his social media, you know, statement and everybody would see the debunk.
And of course, you know, maybe CNN doesn't show it, but social media would be strong enough to get it out.
Now, it's one thing when I debunk it or, you know, Steve Cortez or Joel Pollack debunks it because there's an assumption that we're sort of in the tank for Trump and we would just make up anything.
That's what other people would imagine.
It's not true. It's not even close to true for any of the three of us that we would just make something up to win a point.
I don't think the three of us have ever done that.
Just make something up.
But if the president had done it and treated it seriously, he wouldn't have needed an apology.
All he needed was to debunk that thing and he would be easily re-elected, even if there was fraud.
I don't think they could have frauded it enough to keep him out of the White House.
If he'd done that one thing, and he didn't.
The other thing that might be good about a Biden presidency if it comes to that, and I still don't predict that that's going to happen, but if it did, and he pursued the rapid testing that I've been talking about for a It's different from the really good testing that you might have to have a machine for, an actual device.
If you want to get to 98% or whatever, a high level of certainty, you need a machine.
But you could be about 80% sure that you did or did not have coronavirus infection with these cheap tests that might cost a dollar.
And the idea is if you massively tested all day long, not all day long, but let's say every day, With the not-so-accurate tests, but they only cost a dollar.
You would get enough of the virus early enough that it would just shut it down.
So you don't have to get all the tests right.
You have to get 80% of them right and do it a lot and make it cheap and make it universally available, and then you just close down the virus.
Now, I and lots of other people have been sort of lobbying in social media and other ways to see if the White House...
Would pursue that strategy.
And as far as I know, they didn't.
As far as I know. So if Biden came in on day one and said, well, look, this is a strategy that hasn't been pursued, if that's true, it could be that it's being pursued and I don't know about it.
And that would be a problem in itself.
Because if it's being pursued and I don't know about it, well, that's a pretty big mistake.
Just that I don't know about it.
They should be telling the public if they're doing that.
So I'm assuming they're not.
So if Biden did, he would actually get credit for shutting down the virus and I would be the first one to give it to him.
Because if he did the thing that I've been lobbying for Trump to do for months and it worked, I'm not going to ignore that.
You know what I mean? I'm not going to ignore that.
Likewise, if Trump wins re-election through these court cases or whatever, and he did it, I'd say it could have been sooner, but I'm glad he did it.
I'd like to get an agreement from Democrats in advance.
See if he would like this, too.
Can we get an agreement...
From the Democrats, in the extraordinarily unlikely situation, according to them, that the election was reversed and it was done based on data and facts that everybody could observe.
Let's say, hypothetically, that massive fraud was discovered.
We haven't seen this evidence yet, but let's say it was.
And let's say the election is reversed Because the fraud very clearly, hypothetically, shows that it should have gone to Trump in some key places and it's enough to swing the election.
Let's say that happens.
Would you like to get from Democrats in advance, because it should be free to them to give this, an agreement that if it gets reversed, that they will be good sports, like I am.
And like many of you are, wouldn't you say that Republicans, although they'd still like to, you know, see how the legal process plays out, that's just reasonable, but wouldn't you say that Republicans have largely been good sports?
Can I make that claim?
I would say we've been good sports.
It's legitimate to question, you know, the details and look into whether any fraud happened, but that's kind of separate.
Shouldn't you always look into fraud?
It doesn't matter who won.
You should sort of always look into that if it's real.
I mean, there's a real claim of it.
So, anyway.
Let's get the Democrats to agree.
Because just in case things go the other way, wouldn't you like to have them on record saying, you know...
If it gets reversed, the first thing we're going to do is ask Biden to concede.
Is that not reasonable?
Is it not reasonable to ask the Democrats, in the unlikely case that this gets reversed, that they would immediately and unambiguously go to Biden and say, oh, we have new information.
Biden, you need to concede right now.
That's fair, don't you think?
You know, the persuasion element to this is if you can get people to say something publicly, they're more likely to stick to it, even if they don't want to.
So it's sort of a strategy to get them to stick to it.
Now, we're sort of almost kind of...
Succeeding in that strategy anyway, now of course it doesn't matter if the election turns out to be verified and goes on the way it is, but if it got reversed, because we found some fraud of major scale, hypothetically, I think that the Democrats have already created a norm and an expectation that once the vote,
through the normal legal process, Looks like you have a winner.
That's time for the other one to concede.
So they've sort of created that without having to commit in advance that they would, you know, act that way if things reversed.
They've simply acted that way.
So they're a little bit trapped already.
Biden wants a mask mandate.
And of course, that's the thing that gets conservatives pretty fired up.
It's like, Don't give me, you know, mandates.
I want some freedom. But I'm trying to think how that would actually have any effect on me.
What would I do differently if there were a mask mandate?
Because I live in California, and California already has mask requirements basically everywhere if I leave the house, right?
So what's different?
Is there some state where they have a big coronavirus infection and they're not wearing masks?
I don't know the details, But it seems to me that wherever the infection looks like it's a problem, the locals pretty soon say everybody wear masks.
Somebody says, the world doesn't revolve around you, Scott.
Was there some place during this presentation that I seem to suggest to you, dear commenter, that the world revolves around me?
Did that happen?
Am I unaware that I said something about the world revolving around me directly or indirectly?
Did that happen?
Or is this another one of those cases where you believe that I think the way you do?
And that if you were in my situation right now and said the things I said and did the things I did, do you believe that I would be thinking in my internal private thoughts That the world revolves around me.
Is that why you're hallucinating?
I certainly don't think the world revolves around me.
That would be crazy, from top to bottom.
There's not even any slight way that that makes sense.
Indeed, I said exactly the opposite, which is that people don't think like me, which is the opposite of that.
All right. Enough of that.
To me, as a persuader, and somebody who cares about persuasion, just sort of as a hobby, if nothing else, I am really, really interested in how the mainstream media, the corporate media, is creating a persuasion bubble around their people, and trying to get that bubble around you too, in which they're sort of setting the table for persuasion and building a structure And it goes like this.
There are several parts to it.
I tweeted yesterday a video that Van Jones made, I guess, maybe a few days before the election.
And in the video, Van Jones is warning, presumably Democrats, because mostly Democrats would be looking at the video, he is warning them that Trump could try some dirty tricks with the Constitution.
And he could say that the The vote is fraudulent.
That's happening. He could say, and perhaps there's a way that the electors in the electoral college could also believe that the vote was not credible, and then they might be freed to vote their conscience or even their political preference.
And then that would make the election kind of a moot point, because at that point it's the electors.
But If the electors tried to do that, I don't know the details of this, so maybe I might have the legalities or constitutional part wrong, but I think it can be kicked over to the House.
Now, this is what Van Jones was describing in it.
If it goes to the House, there's an oddity in the historical way that it was created that each state gets a vote as a state, regardless of their population of the state.
And by coincidence, although there was more population in blue states, there are more states that are red and Republican.
So if I ever went through that process of an election that had too many questions, goes to the electoral college, the electoral college looks a little sketchy too, because, hey, we don't like it when they don't vote the way the voters went, but of course they have a reason this time, so there's no right answer.
Because the electors do have the constitutional power, and there's a reason for it.
The reason that the electors can ignore the vote is because the people who formed the Constitution aggressively wanted it to be that way.
It's not an accident.
It's not an oversight.
It's not a technicality.
It's the last check on a valid process.
It's the last human being ability to say, that didn't work.
We're going to have to go to plan B, which is the electors are free to do something that makes sense for the country, ideally, in a perfect world.
But Van Jones describes this potential situation...
With the assumption he was making that there was a good chance that the election would be deemed fraudulent.
Now, what was it that Van Jones knew a week before election?
What did Van Jones know a week before the election that would suggest to him that the outcome would be considered fraudulent by Republicans?
Is it that Van Jones just knows how Republicans are?
And if it were the other way, you know, it would probably be this way too.
So it could be just a generic statement that the other political party is always going to question the outcome and whether it was valid.
Could be that. Or, or, if you thought that that was coming, would you make a video about it?
Maybe. Maybe.
Can't rule that out. But here's the other explanation.
Do you think that somebody who is politically connected as Van Jones would be aware of how much fraud is typical in a normal election?
Forget about this election.
Do you think that Van Jones is connected enough to how politics is done at the local level and how elections are held and what Democrats may or may not do in urban areas Do you think he's part of the world where he would know for sure whether there was a lot of fraud on the way?
I feel like he would know that there was fraud coming.
Now, we can't conclude that.
We can't read his mind.
We can't assume that he knew it.
But if I were Van Jones, and I were that connected to the entire Democrat machine, I would certainly know if it were going to be fraudulent in advance.
Wouldn't you? Yeah, I think it was his TED Talk.
It had a little TED notice on it, so I think it was a TED Talk.
And I feel that...
So this is speculation, because again, I can't read anybody's minds.
I can't read Van Jones' minds.
But it looked to me like Democrats...
We're worried that there would be fraud and that it would be detected, because it would have to be kind of big to change the election, and that the Trump supporters would use the legal process, which is freeing the electors, maybe taking it to the House of Representatives, and that the logical path there would be a Trump re-election, because there are more Republican states.
Is it possible that Van Jones was laying down suppressive fire, persuasive fire, so that if we got to this situation, and we did, Van Jones called it 100%, here we are. If we got to this position, that the Democrats would already have their story.
And here's the story which he is presenting to them.
That if the Constitution were to be followed as I just described, if the Constitution were to be followed as I described, it would be followed both the letter and the intent.
So I would say that if that happened the way Van Jones describes it, it would not be a case of following the technical letter of the law At the expense of the intention of the law.
It wouldn't be that.
It would be following the letter of the law, exactly the reason it was written that way, in case this situation comes up, where you can't quite trust the election.
That's why it's there.
That's the point. That's the whole point.
It is the most...
I don't know if you can say most, but it's the most credible part of the Constitution.
It's not an accident.
It's not a weird technicality.
It's there for a really, really important reason, and it says what it means to say, and it matters.
How did Van Jones decide to word this thing that I just worded, that's normal, important, intended, and clear?
He tried to reframe that as a coup.
That if you followed the election process exactly the way it's written, and it turned out that that put Trump in office, you would call that a coup.
That's pretty ballsy, isn't it?
And that it would be a weird, like a technical oddity and a trick.
It would be a dirty trick.
He's actually, he's persuading, and I'm not using that Phrase the way it's supposed to be used.
But you know what I mean. He's persuading in advance so that the entire media will form around this narrative.
And this narrative could actually create this situation where you have two presidents.
One that Fox News says is Trump.
Let's say he got success in his legal process.
And CNN will say, none of it happened.
Because they followed a trick.
And it's just sort of a technical trick.
But really, Biden is the president.
Because we can just ignore that technical trick.
Now, when I told you that we would eventually have two presidents, at least in terms of persuasion-wise, not legally, We are heading there really quickly.
This might be among my greatest predictions if it comes through.
We don't know. Democrats say no chance.
Republicans say maybe.
And I tell you this.
There's a better chance than you think.
That's all you need to know.
Let me just tell you that the odds of Trump mounting a successful rebuttal to the election outcome is way better than you think.
It's way better than you think.
And if you're saying, but I've seen all the evidence and, you know, it's not persuading anybody yet, I would say, no, you haven't.
No, you haven't.
You have not seen all of the evidence.
You might. I'll give it a week.
If next week, at this time, you have seen no more evidence than you've already seen, then I think it would go exactly the way the Democrats are saying.
I think that if nothing else comes out, all you know is what you know right now, President-elect Biden becomes President Biden.
But what are the odds Do you think that in the next week or so, you won't find out something big that you didn't know before?
What are the odds of that?
Well, you'll have different opinions on that, but it kind of comes down to that.
Now here's the next part of the persuasion bubble that's being formed around this election outcome.
Jake Tapper? He tweeted this.
He said, So that's what Jake Tapper reports as the news.
Immediately after he tweets that, David Bossy, who is in Tapper's tweet, and Tapper is saying that David Bossie is talking to the president about concession.
David Bossie has a different view and says, hey, fake news guy, somebody rolled you.
You should have reached out, but wouldn't fit your narrative.
How much do you love the fact that the news can report the news and then the debunk of the news from the very person who was in the news story can happen within one minute and be posted right next to the fake news?
That's kind of cool.
Now, who do you believe?
Do you believe Jake Tapper and his sources that people are trying to talk the president into Quitting?
Or do you believe the guy whose job it is, who's right in the middle of all of this, who says, ah, no, you got rolled, nothing like that's happening?
Let me give you some insider information that I have myself, okay?
Now, I don't like to do this.
I don't do it often.
But sometimes I know things that you don't know.
And I will tell you that I know from sources that, at the very least, Rudy Giuliani is not talking to the president about quitting.
I'll just leave you with that one.
So I can't speak to any of the other characters who are mentioned here.
David Bossie speaks for himself and says that at least the part about him is not true.
And I would add to that that, based on what I've heard, and I believe it, Rudy Giuliani is definitely not urging the president to quit.
I don't even think that's, like, close to anything.
So there's your fake news.
So part two of the attempt to persuade Biden into the White House, no matter what the vote is, would be the media simply telling you that everybody's telling the president he should resign.
Because if you hear that Democrats say the president should concede, not resign, if you hear that Democrats say Trump should concede, you process that as just blah blah blah politics.
If you hear that an important Republican senator, and this has happened, has congratulated Biden and or urged the president to concede, that means a little bit more, doesn't it?
But it's still not the president. And if the fake news can convince you that the inner circle around the president are all telling him to concede, wouldn't that tell you that you should say that too?
And then if you could get all of the Republicans to think it, because, hey, after all, his inner circle even thinks it, which is probably not true, then you can persuade away all of the energy from Republicans.
And so part of this persuasion is to first to set up that if they have a successful defense that the Constitution would back 100%, that that's called a trick and a coup, and that everybody will say that on the Democrat side.
Then secondly, tell the story, it's fake news, but tell the story that everybody, even the ones close to the president, the people who know the most, right?
Don't you imagine that Jared Kushner probably knows close to 100% of what the president also knows about this situation, wouldn't you think?
At least the two of them would be on the same page.
So if it were true that Jared Kushner, looking at the same information as the president, believed that the president should concede, shouldn't you?
Right? Now you and I feel like we don't have all the information, but Jared Kushner has all the information.
So if he thinks the president should concede, shouldn't you?
So that's the persuasion play that's happening right now.
And it is almost certainly a complete lie that the insiders are convincing the president to concede.
I do think it's true that they've planned it both ways, right?
Wouldn't you at least plan what it looks like if you had to go that way?
So look for the difference in the reporting of the president has decided this versus people are just getting ready for either eventuality.
Of course you would get ready Of course you would plan for both outcomes.
All right. Here's what I think is generally true.
I think you need different presidents at different times and for different reasons.
I think that Trump was the perfect president for a lot of international stuff that he succeeded with Israel, the Middle East.
I think he was the right person to...
You know, push NATO to fund.
I think he was the right person to deal with Kim Jong-un.
And so there are a whole bunch of things that fall into the category of only Trump could have done them.
But then there's this other category of stuff that maybe Trump is the only one who can't get it done because of history and personality and anything else.
So there may be some things that Biden can simply do that a President Trump couldn't do.
And one of them would be these rapid test strips.
Because I would imagine that President Trump was not crazy about having all kinds of extra testing.
And maybe that was part of why we didn't see the cheap test strip thing.
So if Biden could do that and make it work, and let's say it's spring and between our vaccines and our rapid testing we've got on top of the coronavirus, I would give him some credit.
No doubt about it.
And that is what I think I wanted to talk about.
Oh, yeah, no, one other thing.
So Politico is reporting, if you see my cat's tail walk by, she's doing a walk by.
Okay. So Politico is reporting that Biden's team is considering picking the former president of the nation's largest teachers union to be the education secretary.
Now, what's that tell you? If you believe, as I do, that the biggest cause of systemic racism is that the education system is broken, and it's most broken for people at the low end of the economic ladder,
and that tends to be, unfortunately, a lot of black people in that category and other people of color, that if the school system doesn't work, It's the most systemically racist thing that could happen.
Not even close.
I mean there's nothing else that's even in the same universe as getting education right.
Because if you got education right, You're one generation away from a whole bunch of equality and at least the feeling of systemic racism would shrink to, oh yeah, it's still there, but I got a good education so I can get a job anywhere and my income's good.
It's working fine.
So I would say the weird thing that happened is that black people and Black Lives Matter strongly, by majority, supported Biden.
And one of the very first things he's going to do is screw them harder than anybody has ever screwed anybody in the last 40 years.
Because if you put the head, the past president of the nation's largest teachers' unions, it's the teachers' unions that are the ones that are fighting against school choice.
School choice is the only chance black Americans have of making big gains, because it's not going to be reparations.
I mean, even if reparations happened, that doesn't really move the needle.
It would barely change anything, because it wouldn't be that big, right?
It would be nice. It wouldn't be, you know, civilization changing.
But changing our school system, that is civilization altering, no doubt about it.
It's that big every time.
So the first thing Biden does is he comes in and he absolutely screwed the black voters who put him into the office.
I mean, you can't screw your voters harder than that.
That is the ultimate FU. And it looks like that's happening.
All right. That's all I got for you today.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
All right, Periscope is turned off, and it's just you beautiful YouTubers here.
Somebody says, what is the slaughter meter?
Well, I think slaughter is probably the wrong word, because whatever happens, there won't be any Trump slaughter, probably.
But the odds of, let me say this, the odds that there will be new information that leads you to believe that the elections were stolen Are...
high. Really high.
That's all I want to tell you.
So, a week from now, check in with me again.
If you have not heard really strong evidence of fraud in a week, maybe you won't.
Because if we can't find it pretty soon, maybe it's not there.
Is the watermark real?
So my take on all the individual cases of fraud that you've heard, and I'll say this again, is that 95% of them won't be true.
All those little computer glitches, and the count changed by this much on that day, and we saw it on CNN, and there's a watermark.
If you had to bet, you should bet that all of them are untrue.
Which is different from did massive fraud happen?
Now, the Benford's Law one, which is a data analysis that shows whether the numbers look like they could have been natural or they were fudged.
And you're seeing a lot of analysis that says they look absolutely fudged.
Those could be real.
So the ones that I would put the most credibility on would be a statistical analysis, but not every one, right?
If you see on Twitter a statistical analysis, and it's got a little graph, and that little graph seems to show that the election was stolen, I don't even need to know what graph it was.
I don't even need to know what data was in it.
There's a 95% chance that's not real.
Because it's just in the class of things, which will be 95% not true.
A lot of it's going to be confirmation bias, and you dig in a little bit, and it was a There was a glitch in the feed, but it got corrected immediately.
It's going to be that stuff.
But I'm here to tell you that the odds of real evidence that's big are really good.
I just don't know that we've seen any of it yet.
Somebody says, how is the weaponized autism coming?
Let me put it this way.
So I am on the fringes of monitoring some stuff going on, right?
So I'm not doing any math myself.
But I have just enough connections into the world of Trump supporters that I do get to see stuff before you get to see it.
And the weaponized autists, and again, if you're new to me, I use it as a term of affection.
Because there are more people on the spectrum who are Dilbert fans, and I love them beyond compare.
So when I talk about weaponized autism, I'm literally using it as a compliment.
It's awesome. So what's coming could be mind-boggling.
