Episode 1185 Scott Adams: How Biden Will Destroy the Democrat Party by 2024
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden's anti-Black policies
Biden's stated policies and consequences
Corrupt, non-credible systems say Biden won
Dr. Shiva's election analysis
Biden's chief of staff says elections are rigged
Some comedy recommendations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 so good to see you. It's the best part of my day every single time, and I know it's going to be a great one today.
Whoa, is it going to be a great one?
It's going to start out slow, and then it's going to build into a crescendo.
Or, possibly not, but it will still be the best part of your day, and all you need is a copper maga.
Let me start again. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or gels or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's going to happen to you right now.
Go! Sublime.
Alright, a number of you said that my Periscope livestream, those of you watching on Periscope, did not get a notification on Twitter yesterday.
I believe I have solved that problem, so you should have gotten one today.
And I think the problem is that when my iPad reboots, it disconnects Twitter from Periscope.
In other words, they're separate apps owned by the same company, But if they're not connected to each other, Twitter does not automatically send out a notification.
So, they got unconnected during a system update on my iPad.
I reconnected them.
Everything's good. It wasn't suppression, in case you wondered.
I have an entertainment recommendation for you.
You ready? Don't you need more laughs?
Wouldn't your life be better if you could laugh your way through the pandemic?
Well, if you haven't already watched it and you're a South Park fan, I don't recommend this if you've never watched South Park before and you might be offended by stuff.
So the following recommendation is with the caveat that if you know you like South Park, you're really going to like the pandemic special that they did.
So just Google South Park pandemic special.
I was crying.
I mean, I was just crying watching that thing.
And the great thing about South Park, there's a lot of great things about it, but the humor is sophomoric, Kind of just naughty humor.
And by all rights, it should be not clever.
It should be just this, you know, I could have made that joke when I was 12.
But it's clever as hell.
And when you add the sophomoric humor to extraordinary cleverness, I mean really first-rate, best-in-the-world kind of cleverness, that combination just never fits.
Which is what makes it hilarious.
The artwork being so crude by design, on top of the humor being so crude by design, and then you add to it really, really intelligent writing, and it's just a frickin' masterpiece.
But you have to like South Park to enjoy it.
Here's something else. I've mentioned this before, but I finished watching it.
What We Do in the Shadows.
I hope I got the right name for that.
It's about vampires.
Now, I've said before that humor is largely dead as an art form because our senses of humor are so distorted by political correctness and everything else.
So one of the genius things that South Park does During the course of the show, and this won't ruin it, this is not a spoiler, they deal with the fact that doing a pandemic comedy during the middle of a pandemic when people are dying by the hundreds of thousands is clearly inappropriate.
Right? Making jokes about the pandemic is clearly inappropriate.
And when you watch the way that South Park deals with that head-on, it's just brilliant.
But the other thing that you can enjoy during the pandemic, and it's a very rare exception to the fact that nothing's funny anymore, at least intentionally.
I've said before that Scripted comedies are being replaced by the news.
Because the news is hilarious and entertaining in a whole, you know, very rich way.
And when I watch the news, I do it for the laughs.
And that's not a joke.
I'm not saying that for a fact.
I actually do it for the laughs.
And it delivers. But watch what we do in the shadows.
It's about vampires and it's really, really clever.
Here's another recommendation.
One of the great things about YouTube is that it will make recommendations and then just keep playing the recommendations automatically if you set it up that way.
One of the things that I've discovered, and probably you've all already discovered it and I'm just the last one to know, but if you watch a YouTube about a personality, It will automatically queue up other content about the same person, and you can effectively create a mini-series about somebody that you think is interesting, and most of the content does not overlap.
So you can just listen to a whole bunch of shows about one person.
So I did that with Paul McCartney and John Lennon.
It was really entertaining because I'm interested in them.
You would pick the people that you would be interested in.
I did a few other people, but most recently my favorite, and here's my recommendation, is Norm MacDonald.
Go to YouTube and just look at any video that features Norm MacDonald and then YouTube will do the rest.
It'll start recommending other Norm MacDonald stuff.
So if you just put it on Norm MacDonald, you can listen all day long and it never gets less funny and it doesn't really repeat.
There's just a ton of content With Norman McDonald talking either on a talk show or his own show, or people talking about him.
And even the interviews of people talking about him are freaking hilarious.
And here's the takeaway.
I didn't realize this until I saw a bunch of them all at the same time.
If you watch one clip of Norman McDonald, you like it or not like it, But you don't get the big picture.
And the big picture is this.
I didn't quite realize it, although I had a hint, that Norm Macdonald's humor is not like other people's humor in a variety of ways, but the important way is that the joke is on the audience.
Or if he's talking to somebody, let's say on a talk show, the joke is on the audience and the other guests and maybe the host.
And what he's doing is entertaining himself in front of you.
And once you realize that's what he's doing, you'll just cry in laughter every time you see him do it.
If you see it individually and you pull up one clip, here's what you might see.
You might see a joke that makes you think, wait a minute, is he a racist or something?
Because the way you told that joke, I mean, it's not racist, but it's close to it.
And if you hear one, you think, oh, I'm a little worried about Norm there.
Maybe he's got some thoughts that are not so pleasant.
But then you watch a whole bunch of them.
And you realize that that's what he's doing.
He's making the listener uncomfortable because you're supposed to be thinking, I don't know if I can laugh at that.
I think it's just a joke, but I'm not positive.
And once you realize he's doing that to the audience, and he's doing it to you, and he's doing it to the other people he's talking to, And you get in that vein where you realize what's going on.
It is frickin' hilarious.
And I was just watching that yesterday and just crying.
So funny. Alright, those are my recommendations for fun.
Have you noticed that everything became about China?
Now, of course the coronavirus came from China.
Probably the coronavirus changed the election result.
I think smart people will conclude that.
Now, it's not like one thing ever makes the election what it is.
You need lots of factors.
But one of the variables that everybody would agree is gigantic is that we had more mail-in ballots.
And there is some science to suggest that Democrats are going to be more mail-in ballot-centric and therefore would have an advantage.
That probably happened.
It's hard to tell.
But probably China determined who our president is.
Think about that. Not necessarily intentionally, but yeah, I'm not going to buy the idea that China intentionally launched a pandemic.
I don't believe it was intentional.
I think they could have handled it better.
So now our biggest issues in this country are all just China.
And what did we do In response to the fact that China destroyed our economy, hopefully temporarily, infected and killed a quarter million Americans, and it affected our election.
Again, they weren't necessarily trying to do it.
A lot of you were thinking it was intentional, but it would be a weird thing to do intentionally.
I guess you can't rule out anything, but it feels pretty unlikely to me that it was intentional.
So I don't think you could convince me of that without more evidence.
But everything's about China.
And what did we do? As a response to the fact that China basically is controlling both our political process, our economy, and And our healthcare system.
And our trade.
Right? Which is part of the economy.
And what did we do when we found ourselves in a situation where China is totally the dog wagging us like a little tail?
We elected the most friendly China person.
Which is kind of the opposite of maybe where we should have been.
Which is maybe we should have China not affecting everything in this country.
Maybe they should have less effect.
But instead it looks like they'll have more.
Which is an odd way to go, historically.
Let me tell you maybe the saddest thing that's going on here.
Joe Biden is not really a friend to black people.
But I think if you're black, you can't see it.
Not because you're black.
It's not a racial comment.
But rather, anybody who's in a political bubble, it's really hard to get out of your bubble, no matter who you are.
This includes you.
It includes everybody. So everybody's in their bubble.
And I believe that once you get it in your head, that there's an idea that's just true.
And let's say the idea in this example is that Democrats are the party...
That are going to be best for the black population of this country.
So once you've accepted that that's true for decades, whether it's true or not, you're accepting it as true, you really can't see counter evidence.
So confirmation bias, by its nature, We'll make it invisible to you if there's anything that would be fighting against your worldview.
Let me give you an example of some of the things that Biden says he will do.
And now imagine you're a black voter in this country.
So you just elected this guy, and then he's telling you what he's going to do.
And he's not hiding it. He's telling you directly...
I plan to do these things right away.
Top priority stuff.
You're a black voter and he tells you, top priority, we're going to stop building the wall and loosen up on immigration.
So you're a black citizen of the country.
Do you like that?
Do you like that Joe Biden has decided that you're going to have a lot more competition for jobs?
Because... The immigration problem does hit the black population harder than other parts of the population because the competition for jobs at the lower end, because unfortunately that's our situation.
So is that good for black voters?
Did they want more competition for the jobs?
I would think they would want the opposite, but Biden is promising them And if he takes the job, if he ends up being the president, he will give black people more competition for jobs.
How about the Green New Deal?
He promises to do that.
Is that good if you're black?
Nope. Nope.
It's the worst thing in the world if you're black.
Is it good if you're rich and white?
It might be. It might be.
If you're rich and white, you can afford a little extra taxes and maybe you want to reduce the chance of climate change disruption, etc.
So maybe if you're rich and you're white, it could be good for you.
But one thing that's true all the time is that your energy situation in your country largely drives your economy.
You can't really have a successful economy without a robust energy program or being a special case.
You could be a special case.
But in the United States, our energy program is central to the health of our economy.
And if you Do you like that the Green New Deal guarantees that the economy will suffer because they'll be tough on fracking, they'll be doing the Green New Deal?
So if you're at the lower end of the economic situation, the Green New Deal is just bad for you.
Maybe good in the long run.
Maybe good in 80 years?
It might be. But if you're poor today, do you care about the Green New Deal in 80 years, or do you want to make sure that you get a job today?
I feel like this is terrible for black people, the Green New Deal.
Even if it's good for the world, which is a separate argument, it's definitely bad for poor people right away.
How about Biden...
Looking to put into place people who are part of these school unions, and that's what he's looking for for his education cabinet member, probably.
That's the rumor anyway.
Which would indicate no school choice.
What is the single biggest source of systemic racism?
Nothing comes close to this thing.
Nothing. Which is that if you're black in America, your odds of getting a quality education are way less than if you're white in America.
Way less. One way you could fix that, and maybe the only way, would be school choice and market competition, because that kind of works all the time, whereas government having a monopoly doesn't work all the time.
It can work in some cases.
So, Biden...
Is doing all of that.
So immigration is bad for black population.
Green New Deal is bad for everybody who's in the lower income, including black population.
And then school choice is like a holocaust in this country.
I mean, it guarantees that you have more systemic racism.
It guarantees it. Whereas if you said school choice, let's go crazy with school choice.
Let's fix this one thing.
Nobody gets a bad education because they have a choice of where to go.
You could take a gigantic bite out of systemic racism.
Let's just define it for convenience as starting from behind.
And then the ripple effect that that has.
In 12 years, the length of school, in 12 years you could completely transform the black population of this country economically by making sure that everybody got a good education.
Biden is guaranteed that that won't happen.
Because the system he supports, we know that can't get you there.
It won't change that fast.
Here's another one. Suppose you were a successful black entrepreneur or just Successful in general.
And you're making a lot of money. So you're a black person in this country.
You beat the odds.
You overcame whatever discrimination or systemic racism.
You overcame maybe starting from behind.
You just overcame everything.
Like, you figured it out.
And now you're making a million dollars a year in your business or your salary or whatever.
And you're killing it.
And you did that under the old rules.
The old rules were what the tax rates used to be and the way the law used to be.
And you succeeded against all odds.
You won. And then Joe Biden says, I'm going to raise your taxes to about 80%.
If you add everything from state income taxes in states like mine, California, to federal at 39%, 12% for the state, you add your sales tax, your property tax, your payroll tax, other things that are like taxes,
and suddenly your successful black entrepreneur, just use that as an example, suddenly everything that you worked for Joe Biden could come and take a bunch of it away.
Is that cool? Are you cool with working your whole life under the old rules?
You win, and then somebody changes the rules after you win?
You cool with that?
I sure wouldn't be cool with it, but I can't speak for anybody else.
And I'm definitely not cool with it in my own case, because I earned all of my money.
I didn't inherit anything.
I literally inherited zero.
I worked for it. Now Joe Biden says, let's change the rules.
Let's take that away from you.
Not cool. So, certainly I have great empathy toward the black opinion that I imagine they would have.
If you were highly successful, you'd have the same opinion.
I'm guessing. Don't really know.
I think the fake news is already missing Trump.
Did you see all the complaining about him not coming out in public?
So my understanding is that Trump is doing a lot.
I mean, he's making phone calls and stuff.
He seems to be more engaged with the election stuff.
But I feel like the news is already thinking, uh-oh, what are we going to talk about?
If Trump doesn't come out and say something in public pretty soon, we're just going to run out of news because we might have to go look for news instead of just reporting about what the president tweeted.
Former CIA Director John Brennan tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he's more worried than ever about Trump trying to stage a coup or something like that, because I guess Trump is replacing some of the civilian defense people with loyalists, they say, which means making people think he's going to try to stay in office somehow with a coup or whatever.
That's not going to happen.
Let me say it as clearly as possible.
Here's what's not going to happen.
The president running a military coup to stay in office.
The odds of that happening are zero.
It's not like, well, there's a long shot chance.
No, the odds of that is zero.
And here's why. Number one, the military would never go for it.
There isn't the slightest chance, in my opinion, that he could get even a loyalist to order some kind of a military coup in the United States.
So it's beyond ridiculous that that could happen because the military just won't do it.
And there's no There's not the slightest indication that they would follow those kinds of orders, and there's lots of indications that they wouldn't.
But there's a factor beyond that.
I'm going to make this assumption and see if you agree with it.
I believe there are 20 people in the world who, if those 20 people said, you know, it's time for Trump to concede, We've supported Trump in the past, you know, vigorously, but now we 20 people or so see that it's over, hypothetically.
It's definitely not over. But if they did, there's 20 people who could absolutely, guaranteed, make Trump not the president.
Let me give you an example.
If Sean Hannity...
Decided that he'd seen enough information.
I don't think this is going to happen.
I'm just walking you through the thinking here.
If Sean Hannity decided that he'd looked at all the information and said, you know, I love the president, but I'm looking at the information, and even with a little fraud, it's not enough to change the result.
The process has been served, and I think it's time for the president, you know, my friend that I've supported, to just concede.
So Sean Hannity is certainly one of the 20 or so people who, if they decided that Trump is out of office, he couldn't stay in office.
Because he would need that 20 and the people who follow that 20, which is the bigger force, he would need all of them on his side to have the slightest chance of working any gray areas that could keep him in office.
Rush Limbaugh would have to be In favor of Trump staying on, or he couldn't.
Maybe not by himself.
If it was an individual important person who was a rogue, you could ignore him.
But there are about 20, maybe fewer.
It could be 10 people in the whole United States who would have that kind of influence or audience to do it.
I don't know if I'm one of them.
But I would nominate myself as who you should look for in this decision.
There will be a time when, as Trump supporters, many of you are, you will have to decide.
Have we seen enough?
Is there no evidence? Have we decided we're going to move on?
I don't think we're there.
I don't think we're there.
Because I'm aware, not in great detail, but I'm aware that there's more to come.
In other words, what you've seen so far about the credibility of the election is not the good stuff.
I warned you early on that all of these little anecdotes you were going to see, 95% of them would be debunked.
But don't let that fool you.
Because confirmation bias guaranteed there would be lots of false claims.
That was guaranteed. It was just part of the setup that that had to happen because of the way our brains work.
But no matter how many are debunked, that doesn't tell you anything about the ones you haven't seen.
Once you see them, if they also get debunked, well, that's when you start saying, oh, okay.
Maybe we've looked into it.
Maybe we know everything we need to do.
Here's why I submit that you should listen to my opinion.
You don't have to take it, of course.
But on the decision of whether it's time or not time to either support that Biden got elected, at least support the outcome of the election, or to keep digging.
Here's why I think you should listen to me.
You know, especially those who have been watching me for a while, you know that I can turn on you, right?
You know that you can have an opinion you really, really care about, and you think I'm on your side, and then you hear that opinion and you're like, what the hell?
What the hell is that?
I thought you were going to agree with everything that Trump did.
Nope. Nope.
I've never agreed with everything Trump has done, and I tell you quite often to your distress when it happens.
I'm not even a Republican, nor am I a conservative.
I describe myself as left of Bernie, but better at math, so his programs don't make sense because of the math.
But I like his objectives.
I like to get to full healthcare availability in this country, so I like lefty stuff, If they can figure out some practical way to get there, which is always where they fall apart.
So, here's the point.
You know me to favor systems over goals.
And I can promise you, and I think you can trust this, that if it ever came down to supporting an individual, let's say Trump, for example, over the integrity of the system, I will always pick the system.
If I had to throw Trump under the bus, love him as I do.
I like Trump.
I've met him, enjoyed talking to him, think he's done a great job for the country.
But I would throw him under the bus so fast if the election system indicates that that makes sense.
Right? So I'm going to go with what makes sense.
I'm going to follow the system.
And I would like to have a good American system when we're done, even if...
Here's the important part.
You ready? Even if it means Trump isn't president.
I would absolutely choose the integrity of the system over any one president.
It's not even close.
I'm not even going to weigh them as even being in the same category.
The system is everything.
The individual is not.
And that would be the approach I would take.
So, if you're listening to somebody who's clearly just in the bag for the president, we'll agree with whatever he says.
You're not going to get anything credible.
You know the fake news isn't going to tell you anything useful.
It's all lies because it's the news.
They don't do the truth. You know the politicians are not going to be unbiased.
You know your fellow voters and neighbors are not going to be unbiased.
The one thing I can promise you is that I will apply reason I will give you an estimate of the odds of any facts that I'm incorporating, and I'll tell you if it's time to move on.
I see no reason that you should listen to me, to be honest.
I see no reason you should listen to me.
But who else are you going to listen to?
Years ago, I'm going to tell you something.
It was a private conversation, so maybe I shouldn't.
But I'm going to do it anyway.
Several years ago, I was talking to my friend Naval Ravikant, and I told him that my objective, because a lot of people ask me, why am I getting involved in politics, and why am I even in this field?
And I told him at the time that it was my goal to be the most credible person in the country.
Credible doesn't mean right.
Very important distinction.
Credible doesn't mean that I'm right.
Credible means that you know what my intentions are and that I put in the work and there was enough transparency where I showed you why I'm thinking what I'm thinking, how I reasoned it, what facts I thought were credible, what percentage I put it on it.
I can give you that.
So I've spent years trying to develop To develop, let's say, a platform in which whether you hated me or loved me, you would say, damn it, at least he's credible.
Let me give you an example of somebody I consider credible.
Michael Moore. Right?
That doesn't mean you agree with him.
It doesn't mean he's right all the time.
Because that's not what credible is.
Nobody's right all the time.
But when Michael Moore says, uh...
Hey, Democrats, I don't think you're listening, and Trump is, to the voters.
Michael Moore is kind of credible, right?
Maybe not on every topic, but when he says stuff like that, you know he is capable of leaving the politics and saying, but people are dying here, and only one person is listening to him.
Maybe you should listen to him a little bit better, too.
Pretty credible. Pretty credible.
Alright, I don't know if I'm hitting my mark, but just so you know, that's what I'm shooting for, is to be a useful component of the country in a world in which every one of our systems has lost credibility.
So who are you going to believe?
And I think that, like I said, I'm not alone.
There are probably 20 people who could basically cause the president to have no hope of holding on to the office.
Are we there yet? Nope.
Nope. We are definitely not there yet.
And I don't know if we will be.
But I'll give you my prediction.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
I think the President will make his case that fraud happened.
I believe that he will eventually, and unfortunately it might take too long, I think eventually, again, probably it will take too long, We will know that the election was maybe or definitely illegitimate and could have gone or should have gone to Trump.
And that will create a situation in which even after he has conceded, if that happens, that we would consider him still the president because he got elected even though he's not in the job.
So you're going to have a situation where you have two presidents.
One official, And then one sort of in absentia, if you will.
Almost like a Venezuela situation.
So that's what we're heading for because everything's lined up for that to happen.
I don't know how long that'll last.
All right. And the only reason that you know that Biden won, if that's what you think happened, is that the most corrupt institutions in the country told you it was so.
Right? Tell me who told you that Biden won who is also credible?
Nobody. You haven't heard it from anybody credible.
You've heard it from the news.
Fake news. They're all liars.
You've heard it from politicians.
You can't trust them. They obviously are playing the game.
Who told you that Biden won who is not already corrupt and non-credible?
All right. I took a stand in favor of Jeffrey Toobin, who was fired by The New Yorker.
I don't know if CNN will yank him off the air.
But I said in a tweet, apparently he got fired by The New Yorker, where he also worked as a writer.
And I tweeted that I strongly disagree with this firing.
I don't want to live in a world, I don't want to live in that world.
So, what do you think people said when I said that I disagree with Jeffrey Toobin being fired because I don't want to live in a world in which you can get fired for what is obviously a mistake?
Now, do you think that people correctly interpreted what I said?
No. No, this is the real world where people misinterpret.
So, Claire Cullen tweets back at me and she says, you...
Want to live in a world where men masturbate on camera in work Zoom meetings with no consequences?
Weird. And then she also tweeted separately, what a hill to die on, quote, and then she makes up a quote as if I said it.
So it has quote marks around it, but I never said this, right?
I want to live in a world where men can masturbate on camera on work Zoom calls free of consequences.
Did I say that?
Is there anything I said that would sound like I'm in favor of men masturbating on Zoom?
No. No.
That would be a misinterpretation of what I said.
A straw man, if you will.
The facts that we have are that it was an accident.
So, am I okay with a man or woman having an accident which caused them great embarrassment?
But it was just an accident.
Nobody got hurt.
No victims. Highly unlikely to ever happen again.
Under those conditions, man or woman, Democrat or Republican, I don't care.
I just don't want to live in a world where a dumb mistake that had no consequences.
It really didn't. Let's be honest.
The women who were on the call or men or whoever else were on there, they weren't scarred for life.
Because it wasn't personal.
It was just like an image on the screen.
It wasn't meant for them.
It wasn't about them.
It was weird.
It was funny. They're part of history.
I don't want to live in a world where a simple technical error can lose a good job.
So, I am completely sincere in saying that the New Yorker made a mistake, in my opinion.
They should hire him back, and CNN should not Keep them off the air indefinitely.
A little time out might make sense for everybody, but I don't think anybody should lose a job for that.
Douglas Carr weighed in on this conversation and said, Douglas said, quote, I've never unintentionally played with myself at work, or intentionally.
So Douglas claims that he has never gone full tubing at work, whether anybody was watching or not.
To which I replied, well, maybe Douglas, maybe you're just not that into yourself.
Because, you know, there are times when I just can't resist myself.
I don't know about you, but I am so into myself.
But Douglas has rejected himself to the point where he's not even interested in himself.
Apparently, President Trump has told friends, allegedly, who knows if this is true, This is from Axios.
That he wants to start a digital media company to clobber Fox News.
So it might not be a cable channel.
It might be just an internet only thing.
To clobber Fox News.
What are the odds of that? Well, if he's not president, pretty high.
Don't you think you'd watch it?
I don't know how you would not watch it.
How would you not watch President Trump dunking on Biden for four years?
I don't think I'd watch anything else.
I don't know what could be more interesting than that.
So that might happen.
Again, Trump has two ways to win.
One is he somehow prevails with his legal challenges and becomes president for a second term.
And the second way is he doesn't become president.
And he makes billions of dollars as the most interesting conservative channel.
So I've been asked to talk about Dr.
Shiva's analyses of the election, and so I will.
Here's my problem trying to analyze anything that Dr.
Shiva does or claims.
I can't.
I don't have those skills.
I can't look at anything he does.
And say, oh, well, I agree with that or don't agree with that.
What the hell do I know?
That's him working in a domain in which he's an expert, has several degrees that are all relevant to this.
So if he says he's done the analysis and it tells him something, I don't know otherwise.
I don't know if it's right, but I don't know if it's wrong.
I just don't know. So we need So the claim from Dr.
Shiva is roughly this.
I'll paraphrase it. Based on everything we know about the past and even what was happening in the election so far.
And then they would go along in what would be a normal way, and then suddenly, just like somebody turned a switch, as in a software thing, then suddenly it just became all by.
Could there be a natural reason for it?
I don't know. I imagine that's what the other side would claim.
But until lots of people have looked at it, it's hard to know.
So I don't have an opinion about how true it is, because I don't have the qualifications to judge that sort of thing.
And that's why I wouldn't want to have him on as a guest to talk about that sort of thing, because you should only do it if you've got somebody who can ask the right questions, and that's not me.
Apparently Pennsylvania asked the Dominion Software people, To make some changes before the election.
And one of the requested changes would give control to an operator of the software to mark blank ballots any way they wanted and then just put them in the system.
So they actually asked for the ability to fill in blank ballots in writing.
That's actually a software request And I think Dominion gave them that ability.
So basically it's just that an operator has the ability to do what they want with a ballot as opposed to the system somehow having all the control.
So don't we need to know more about whoever had access to that feature?
How many people in Pennsylvania had access to a feature where they could go in and just change the vote?
Wouldn't you like to know?
I'd like to know.
Apparently Biden is not getting security briefings from the current administration, and the reasoning is that he's not officially the president-elect, but in the past that hasn't mattered.
However, I think in this case it's humorously appropriate.
It's not appropriate government-wise.
If you want just good government, you should probably let him have some briefings, just in case.
Because he may not become the president-elect officially, but I don't think there's any risk of somebody in his position, Joe Biden, having been at the top security clearance for, what, decades, probably.
I don't think there's any risk of letting him get some briefings.
But because the Obama administration...
had screwed with Trump that way and not given him the right briefings and they were pretending as if he was a security risk.
I love from a humor perspective that Trump is not giving Biden security briefings because you could argue that he's in the pocket of China.
That was the argument for not giving Trump security briefings, as he might be in the pocket of Russia.
So Trump has 100% reasonable reason to not give Biden this clearance.
Now I think it's more funny in FU than it is useful.
As a citizen, I think he should have those briefings, but as an observer of politics, it is kind of funny.
It is kind of funny.
So I appreciate it on that one.
All right, I think that we're watching the slow-motion self-immolation of the Democratic Party.
And here is my argument, which I have not yet made, and it goes like this.
If you're going to predict what would happen...
If Biden eventually does get into the job as president, what would happen between now and 2024?
What is obviously going to happen between now and 2024?
So here's a few things. Keep in mind that Trump did something that nobody thought was even possible.
He unified the Republican Party.
Prior to Trump being president, I was telling you he's so persuasive, he has these persuasive qualities, and people kept saying, well, why is he not persuading Democrats?
Well, we don't live in that world anymore.
We don't live in a world where you persuade the other side.
That's not even a thing.
You just persuade your own team, and if you can get 100% of them or close on your side, that might be enough to be president.
So the president had unusual skills, and he could get 96% Republican support.
Do you think that Biden has those skills, given that he's dealing with the Green New Deal people and the squad?
Well, I don't think that Biden has the skills that Trump has.
Trump could do things that other people can't and he got his team completely on his side.
Biden probably isn't going to do that because he doesn't have that kind of game.
So the first thing that will be different is he won't be able to unify the party.
So this is my prediction. So that's trouble.
Secondly, the things he's pushing for are higher taxes, not withdrawing troops, more systemic racism.
The examples that I gave you earlier like No school choice, etc.
That's pro-systemic racism.
And more lockdowns.
Now, even if lockdowns are good, they're unpopular, right?
So even if you said, oh, they're necessary, the public doesn't like them.
So the public isn't going to like any of this.
Higher taxes, more war, systemic racism, lockdowns.
Then there's talk that you might want to share the Pfizer vaccine overseas before everybody in America gets it.
Because that would be fair.
And it might be. If you're being a citizen of the world, does it make sense that maybe you share your limited vaccine with the rest of the world?
I think you could make an argument for that.
The argument would not be America first.
It would be the opposite of that.
But could you make a philosophical argument, and maybe this will happen, that any vaccine that's so important, it's a world problem, that we should not hog it all?
You can make that argument. But it won't be popular.
The people in the United States are going to complain.
So that's not going to look good in 2024.
I think you'll get more riots.
Anybody who thought that the rioting would decrease under Biden, they're probably asking themselves, what happened?
So Biden is going to have that.
I don't think...
Then you've got a nuclear problem, a nuclear energy problem.
Biden, I believe, is at least nuclear curious, if not flat-out pro-nuclear, at least keeping the ones we have.
He's going to run right into the squad on that and the Green New Deal.
So what happens if Biden is pro-nuclear and the squad is not?
What happens if Biden has age-related problems?
Do you think there's any chance in the next four years he'll have age-related problems and it'll make Democrats say, uh, what did we do here?
It seemed like a good idea at the time.
What happens when you take President Trump out of the equation and Biden no longer has this enemy that everybody can get behind as the same enemy?
If he loses his common enemy, who's the enemy?
If you don't have an enemy, it's hard to keep your team together, right?
At least Trump had, you know, socialism as his enemy.
You know, he had that.
So, Biden will lose his enemy, maybe.
What happens if there's a terror attack in this country and it could be traced back to Biden reversing the ban on those countries that don't have good record-keeping so you don't know who is migrating, immigrating?
What happens in four years is Four years is a long time.
What are the odds there would be at least one domestic terror attack because of that decision to let people in from those countries that are a little bit more risk?
I don't know what the odds are, but it could happen.
What if he does something with gun legislation, etc.?
So you can imagine a whole bunch of bad things happening.
If he raises taxes, it's hard to imagine the economy doing too well under that situation.
So I've got a feeling that You're going to see if Biden takes the job, it could be the beginning of a real bad problem for Democrats, because I think they would lose the next presidency, if things go the way I think.
He would lose the presidency next time, 2024, maybe lose the House.
The Senate might stay with the Republicans, and you might have the Republicans in charge of everything.
That really could happen in 2024.
So, we'll see.
Why does it seem to me that when Democrats talk about taxing the rich, it doesn't sound like an economic plan?
It sounds like punishment for being successful, doesn't it?
Now, some people inherited or got lucky or whatever, so that seems different.
But when I hear the Democrats talk about taxing the rich, it just doesn't feel like it's because it's a good idea.
It feels like because it's revenge, right?
Is it just me?
Maybe it's because it's personal.
But it feels like it's personal.
It doesn't even feel like they're trying too hard to make it sound like economics, that maybe it's just me.
Have you ever wondered why businesses are still boarded up?
I mean, we have a President Biden, right?
So racism is over.
We've got a Democrat in control.
Shouldn't we be onboarding those businesses?
See the problem?
Turns out that probably a new president won't make any difference to those riots or protests.
All right, I'm going to ask my friend Dale to come in and to explain to us Exactly how it is that this election is not rigged.
So if you've met Dale before, he's the anti-Trumper.
In some ways, he looks like me, but he has a goatee.
That's how you know he's not me.
And so, Dale, if you could just come over here.
I just have a quick question.
There have been a number of allegations of fraud in the elections.
What do you think about that?
There has been no widespread fraud in the election.
Yeah, I know. Nobody's saying there's widespread fraud.
The allegation is that it's targeted to just the places where it would make a difference.
So, do you think that happened?
How many times do I need to tell you there's not any widespread fraud?
Okay, I don't know what's happening here.
I'll try it again.
Nobody is making the allegation of widespread fraud, so when you say there is none, we're in agreement on that, because nobody is saying that.
But what do you think about the targeted fraud?
Why do you think there's widespread fraud?
What the hell is happening here?
Do you not understand what I'm even talking about?
I don't know what's happening here.
Scott, Scott, Scott.
Let me explain it to you.
In the past, there have been recounts.
Many times in the past, there have been recounts.
Those recounts, a few hundred votes, does not change the outcome.
Scott, Scott, Scott.
You fool. Okay, but Dale, the argument here...
is not that this year would be just like other years.
Nobody's making that claim.
The claim is that after four years of this president being compared to Hitler, that the incentive this election was to get rid of him at all costs, even at the cost of breaking the law, because that would be morally and ethically supported If you were really doing something to get rid of Hitler, and that is exactly what your fake news has told Democrats they were doing.
So under that very specific situation, the claim is that it's not at all comparable to any prior year, and that looking at prior years could only be misleading because they don't have enough in common with this very special election that had a weird situation with a President Trump Who is compared to Hitler for four years.
So really, it's only about this election that the claim is being made.
I don't think you understand, Scott.
There have been recounts in the past.
They don't find anything.
A few hundred votes. That's it.
What the hell is going on here?
What the hell is going on?
Are any of my words that come out of my mouth Penetrating your skull.
We're in agreement.
No prior year is similar to this one.
And scene.
So that's what you see on TV is just a whole bunch of Dales pretending that you're in a different argument.
And what do you do with people who pretend they're in a different argument?
They're not even addressing anything that's coming out of your mouth, and they act like they are.
It's the weirdest damn thing, isn't it?
Alright. Here are some things that you would have to believe in order to believe that there's definitely no problems with the election.
Alright? So you would have to believe the following things.
Now, I'm not...
If anybody's joining late, I do not make the claim.
I do not make the claim That widespread or even targeted fraud has yet been demonstrated factually in public.
I don't make that claim.
I do make the claim that you haven't seen the good stuff yet.
Now whether that makes a difference or not, we'll see.
But here's what you would have to believe to believe that there's no problem with the election that's big enough First of all, you'd have to wonder why there are no data scientists on the democratic side who are debunking the data scientists who say, hey, I'm looking at this data and it looks like there's a lot of trouble here.
Where are those people?
So the first thing you have to ask yourself is, where are all our data scientists?
Because I can't tell if Dr.
Shiva has a good point.
But maybe our top data scientists can.
Maybe they should weigh in.
Where are they?
So that's the first thing you're going to have to wonder.
Where are your experts?
The other thing is, when your news reports that they can't find any of this alleged fraud, where are they looking exactly?
If I tell you that I looked in my pants pocket for diamonds and I didn't find any, Have I proven that diamonds don't exist?
No, not really.
I've only proven that where I looked, I didn't find any.
And they're trying to sell this to the idiots in the public as if that means there are no problems.
Yeah, if I look in the wrong place, No problem.
How about looking at the right place, which would be an audit of, let's say, this Dominion software.
When the New York Times says there's no evidence of fraud, does that mean that they have personally audited the code of Dominion software?
Or does it mean that they looked in all the places where there probably isn't any fraud, and then they didn't find any?
You have to ask yourself, why are your sources of news Looking in the wrong places.
So that would be a question.
Why would you think that this year or this election would be anything like prior elections in terms of the degree of fraud?
I think everybody agrees there's a little bit of fraud all the time.
But why would this year be comparable, as Dale is arguing?
It wouldn't be. So if you're thinking that the fraud of the past and the recounts of the past are indicative of what we're likely to find this year, that's just batshit crazy.
If you think that That this is, just like other years, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Biden's chief of staff, this guy Ron Klain, back in 2014, and of course it doesn't take long for people to find out what people have said in the past, he responded to a tweet by Vox that said they did a survey and found that 68% of Americans think elections are rigged.
This is 2014, right?
So in 2014, 68% of Americans thought elections are rigged.
What did Biden's now-selected chief of staff say on his tweet?
He said, because they are.
So Biden's own chief of staff has said in public that he agrees with the statement that That elections are rigged.
Do you think he got fixed since 2014?
Do you think that somebody who is connected enough to politics to be selected as Biden's chief of staff as president, do you think that such a person is close enough and connected enough with the machinery of elections that when he says in public that elections are rigged, do you think he's guessing?
Probably not guessing.
Probably not. You would also have to believe, if you believe that there's definitely not any widespread or significant fraud that would change the election, you would have to believe that both Rudy Giuliani and Trump himself have not seen better evidence than you have so far seen.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe you've seen all the good stuff?
Because they're telling you you haven't.
And would Rudy go that far out on a limb if he didn't think he had the goods?
Let me ask you this.
Who can sniff out corruption and fraud better than Rudy Giuliani?
Do you think there's anybody who has a better nose for fraud than Rudy Giuliani?
And if he were to be doing this whole big effort and it's based on nothing, would he do it?
And would he know he was doing it based on nothing?
Well, I think he would know if there's something there.
I feel he would know.
I feel the things we've seen so far might be a stalling move, meaning that they're keeping the question of fraud alive with these less credible accusations because it just keeps the topic alive.
Then, should they come in with better information, you have a live topic, you don't have to resurrect it.
So I think what you're seeing is the weaker claims just sort of softening up the room.
They'll probably be debunked, but the strong stuff would come later if it does.
So do you believe that Giuliani and Trump would do what they're doing now if they hadn't seen better evidence...
than you have seen so far.
And then of course you'd have to believe that the most corrupt institutions in the country this time are telling you the truth.
They've never told you the truth before, but you would have to believe that this time, this time they decided to tell the truth.
So it's not impossible It's definitely not impossible that the election will stand, and it will stand because there wasn't enough fraud to change anything.
Totally possible. But if you think there's no chance that this election was rigged at a sufficient level to actually change it, if you think the answer to that is, nah, zero, you're a fucking idiot.
Sorry. There's no way around that.
If you think it could have happened, or you think it's unlikely, those are all reasonable opinions.
Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.
Pretty reasonable. If you think that the absence of proof so far is all you need to know about this being a fair election, you're a fucking idiot.
You're a fucking idiot.
There's no way around that.
Because we don't know how this will turn out.
That's the point. Nobody knows how it'll turn out.
And if you think there couldn't have been enough fraud, you're just a fucking idiot.
Alright, that's about all I need to say on this.
I think I've said everything I need to say.
Probably. I think I have.
Checking my notes. Looking good.
Alright, that's all I have for today.
Somebody said, did you just insult my ex-wife?
Perhaps I did.
You're welcome. Somebody says, the facts say I'm not an idiot.
Which facts are those?
So basically, 90% of the media...
No, actually, the media is just lying.
The people in the professional jobs, the professional media, they know that this election could be fraudulent.
I refuse to believe there's anybody on CNN or MSNBC who's a high-level person who's been around the real world long enough and seen enough real news.
I don't think there's anybody on CNN who thinks it's impossible.
There are a lot of people on CNN who hope it's true that there wasn't that much fraud.
And there are plenty of people who know it hasn't happened in the past, or at least identified.
And there are plenty of people who want you to believe it's not true.
But no, I don't believe that the Jake Tappers, the Don Lemons, I do not believe they fall into the category of idiots.
The idiots would be the public who believe what they're saying.
The people who are saying things that even they don't believe are not idiots.
There's something else going on.
They're persuading.
They're taking a team side.
Maybe they think they're helping the world.
But what is not happening is stupidity, in their case.
But they are talking to idiots, and they are convincing idiots.
So that's definitely happening.
All right. You see a lot of trolls on this broadcast?
I don't see too many.
It's not as bad as it could be.
I would say that the trolling is way less this election.
Not even close.
The amount of paid trolls in 2016 was just crazy.
The amount of trolls that came after me this year?
Kind of trivial. Now, I think some of it is because I learned how to block them better, but I think there just weren't as many.
