Episode 1188 Scott Adams: The Million MAGA March and How it Looked Smaller Because of All the Camouflage Clothing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fascism fears if Trump loses...or wins
Violence at Million MAGA March
Sidney Powell, "release the Kraken"
President Trump's "Antifa scum" tweet
Election over-cheating made it obvious
History will acknowledge the election was stolen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. Yeah, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Let me adjust you a little bit here, just to make you feel comfortable.
And if you would like to enjoy the full pleasure of Coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip, what do you need?
Well, not much.
Not much at all. You need a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gels, 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.
Now watch how good this is.
Go. Yeah?
Was I lying? No.
It was just as good as I told you it would be.
And it is every single time.
Sort of a miracle.
Well, you might notice some bandaging on me.
My cat Boo was in the bed last night, and I was awake in the middle of the night, and I thought, you know, you know what would be fun?
I'd like to pet my cat.
In the middle of the night, it might relax me.
Because you know what is nice and relaxing if you can't sleep?
Petting a cat.
Oh, so relaxing.
So I reached over to pet my cat, and Boo is a very friendly cat.
She actually laid on her back like this.
And just said, ah, give it to me.
And I put my hand on her belly and I started scritching it as I do.
I think she learned that from Snickers.
She learned to expose her belly for belly rubs from the dog.
And I'm rubbing the cat.
And then, for no reason, except reasons which the cat knows, the cat decided to grab my hand and arm...
With every claw in her body and grab it like this.
And now I've got a cat that's attached to my arm with every single claw and I'm trying to talk her out of it as her claws are starting to penetrate the surface and I'm thinking, I don't know if I can talk you out of this, whatever this is, but it's sure starting to hurt.
And I'm thinking to myself, how do I get out of this trap?
Because if I try to rip my arm away, it's just going to be blood everywhere.
If I try to wait it out, she doesn't look like she's getting more calm.
She looks like she's getting more angry.
And so I tried to talk around it for a while.
Using all of my persuasion tricks.
Hey, kitty, why don't you let go of my arm?
Wouldn't that be great?
Hey, hey, look over there.
Something over there. You don't even need to think about my arm anymore.
But it turns out that cats are uniquely resistant to my persuasion.
Really the only mammals that are You should see me with a woodchuck or an aardvark.
Totally persuasive.
But a cat? Nothing.
Well, long story short, my sleeping ended at about 2 a.m.
in a flurry of bloodshed that would be matched only by the Million Mega March, apparently.
But I survived.
All right. So here's some potentially good news.
Michael Mina reports this by a tweet.
Apparently Slovakia is going to do a massive testing program.
So they're going to do rapid tests, which are not the kind you usually see.
The rapid ones are the cheap ones that may not be as accurate as the expensive ones.
But if you do enough testing, they don't have to be that accurate.
You can still test your way to...
The end of the pandemic, that is the hypothesis.
But they're going to try it.
And they're already seeing huge gains from this.
Now, why is this important?
It's important because, as I tell you, A-B testing is always the right thing to do.
So if you can test something in a small way and just find out if that idea works, do it.
Do it every time.
If you can test it, test it.
And that's what Slovakia is doing for the world and for themselves.
So it could be that in a few short weeks, we will know if this concept of rapid testing with cheap, I assume they're disposable tests that don't require equipment.
I think that's true, but we'll know that soon.
So that could be actually great news.
We'll see. Here's the weirdest thing.
Have you ever noticed that new facts don't change people's opinions?
I feel like once people dig into an opinion, you could show them any counterfact, and it wouldn't make any difference.
Just people don't change their opinions.
And here's a perfect example.
So a month ago, 78 million people, approximately, believed that Trump supporters and Trump were basically fascists and, you know, that he's a fascist and his supporters are fascist supporters, and that fascism would break out after the election if Trump lost.
And so the thinking was, from 78 million Democrats That Trump supporters would riot or try to keep him in office despite a vote count that went the other way.
Has that happened yet?
Where is it? Now, you would think that if such an important belief that Trump would never leave office and, you know, he's a He's going to be a fascist and the military will be called out.
Now that there's absolutely no indication of that.
There's absolutely no indication.
The Million Megamat march certainly wasn't violent in terms of the Trump supporters starting anything.
There was violence, but I think it was almost all started by the other side.
And there's just no evidence That anything like some kind of violent militia overthrow is going to happen, right?
Why are people saying the word camera?
I'm seeing a bunch of people yell camera in the comments.
Why are you doing that?
You're saying something's blocked?
Let's try that.
Is that it? Okay.
I guess you're happier now.
All right. Well, I guess we're all good now.
So will the Democrats reassess their thinking when they realize that everything that they thought about Trump supporters being fascist and there's going to be an armed militia takeover if Trump doesn't win on votes, none of it happened.
None of it looks like it's even slightly going to happen.
Do they change their opinions?
Not really. Not really.
They're not going to change their opinions.
And watching that is fascinating.
Now, a month ago also, people were telling me that I was crazy to think that the polls were way off.
And the thinking was, oh yeah, maybe they were off a bit in 2016, but surely they have fixed that by now.
And I'm completely right.
How many of the many Democrats and others who said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, that many polls, they can't be that wrong.
I mean, look at them. If it were one poll, yeah, I mean, one poll could be wrong.
But Scott, Scott, Scott, the cult that you belong to, the Kool-Aid you're drinking, How do you believe that all those polls are wrong?
You idiot.
You idiot. All of those polls.
Really, Scott. Every one of those polls, they're all wrong.
Right? Is that what you're saying?
Because I'm going to check with you after the election, Scott.
Because you're...
I mean, that's crazy.
All those polls...
All those professional pollsters, they're all wrong?
And they were all wrong, except for Rasmussen and Trafalgar and I think one or two others, right?
But the mass of pollsters were in fact completely wrong on a lot of big stuff.
Now, do they notice that and say, well, okay, we were wrong about Trump getting elected in the first place in 2016 and we were certainly wrong about the polls this time?
No. No.
Now, what do they say when I make the following claim?
That there was massive fraud and it's obvious and that History will eventually record, not yet, but that history will eventually record that Trump won, even though I am not predicting he will necessarily take office for a second term, because that's a separate question.
Now, and what do the Democrats and the critics say to me when I make this yet another outlandish claim?
Do they say, oh, wait a minute, This is the guy who keeps making outlandish claims that turn out to be right way more often than we think statistically is possible.
Because I've made a lot of outlandish claims that have happened exactly as I claimed.
Now, do they do that?
No. They say, this time, this time, Scott, you're crazy.
And here are the arguments that I'm getting.
And they're so bad that they're funny.
Here's one where I've been saying that people should wait a couple weeks to make sure that all the claims have been packaged up and presented.
And what I've been saying is that what the courts have seen so far, most of it has been rejected, I guess, what they've seen so far is not the good stuff.
And that the early initial court cases, in my opinion, probably were stalling tactics to try to make it seem as though something was happening while they get their better arguments together.
So this is what somebody said to me on Twitter today, that telling people to, quote, wait two weeks for data is something that only cults say.
That's right. There's somebody who believes that by me saying, oh, we should have the information in about two weeks, that I have tipped my hand, because that's how cults talk.
Because I know you didn't know this, but the only people who use calendars?
Cults. The only people who schedule things?
Turns out it's just cults.
And I didn't know that, because here I was looking at my calendar and making a schedule estimate, and I didn't realize that that makes me identified as obviously a cult member.
I'd like to show you my tattoo, but I don't want to take off my pajamas.
So, that was one thing.
Here's another thing that somebody argued.
Scott, Scott, Scott.
Let me explain this to you, Scott, because I don't think you understand how the world works.
It's funnier with a little condescension on it.
Scott, don't you know that all the Democrats know the following is true?
If they were to try to do some fraud in this election, and it was enough fraud to win, they know they would get caught.
They know they would get caught if it were that much fraud.
And also, once they got caught, it would be worse for Democrats than if they had never cheated in the first place.
So the only logical way it could go for Democrats, say my critics, is that they would never cheat.
They would not cheat, because it's so obvious that if they did, they'd get caught, because they'd have to cheat a lot, and that would be worse for the party in the long run.
Pretty good thinking? So here's my counter-argument.
When I was a bank teller, one of the things the FBI taught me is that bank robbers get caught 95% of the time.
95% of the time, bank robbers get caught.
Do you know how common bank robberies are?
Well, if I told you that bank robbers get caught 95% of the time, what would you assume about how many people rob banks?
Not many, right?
Because it would be the worst crime you could ever commit.
Why would you do a crime when you've got a 95% chance of going to jail?
And the answer is, bank robberies are so common that if you work as a bank teller in San Francisco, or at least when I was a bank teller, maybe it's changed, that there would be a bank robbery almost every day in San Francisco.
Almost every day.
Just in San Francisco, as well as almost every other large city.
Now, lots of times the bank gets robbed and you don't even know what happened.
Because they just are talking to the teller.
The teller hands over some money.
You know, they have a gun or they say they have a gun.
So you don't even notice if the bank gets robbed.
Now, the reason that 95% get caught, even though 95% of bank robberies do not get solved, is that bank robbers keep stealing until they get caught.
They all do. Because why wouldn't you?
You rob a bank, you walk out with a bunch of money, it took you five minutes, and nobody's chasing you.
You're like, uh, that was a little too easy.
Alright, I'll do this again.
So bank robbers always do it again until they get caught.
So, if you were cheating in elections, and you had ever gotten away with it on a small scale, do you think somebody's going to try a little more?
Yeah, maybe next time?
Ramp it up a little bit?
Yeah, of course. Because as long as it works, you're always going to get more of it.
And we have plenty of examples of local cheating, where we assume we haven't caught all of it, so we know that there are people who cheat.
Now here's the thing. If there were only one Democrat in the world, literally just one, would you know for sure if that one Democrat would cheat in an election if that one Democrat had the opportunity?
Actually, you wouldn't know that, because some people are honest.
Or some people have more fear of getting caught.
So if there were only one Democrat who could cheat in the election, maybe they do, maybe they don't, you wouldn't really know.
And in fact, I might even give them a benefit of a doubt and say, yeah, you know, probably not.
But suppose 78 million Democrats are involved and hundreds or maybe thousands of them have the opportunity to cheat.
Do you think that all of the thousands of people who could cheat all have the same mental process and they all say, nah, it's not worth it?
Well, have you met humans?
Humans are very different.
There's no crime that you can name any kind of crime.
And you can get humans to do it if you have enough people.
Do humans not do crimes because they might get caught?
Nope. They do those crimes anyway.
The most human thing in the world is to do crimes anyway, even though there's a pretty good chance of getting caught.
And then here's the funniest part.
To say that they couldn't do something so big without it being obvious, To which I say, it is obvious.
It is obvious.
Do you really think that Joe Biden got 78 million votes?
That's kind of obvious.
Did you really believe?
And by the way, I'll need a fact check on this.
So give me a fact check on this.
That the only places that Joe Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton...
We're in the four swing cities.
You know, the big cities and the four swing states.
Is that true? Is it true that the only place he outperformed Hillary Clinton and the only place that Trump underperformed just happened to be the very same four cities that made the difference?
Huh. They just happened to be in the swing states.
And that all of them had a middle-of-the-night swing toward Biden.
Now, if anybody thinks that the fraud is not obvious, I would say, what are you looking at?
Because it looks kind of obvious to me.
Let me tell you what else is obvious.
And by the way, when I say it's obvious, that doesn't mean it's proven.
Because you can say, well, it's obvious that the Covington kid was starting this trouble, and then you learn more about it, and you go, oh, okay, it was obvious, it looked obvious, it just wasn't true.
So there are certainly things that can look obvious and just not be true.
But if you ask me, as a judgment call, purely subjectively, Without having to, you know, show you the votes and counting them up, without doing the data analysis, in my citizen opinion, it's obvious.
So, to my critic who says it would be obvious if they cheated that much, I say, well, it is.
I can see it.
Does that mean I'm right?
No. But it's obvious.
I could be wrong, but I see it.
I mean, that's what all obvious is.
You can see it. And I can definitely see it.
Don't know if I'm right.
For sure. Now, I also rely for my opinion on the fact that it's possible to cheat.
We know that, because there are lots of people who went to jail for it.
We know it's possible.
And when software is involved, is it possible to cheat?
Yes. Yes.
It's possible to cheat whenever software is involved.
Wherever there are paper ballots involved, is it possible to cheat?
Yes. Yes.
It's totally possible.
Is there a reason that Texas did not buy the Dominion voting system software?
Yes. It's because Texas said if we have this software, it would be possible for somebody to cheat.
That's why they didn't get it.
So if something is possible, and not really that hard, because, you know, we have enough history with software and with pieces of paper, we know how to cheat.
And the stakes are high, so high that half of the country thinks Hitler might get elected.
If the stakes are that high, And you don't know a lot of people who have gone to jail for that particular crime.
You don't personally know them.
Somebody says, Scott is very good at fallacy.
Well, that's a dumb fucking comment.
Do you think you could add a little bit to that?
Fallacy? What's that?
You know, you've got a few more characters there.
Go make your point.
See if you can make your point.
Because I don't think you have one.
Um... Anyway, so my argument is that where you can have fraud and there's a high upside and a low downside for getting caught, you always have fraud.
Always. 100% of the time.
So anybody who thinks there's no fraud in this election, it's like you've never met humans.
Have you met humans?
Alright. There was a million MAGA march yesterday in D.C. I don't know that they hit the million mark.
Might have been closer to 10,000, something like that.
Still a lot of people.
But I feel as though there may have been 3 to 5 million people there.
And I say that just because a lot of Trump supporters like to wear camouflage gear.
So I don't know if they're going to show up on photographs.
Could be there were 10,000 people who weren't wearing camouflage gear.
And that's all we can see in the photographs.
So, you know, could be wrong.
Did you see the video?
There's a video that's fake news that was debunked, and then I debunked the debunk, and it goes like this.
So there was some Antifa guy with a bullhorn yelling at Trump supporters to get out of here.
And one of the Trump supporters went over, and at least we see it on the video, And pushes him over, and then pushed him again, and maybe he tried to kick him or something.
Couldn't tell. And soon after that, somebody came and hit that Trump supporter.
Now, Andy Ngo has a video of the Trump supporter getting hit fairly violently from behind.
You know, didn't see it coming. And then somebody else said, hey, hey, hey, Andy, Andy Ngo, that's a fake video.
It's in a context.
If you saw the whole context, you would see that guy who got hit was the one who pushed the guy with the megaphone, and therefore he was instigating the trouble.
Right? Except the guy he hit was assaulting him.
So, here's my take on it.
The word assault, and you lawyers and police people can do a fact check on me.
The word assault doesn't mean you hit somebody.
Assault means that you have threatened them or done something aggressive, and here I don't know the exact words, but you've done something aggressive and threatening to a person, short of actually physically affecting them.
If somebody takes a bullhorn and follows you around in a public area yelling with a bullhorn, which is an unpleasant experience if you're close to it, and they're yelling you to get out of a public space for which you have every right to be, is that assault?
I think it is, right?
I would say that the guy with the bullhorn was guilty of assault because he wasn't using the bullhorn Simply to be louder in public, he was using it to harass because it's an unpleasant experience to be close to that sound.
So I would say that was assault.
Now, the Trump supporters' response to that, I don't know the legality of where self-defense comes in or where it doesn't.
So I don't have an opinion of whether the Trump supporter or alleged Trump supporter was in the wrong or not.
Because what he did looked very close to being proportionate, meaning if somebody puts a bullhorn in your face and you push them over and they fall backwards onto the ground, have you responded in a way that's proportional?
I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know if the courts would see that as a crime.
Because I guarantee you that if somebody comes up to me and gets close enough with a bullhorn, I would push them over, because that would be assault, and I would feel that it was self-defense.
People can't walk right up to your face and bullhorn you, right?
Now you could argue, ah, well, if he's 10 feet away, is that assault?
But what if he's five feet away?
What if he was five feet away, but now he's ten feet away and he's heading toward you?
Where does assault come in?
Where's the line? I just know that if I were on a jury, I wouldn't be convicting the guy who pushed him over.
So that's a fake edit.
So Andy knows edit.
I would say it was a fake edit because it didn't show how the thing started.
But even how the thing started is a fake edit itself.
In this case, I would say incomplete because it's just when the video started.
I doubt anybody faked it.
I think they just didn't turn it on until that point.
Yeah, there's potential for ear damage, as somebody's saying, etc.
So you can't believe anything that you see, even on video.
NBC News reported...
That at least two people have been arrested for simple assault during today's demonstrations.
And they said it's unclear if those arrested were Trump supporters or counter-protesters.
Huh. I wonder.
Who would start trouble at an event that had Antifa and Trump supporters?
50-50, you think?
50% chance it was either one?
Yeah, I think it's very unclear.
The lack of clarity in this story is quite sensational.
I don't know who it could have been who would start the trouble.
All right, AT&T is reportedly, although there's, I don't think this is official, but people are rumored, rumors say that AT&T is looking to sell CNN. So AT&T owns CNN, which can't be good for your brand.
Because half the country hates you for it.
And they're thinking of selling it.
But the problem is, who the hell would buy it?
There's talk of Jeff Bezos buying it, which would actually be brilliant.
Because if Jeff Bezos combined the Washington Post and CNN, it's a pretty strong package, just as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News having the same ownership with Murdoch It's good synergy.
So actually, if I were Jeff Bezos, I would look at that pretty seriously.
So I don't know if he'll do it, but it would make sense in his portfolio.
And so we'll see if that happens.
You know, the big news trending is that people are saying that Trump has conceded Now they're saying that because he tweeted and he started with the words, he won, talking about Biden, before he went on to complain that the election was rigged.
He's saying he only won because the election was rigged.
So he doesn't think he lost, lost, and he still thinks that that can be reversed.
So the president was complaining that people interpreted that as a concession.
But here's what I think might happen.
I think that one of the things that you can see clearly is that if Trump is prevented from office, whether he gets enough votes or not, I think the press can keep him out of office, he will realize that the press is the real power in this country.
And the only way he can get promoted from president would be to be a media mogul.
I saw somebody say, presidents come and go, but Rupert Murdoch stays.
The idea is that Rupert Murdoch is more powerful than all the presidents, because they can come and go, but Rupert Murdoch's still there, still doing what he does.
And so I wonder, if Trump either conceded or decided not to be president, or he just couldn't be president because it didn't work out, would he start a news media entity?
I think he would.
It would make perfect sense, right?
People would watch it.
It would be a good investment. And I think he would have more power, not less.
Imagine the Republican Party with a Trump who's an outside voice, but the actual politicians don't have the baggage of Trump.
It's pretty good, isn't it?
Imagine, let's say, just pick your favorite Republican, whoever that is in your mind.
They don't have any Trump baggage, but they might have very similar policies to Trump.
And then in the outside world, you would have Trump adding air cover and doing all the provocative stuff so the politicians don't have to.
It would be really strong.
And it would put Trump...
Sort of in control of the Republican Party without the trouble of being the president.
It feels like a promotion.
So I don't know that he would be unhappy if he doesn't have a second term.
I think he might be happy starting a media empire.
That might be a better deal.
If I were him, I'd be thinking about it.
All right. Here's...
Alright. It looks like there's a lot of assassinating going on over in Iran.
And if you read Jake Novak's stuff, you should follow Jake Novak on Twitter.
His theory is that we have an insider in Iran...
Meaning the intelligence agencies do or Israel does.
And so they know where the high-value targets are and they're assassinating and blowing things up and that Iran's having a tough time.
And the report is that there was an assassination in Iran of the number two al-Qaeda guy.
Now the beauty of this assassination, because everybody assumes that Israel did it, that's generally assumed, the beauty of that assassination is that Iran doesn't want to admit that they had the number two al-Qaeda guy free in Iran.
So they can murder this guy, and they can't really complain.
It's sort of a perfect crime.
But I was reading the story and I thought to myself, you know, how do you really know that it was this guy, because Iran is claiming it wasn't this guy, it was some other guy they're claiming got killed.
And I go, how do you know it's really this number two al-Qaeda guy?
And then at the very end of the story, they say that the murder came on the exact day of the year, as this guy was rumored in 1998 to To have done a terror attack.
So it looks like they picked the date to be a meaningful date because that's the date that this guy allegedly launched a terror attack and they killed him on that date.
So that sure looks like a little kiss on the cheek from Israel, doesn't it?
Did you see the Million Mega March people chanting F Fox News?
It does look like the pushback to Fox News might be real.
I don't know. We'll see.
I see you prompting me to talk about Sidney Powell and release the Kraken.
So, Sidney Powell, I don't know a ton about her.
I think I noticed that she's following me on Twitter and vice versa.
But I'll tell you my impression.
My impression is you wouldn't want to be on the other side of Sidney Powell.
Do you get the same impression?
You know, you see some lawyers and you say to yourself, well, you know, they're probably a pretty good lawyer.
But you see Sidney Powell and, you know, you even see her just talk for five minutes on TV. And you come away thinking, I wouldn't want to be on the other side of that.
There's some serious firepower involved there.
Yeah, so she is Flynn's lawyer.
And she seems quite convinced that the evidence exists that this election was stolen, and she's part of that team, and she said that Trump is going to release the Kraken.
And I even like that.
I like the fact that she is echoing that.
All right.
Here's something that I've changed my mind on a little bit.
It goes like this.
You know how Trump gets blamed for maybe sort of semi or even not semi, maybe directly, encouraging physical violence from his supporters.
So, for example, in rallies he would joke about roughing up the critics at the rallies and people said, no, you're encouraging violence.
And, you know, he said other things that sort of feel like he's maybe encouraging a little bit of violence.
And then he said this in a tweet.
He said, Antifa scum, which is pretty direct, he goes, Antifa scum ran for the hills today when they tried attacking the people at the Trump rally because those people aggressively fought back.
Antifa waited until tonight when 99% were gone to attack innocent MAGA people.
D.C. police, get going, do your job, don't hold back.
Now, Doesn't it sound like he's encouraging Trump supporters to get physical in the streets?
It feels like that, right?
I mean, kind of directly?
And there was a time when I would have said, oh, that's a bad idea.
That's about it. You don't want to ever encourage violence, because that could be so misinterpreted, so easily it could get out of hand.
But I've changed my mind on this.
And I've changed my mind this way.
You can't control the country until you can control the streets.
And if the police are not going to do it, then whoever does control the streets, eventually they can control the country.
So the president has made it very clear that he's okay with Republicans literally physically Engaging with Antifa and Black Lives Matter on the streets.
And I support that.
I support that.
Now, I don't support violence.
I only ever support self-defense.
Okay? So let me say that as clearly as possible.
Only self-defense.
But it may be necessary for there to be a counterforce on the streets.
And if it's not the police, and of course I Police are first choice, right?
Don't we all prefer the police?
But if the police are not there to maintain some balance in the country, you do need to control the streets.
So I think I would agree with the president being, let's say, encouraging of people who stood their ground and did not give up their right to free speech on the streets.
So I guess I'm going to support him completely on that.
But as long as you don't start the trouble, I'm on your side.
Let's see, what else we got going on here?
Do you think that people would not cheat in the election because they would be afraid of getting caught It just isn't a thing, is it?
Because there's always somebody who's willing to take the chance, especially if you think you're stopping Hitler, which is what they thought.
Alright, here's where I think the Democrats might have a blind spot.
My guess is that there was massive cheating in the elections.
That's my opinion.
If there was massive cheating, I doubt that it was organized completely.
Meaning, I doubt that all the people who cheated, if such people exist, I doubt they had a meeting or a Zoom call where they said, all right, you do this, we'll do this.
Because if they had, they would have cheated just enough to win and there would be no extra anything.
But with 78 million votes for Biden, Which I don't think anybody believes, really.
I don't think anybody believes that number.
But that's what's reported.
It's really obvious that something happened here, right?
With that many votes?
I mean, you don't know for sure.
Maybe. Maybe people disliked Trump so much that they came out in those numbers.
But here's what I think.
I think that all the individual pockets of cheaters, not knowing how much anybody else was going to cheat, dialed it up on their own little cheating to whatever they could get away with.
And it would be more than they'd ever done before.
So I think what happened is nobody knew what would be the total number of all the cheating.
And when it got to 78 million, I feel like all the people who were involved in cheating, allegedly, Hypothetically, are saying to themselves, oh, the higher this Biden total vote gets, the more obvious it is that everybody cheated everywhere.
So, I feel as though they overcheated.
And it's because they couldn't communicate with all the cheaters.
There wasn't any safe way to do that or any practical way.
And everybody just cheated to the maximum.
And the way you see that is in the cumulative number.
That's what I think. There's a report that Joe Biden's cancer charity spends all of its money on staff salaries.
And zero money went to research grants.
Now that's the story.
But if you've ever seen a story that just screams of fake news, it's probably this one.
Now, you know that if there was some big embarrassing story about Joe Biden out there, I'd tell you.
I'd report that.
But this feels like maybe BS. As in, I don't know the details, but I'll bet that if you looked into his cancer charity, you might see that they never intended to do research grants and maybe The staff is doing the work of whatever the work is supposed to be, and maybe this is exactly the way they set it up, and maybe it's operating exactly the way it's supposed to.
And maybe they never intended this charity to give research grants.
I don't know. Do you know?
I mean, I don't know.
So it could turn out that this is exactly the way it's being reported, that there's something sketchy going on.
But probably not.
Probably not. If I had to bet on it, I'd say 70% chance you'll find out later there's no problem here.
Just guessing. And that's because it falls into this category of news that when you first see it, it looks terrible, but probably you're going to find out more and it's not quite the way it looks.
So, you know, I could be wrong on that or anything else.
What's the link to the Bill Whittle analysis?
Don't know Bill Whittle.
Are all charities scams?
No, I don't think so.
Alright, just looking at your comments.
Somebody says it's believable.
It's believable, but it doesn't necessarily have to be fraud or crime.
It could be just the way they set it up.
We don't know what they're doing there.
Yeah, the Dominion software thing is looking interesting.
So I saw reports. The reports I'm seeing, I don't know that you could trust them.
But there's reports of Dominion people, key employees being Antifa-friendly or Clinton-friendly or some Democrats have an investment.
I'm not sure any of that is too solid at this point.
But I'll tell you what is fair.
It is fair to say that whoever are the key employees at these election software places, they have strong opinions about who should be president.
And that alone should make them eligible for maximum scrutiny, and apparently that's not happening.
Where is Bobulinski?
Yeah, he just sort of disappeared, didn't he?
Bill Maher, somebody says Bill Maher got owned.
I don't know about that. I haven't seen the show.
But I did see Bill Maher trying to encourage Democrats to be less stupid, which was fun to watch.
And I was watching Bill Maher rip into the Democrats, and I thought, how much would I enjoy...
Having Democrats in the presidency so you'd have somebody to criticize all day long?
Because criticizing is easy.
Criticizing is the easiest thing.
So I feel like it would be easier with a Biden presidency.
Um... Yeah, so my guess is that the vote has been stolen.
History will report that it was stolen, but that Trump may not be able to serve a second term.
He may choose not to, or he may just find it's not possible, because the fake news would just make it impossible.
Where's the report of the mobile ballot printing feature?
Don't know about that.
How do you audit software and hardware?
Well, there are people who know how to do that stuff.
I can't give you a detailed answer, but you could look at logs, and you could run test scripts, and you could do basically that.
All right. That's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, YouTubers. Somebody says, should Trump leave Twitter for Parler?
You know, I have a Parler account, but I spend some time over there and the energy is so low because it just doesn't have the fighting and just the numbers of people.
So I suppose it could grow over time until it's something, but I don't want to be where there's not both sides.
The thing I like about Twitter is that both sides are there.
Somebody says Dr.
Shiva got debunked.
Somebody in the comments says that.
If you have a link to what you are alleging, I would like to see it.
I don't know if he's been debunked, but I'd like to see it if somebody thinks he has.
And again, if I see Dr.
Shiva's claims, or I see somebody saying that they're debunking him, I don't know that I can tell the difference.
The media and academia are a real political power.
The cathedral, they call them.
Yeah, I'm saying the same thing as that comment.
I'm saying that the presidency isn't the real power anymore.
that it is the media.
Um, would I do a coffee with Scott Adams on Trump TV if he starts his own network?
I will listen to any offer, but I kind of like not having a boss.
Don't you prefer me without a boss?
Because I've noticed that there are lots of things that one could say, but you do...
You do filter yourself if you have a boss.
And you might not even always be aware of it, but you do.
And not having a boss, as is my current situation, I do feel free to say what I think I want to say.
I'm not sure I would if I had a boss.
And by the way, following me on YouTube, because that's monetized, or being a member of Locals, the subscription service, are the ways that keep me independent.
Because if I have lots of supporters and no boss, I can say anything I want.
And that's the current situation.
So I do appreciate all of you very much.
All right. Yeah, I hear people asking about the CyTL raid, the CyTL, S-C-Y-T-L, a company that I think has a database in Germany, and some or all of our voter data goes there to be counted.
And there's a rumor that I don't think is verified, which is that our military went in and went into that office and took the servers or something.
But I think that we don't have good data on that.
So I would not assume that that is what you have heard it to be.
It could be, but I wouldn't assume that it's true.
Judge Jeanine tweeted it.
Well, people have tweeted it, but it doesn't mean it's real.
That's the problem with Twitter, and also the benefit of Twitter, is that it doesn't check that kind of information.
What's the worst case scenario?
Probably what you're seeing.
I think the worst case scenario is actually pretty good.
Honestly. Well, let me put it this way.
Worst case scenario would be The Senate also goes to Democrats, and then Biden becomes president.
And then you get this full Green New Deal, higher taxes, etc.
So worst case scenario is Republicans lose the Senate.
But if the Republicans keep the Senate, I'm not too worried about a President Biden.
You know, there are less things he can ruin if he's got that control on him.
And I think that the net effect would be in 2024, the Republicans would sweep Congress.
They'd either pack or have the Supreme Court.
They'd have the presidency.
They can do whatever they want at that point.
Because I think the Democrats are going to run stuff into the ground.
Where is the cat?
The cat's at the veterinarian's office.
He's maybe got some internal bleeding.
We're talking about the hypothetical cat, not a real cat.
Golden age? Could be coming.
Corotivirus took us off schedule for that, but I think it might be coming.