Episode 1190 Scott Adams: Release the Kraken, Grab a Beverage and Start the Day Right
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Was Dominion software DESIGNED to CHEAT elections?
A surprising number of EASY ways to throw an election
City governments can throw national elections
Van Jones believed the election polls
Evidence versus proof of election fraud
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. Yes, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Best part of the day.
Every time. Every single time.
No exceptions. And I know some of you are waiting to fast forward past the simultaneous sip.
For some of you, it's annoying.
But for the rest of you, it's an amazing ceremony.
It's a bonding thing.
You feel closer to people all around the world.
Yeah, that's how important it is.
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, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, except for election recounts.
It happens now.
Go. I can feel the election getting more accurate every moment.
All right, let's talk about all the things.
Many things are happening, and we shall discuss them.
I guess the Border Patrol seized enough fentanyl at our border to kill 200,000 people.
That's right.
There was enough fentanyl in one shipment to kill 200,000 people.
Of course, it comes from China.
And I would like to reiterate my call for ending relations with China until they execute their fentanyl dealers.
Now, China knows who their fentanyl dealers are.
We have named them, they know who they are, they know where they live, etc.
And apparently they're allowed to be operating continually without any penalty.
And I think China can do what they want to do, but we should do what we want to do, which is send all of their diplomats home.
So what I would do is I would actually, and I recommend this, send 100% of China's diplomats home.
Until they can show us that they've arrested and stopped the fentanyl.
And if after 30 days, you know, give them 30 days to do that, send all their diplomats home after 30 days, and then wait another 30 days.
And if they still haven't corrected that, should send all of their students home.
So I don't know how many students are physically attending college in the United States during coronavirus, but we should just send them all home, just every one of them.
And don't make it personal, because it doesn't have to be.
It's just business.
If you're sending us fentanyl, we're sending you back all of your diplomats.
If you continue doing it, we'll send you back all of your students.
We don't want to.
It's not our first choice, but it's not like they're giving us much choice.
And it would be extra delicious for President Trump to bind Biden to whatever Trump does before he leaves office with China.
How in the world are we ever going to trust Joe Biden to negotiate with China?
It doesn't even feel like a thing, does it?
Is there anything that Joe Biden could negotiate with China that would make at least half of the country say, oh yeah, that looks like a pretty good deal?
I think Joe Biden pushed them as hard as he could.
Probably got the maximum deal that you could get out of China.
Literally nobody will think that.
And half the country will think it's treason.
So, I don't know how Biden can win With what all the smart people say is the biggest issue with the United States going forward, which is how do you deal with an emerging China?
So we'll talk about that a little bit more.
I always hear people say that masks don't work, claim lots of people, and they say, but show me the proof.
If you believe that masks work, show me the study.
Oh, oh, there's no study?
Oh, Scott, you don't have any studies.
Oh! So this morning there was a study showing that masks do work, according to one study.
Now, if you watch my Periscopes or my live streams on YouTube, you know that I always warn you that studies Studies, even studies that look like they're well done at first, maybe 50-50 chance that they're real.
At most. I would say when you hear that a study proved whatever, it's sort of a coin flip, you know?
A study proved maybe 50% likely that it could be reproduced.
But the study says masks work, and the way they looked at it was They looked at people who were handling coronavirus people.
They looked at people who wore masks.
They compared them to the people who did not, to which I say, wait, there were people handling coronavirus who didn't wear masks?
What? So I don't know how you get that group of people who didn't wear masks, but apparently they exist, and they studied them, and they found that the The people who didn't wear the masks had substantially higher infections.
And again, it's one study, 50% chance that any study is true.
But let me just wrap it up this way.
I don't think you should believe that study or any other study.
You know, in isolation, you need a body of work before you should believe something.
But those saying there are no studies, I would like to add that there are.
So now there's at least one.
So you can't say there are no studies, but you can certainly say you don't believe them.
Media Matters came after me.
You were probably waiting for that, weren't you?
What took them so long?
So Media Matters seems to have put me in their crosshairs.
I'm on the radar, you might say.
If you don't know who Media Matters is, it's a left-leaning, disreputable website where they make lots of claims against Trump supporters, etc.
So here's how they went after me.
In their article, they note that I and a number of other people, I think Laura Ingram was in there, but we were accused of retweeting a tweet from someone who had made tweets that they think are racist in the past.
So Media Matters is calling me out by name, writing a big article, to associate me with a website that has made What they consider offensive and or racist tweets in the past.
Now, how many people who use Twitter think that that's a thing?
That's not a thing.
I think Media Matters is confusing Facebook with Twitter.
Let me explain this to Media Matters.
If I'm on Facebook, And I decide to friend a white supremacist?
Well, that's something you should probably worry about.
You might even write an article about it.
Oh my goodness, somebody friended a racist.
And I think that could be part of a conversation.
I would say that's not nothing.
You know, your associations are part of the story, right?
But Twitter isn't Facebook.
If I retweet you, you're not my friend.
If you retweet content from somebody's Twitter feed, you're not really becoming their friend.
It doesn't have that meaning.
It's just the content. So the way that Media Matters turns a nothing into a something is by assuming that people don't use Twitter enough To understand that retweeting something doesn't mean anything.
It has no meaning.
It doesn't mean you researched the original tweeter.
It doesn't mean that.
It means you looked at the content and you said, oh, that's some content that my followers should see you or might like.
That's it. That's the Twitter model.
You do not acquire the reputation of people you retweet.
And let me explain it this way.
If you acquired the reputation of the people you retweeted, how could you even understand your world?
It would mean everybody on Twitter who's retweeting, they're acquiring everybody's reputation, and you wouldn't know who anybody was at that point.
Let me tell you what percentage of people I retweet who I would consider horrible in at least one way.
Okay? So if this site I retweeted has some bad retweets in their past, let's say for my conversation that they're horrible in at least one way.
That doesn't mean they're mean to pets, right?
It means that they're horrible in exactly one way, allegedly.
I don't know myself, but allegedly they're horrible in this one way.
How many people have I retweeted in my lifetime Who are horrible in at least one way.
All of them.
Every one of them.
You know, I'm pretty sure if I dug into your private lives, oh, I'd find something.
I'd find something.
Even if you're 99% lovely.
You could be delightful people.
Pretty much law-abiding.
You could be all of that.
But I'll bet I can find at least one thing you've all done that's pretty bad, that one thing.
So do I acquire all of your mistakes if I retweet you?
Do I pick up all of your flaws?
Do they become part of me because I retweeted you?
So Media Matters is silly, and we're going to ignore them.
I would also like to point out, and I will return to this Point often, I think, that a lot of what we've, in society, we've decided to label as racist is better described as offensive.
Because people can be offensive intentionally, they can be offensive unintentionally, without being racist.
Would you agree that that statement is true?
That you could be offensive, both intentionally and sometimes accidentally, Without necessarily being a racist, right?
So if you look at a lot of the claims, you'll find that the claims fall into that category of being offensive, but clearly not racist.
And I think that we should make that distinction really, really clear, because it would solve 70% of our problems.
Did I offend you?
Oh, I'm sorry.
That wasn't the point.
The point was not to offend you.
It's my opinion, but I don't mean it to offend you.
So I think you can apologize for being offensive, even if it's an accident.
Why not? We're social people.
We live in the world.
We try to get along.
You should certainly apologize for accidentally offending somebody.
That doesn't mean you won't do it again.
It doesn't mean they own you, it doesn't mean you're a bad person, but sure, apologies are good social lubricant.
I think they're appropriate quite often.
Rasmussen has shared some information that I think will be available to the rest of you today sometime, that apparently opinions about China are worsening, where now 60% of Americans think that China should pay some kind of reparations or something because of the coronavirus.
And that's up from, what, 42%.
That's a pretty big change.
But here's the part that got my interest.
33% of Americans now consider China an enemy of the United States.
What do you think that was in March of 2018?
So it's 33% think China is an enemy today.
What was it two years ago?
18%. So it went from 18% of Americans thought China is an enemy to 33%.
Do you know what happened in 2018?
That's when China killed my stepson with fentanyl.
And it was the time that I promised you I was going to take China down.
Now, of course, I've been talking crap about China for two years, and probably just a coincidence that that turned out to be the high point of China's goodwill with the United States, and it has gone straight down since then.
Now, it could be Could be that there are a lot more voices talking out against China, and of course the coronavirus is probably the biggest deal that's happening in that regard.
But I would like to say that I am part of the productive change in opinion from China being our frenemy to being our enemy.
And I would consider them our enemy as of today.
Well, since 2018 in my case.
All right. Black Lives Matter founder, co-founder, has made it clear to Biden that Black Lives Matter expects something because they say that they helped to get the black vote for Biden and they want something in return.
They want something in return.
But luckily, Joe Biden is no President Trump.
So when Black Lives Matter says we'd like to get something in return, they can depend on Joe Biden to come through just the way Democrats have been coming through for the black population for decades.
For example, here are some of the important things that Joe Biden has promised the black community, and I think they can be pretty happy about this.
Pretty happy. Because you'd think, Hey, I wonder if the Democrats will once again make promises and do basically nothing.
Unlike President Trump, who literally promised nothing and did a whole bunch of things.
Everything from the Platinum Plan to Special Opportunity Zones and funding the HB, the historically black colleges, to prison reform.
So the President, he didn't promise anything.
He said, what the hell do you have to lose?
That's as little as you can promise.
That's no promise.
And he delivered what even his critics grudgingly say, okay, got to admit, that's a lot of stuff.
So President Trump delivered for the black population in this country, even including his critics agree.
But Biden can take that up a level.
So he's made some promises.
And let me tell you what he's promised.
And this is nothing to sneeze at.
So Biden has promised that as president he would create a police oversight board to combat police brutality, especially against black and minority people, within the first 100 days in the White House.
So if you were worried that Biden was going to do nothing, don't worry anymore, because he's going to put together a police oversight board.
I don't know why nobody thought of that before.
Put together a little committee.
How about that?
Yeah. So I think the black population is pretty happy about that because nobody ever promised to put a meeting together.
But that's not all.
There's way more than that. Biden has also promised to create an economic plan that provides housing, education, and financial support.
Those are all good things. Housing, education, financial support.
This is good stuff that Joe Biden is planning to give.
And he says, as financial support to the Black and Latino communities who have been disproportionately affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
Wait, what? Am I reading this correctly?
That Joe Biden is going to give emergency relief based on your race?
Is that actually happening?
Joe Biden decided that your race would determine how much emergency support you get?
Isn't that the opposite of what a president should do?
That's like exactly the opposite, isn't it?
Shouldn't the president make sure that everybody who's in trouble during a pandemic gets help?
Sort of close to equal amount of help?
Now, I don't know if this is talking about an equal amount of help or some kind of special help.
If what it's getting at is an equal amount of help, I'm all for it.
But it doesn't sound like that, does it?
So Joe Biden's got some promises he needs to keep.
I think he has duped the black voters, as the Democrats have been doing for years.
But successfully. Looks like he got away with it.
If you're wondering what the future holds for this recount business with the election, do you wonder how it's going to turn out?
Is it going to turn out that the election is overturned?
Seems highly unlikely, doesn't it?
Or is it going to turn out that there's just not really much fraud there?
Or maybe a little bit of fraud, but not enough to change anything?
Don't you wonder how it's all going to turn out?
Well, I'm going to narrow the options for you.
There's one potential outcome that I think doesn't have any chance of being true.
Here are the ones that do have a chance of being true.
One is that there is a little bit of fraud, some anecdotes, but the election stands.
Would you agree that it's at least possible, right?
You might think that that's unlikely because you think the election was stolen or something, but wouldn't you agree it's possible, right?
I mean, it's possible that you look into it and you don't find much, right?
It's still possible, even though we'll talk about Sidney Powell and the voting machines and we'll talk about all the allegations and the strange data.
I'll get to that. But at this point, it's still possible, right, that they could look into it and not find much.
Would you agree or no?
Because I'm interested if you would at least agree that That it's possible, even if you think the odds are pretty low.
So I'd say it's possible.
Here's the other possibility.
That we find that there's not only fraud, but there's massive fraud throughout the election system, so much so that maybe we've never had a fair election.
Now, do you think that's possible?
You don't have to put an odds on it yet.
Just say, is there any possibility...
That when we do these audits and look into it, that what we discover is it's not just bad.
It's so bad that we couldn't even imagine how bad it was.
I mean, it's like unimaginably corrupt.
Do you think that's even possible?
Is there any chance that it's so corrupt that we didn't even have a democracy or a public and we thought we did?
Is it possible?
I think it is.
I think it is. I don't know what odds to put on it, but I'd say that's possible.
So those are the two things that I'd say are possible.
We find out there always has been massive fraud, including this time.
We find out that things have actually been pretty good.
Not much fraud at all.
I'd say that's possible.
But are there any possibilities that don't exist?
I think the possibility that...
The possibility...
Well, let me get to my biggest point.
I don't see really much chance that they're not going to find massive fraud.
Do you? If you want to go further and put some odds on it, I would say what's going to happen is that some people who have an idea about the country they live in and their reality is going to change a lot.
So in my case, if I were to learn that despite the fact that these elections are full of holes, meaning there are lots of opportunities to cheat, we'll talk about those too, but I can't understand any world in which lots of people are involved There's a huge upside potential for cheating, lots of ways to do it, and that it doesn't happen in a major way.
So my understanding of reality will be completely destroyed if it turns out that the right people look into it and don't find anything.
And don't find anything significant anyway.
My whole life understanding of people, how the world works, how big systems work, how big organizations work, literally the thing I spend my life writing about, I would all be wrong about all of that.
It would completely annihilate my understanding of reality.
So that could happen.
Here's the other possibility.
All the people who think that they've been living in a democracy slash republic with something like fair elections, it's never happened.
It's possible we've never had a fair election.
In fact, if I had to put odds on it, when I say never, people get caught up on the absolutes, so let me pull it back from an absolute.
It doesn't mean that the person who got the most voter support never won, because I'm sure that sometimes people win even if the other side cheats.
That's probably happening.
But I would bet, I would bet that pretty much all of our major elections, anything that involves a city at least, probably corrupt.
And maybe always have been.
And maybe we just don't know.
So I think that's the big reality twist that's coming.
We shall see. As the Dilbert guy, the guy who writes about big organizations and what people do in big organizations, the election is like a big organization.
And if I'm wrong about this, my whole career is sort of a joke.
Because all I write about is how when there's a big organization...
Bad stuff happens every time.
It doesn't sometimes happen.
It's every time.
Every single time.
All right. There's some research on mouthwash.
Apparently there's some kind of mouthwash that has this particular ingredient, which watch me now try to pronounce it.
Cerepidinium. Cerepidinium.
I think I nailed it. If you've got that seropuridium chloride in your mouthwash, it has promising signs of reducing COVID. So I use mouthwash several times a day, but I have to check if I have that ingredient.
By the way, if you smoke marijuana, And do mouthwash directly afterwards.
It gets rid of your munchies.
That's a little tip for you. So if I get coronavirus, that would be a miracle because I use a lot of mouthwash.
All right. Does it seem to you that Joe Biden sort of evolved into that guy who complains at every meeting that there's no plan?
Have you worked for a big organization or even a small one?
There's always somebody at the meeting whose only comment is going to be that there is no plan.
Where's the plan?
Or where's our strategy?
Same thing. Where's our plan?
I think Joe Biden became that where's the plan guy.
Because he keeps complaining that the President has no plan to distribute the vaccine.
Do you think that's true?
The President assigned the top logistics guy in the military to make a plan.
Alright, so this is the part we know is true.
That Trump picked the top logistics guy in the military to make a plan to figure out how to get all these vaccines to people in the quickest time.
Joe Biden says there's no plan.
Which of those do you think is true?
Do you think if the top military guy who's in charge of logistics and he's literally charged with saving the country, that's his job.
The guy whose job it is to get those vaccines to people, he's saving, how many lives will he save if he does a good job?
So Joe Biden thinks that guy isn't doing it.
Right? That's what Joe Biden says.
There's no plan. I got a feeling that if you assign a logistics job, the most important one in the country, there's nothing else going on that's that important for logistics, is there?
Nothing even close. So it's the most important goal given to exactly the right person, the logistics guy, in the military.
It's the military.
This isn't Wally.
It's not like you give an assignment to somebody in a cubicle and they tell you a week later they were busy and they didn't get around to it.
It's the military.
When the commander-in-chief tells somebody in the military to give me a plan for logistics, I'm pretty sure they're making a plan.
Just because Joe Biden hasn't seen it, that doesn't make it not a plan.
I think it's hilarious that Kamala Harris is getting security briefings because she's a senator, but Biden does not.
So you already see it happening, that Joe Biden is already being left out of decisions.
Not exactly, but you can see the first hint of it.
Oh yeah, we're giving security briefings to Kamala Harris, but there's a reason.
It's not because Joe Biden isn't the real president.
We have a reason.
It's because she's a senator, and he's not an elected official, so the president has to give him that authority, and he hasn't.
So it makes sense, but I'm kind of wondering, will we see other examples in which the vice president knows more than the president-elect?
Joe Biden is also what I call the angry, obvious guy.
He likes to say obvious things that just don't have any new information in them.
It's just obviously what anybody would do.
But if he says it with an angry, condescending voice, he sounds like a leader.
So let me give you an example.
Here's one of his tweets.
I'm going to read it two different ways.
One is the way a normal person would talk.
And then I'll give you the Joe Biden angry obvious guy talk.
Here's without any effects.
His tweet said, Right now, Congress should come together and pass COVID relief package like the HEROES Act that the House passed six months ago.
Once we shut down the virus and deliver economic relief to workers and businesses, then we can build back better than ever before.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Completely reasonable thing.
Democrats want a relief bill.
Republicans want a relief bill.
We all understand it could be important to getting our economy going.
A very reasonable tweet, wouldn't you say?
But if he were saying this in person, he would do it in angry, obvious guy voice to make you sound more leaderly, and it would go like this.
Right now, Congress should come together and pass a COVID-19 Relief package.
Like the HEROES Act.
That the House passed six months ago.
Six months ago, people.
Folks, six months ago they passed.
And nothing. And once we shut down the virus and deliver economic relief, economic relief to workers and businesses, Then we can build back.
Better! See how that turned into leaderly talk?
Just by getting angry and excited about ordinary words?
He does that well.
Alright. I tweeted humorously that reading Twitter lately about all the election fraud techniques, it's like getting a prison education.
If you had asked me two weeks ago, Scott, can you name all the ways that an election could be rigged?
I would say, well, you know, I haven't thought about it, but if I make a list, let's see, I'll make a list.
I got, yeah, I got two or three things that would be ways to rig an election.
But I feel like...
Now I have a lot of them.
If you ever want to throw an election in a third world country, and you're wondering what technique to use, you could just ask me, because I picked up quite a bit of technique in the past couple of weeks.
Let me give you a few examples.
And let me say that these are techniques which are alleged.
If you ask me, they all look a little sketchy, because...
If it's really this easy to cheat, then people have some real big surprises coming.
So I'd like to think that it's not really this easy, but here are the allegations.
One of them is you could take a pile of ballots, let's say for one candidate, all the votes are for one candidate, you can feed it into the counting machine and then just pick up the ballots and feed them through a second time or a third time or a fourth time.
Now, It is alleged that that's a real thing.
Somebody says they saw it happen.
But there's a part of me that says, really?
Really? The system is so insecure that you can just take the same bunch of ballots and just feed it through a second time?
And nobody catches that?
Now, I have a little bit of trouble believing it's true, because it feels a little too easy.
But it's alleged.
How about this one? Dead people voting.
That's probably universally true, but I doubt that dead people alone will be some kind of a big change to our election outcome.
Here's a trick that I'd never heard of before, but it's a clever one.
When unsolicited ballots are being mailed out, they just send a whole bunch of extra ballots to Democrats, and they send Republicans one.
So if you're a Republican and you requested a ballot, you get your one ballot and you think the world is good.
What do you know? You requested one ballot.
You got one ballot. You filled it out.
You're a happy Republican.
You're a Democrat. You requested one ballot, perhaps.
You get five of them.
And you say to yourself, huh, I got five ballots.
What do you do? Well, probably most people are honest and they go, I only needed one.
They throw the other four away.
But some people are going to fill out the other ones.
You don't need everybody to fill out the extra ones.
You just need 2% and suddenly you've got a race.
Now that one is also alleged, anecdotally.
We've heard some stories about that.
Again, I don't know how true it is.
It's an allegation.
I've heard the allegation that there are lots of people registered at the same addresses, such that I guess you could just say you're different people living at one address and you could get lots of ballots.
Is that a big deal?
I don't know. Could be.
How about manually reading the ballots wrong?
So there's one allegation.
I guess there are different mechanisms and systems for counting votes, but at one place it is alleged that there's somebody who would have the ballot and would read it to the person who was inputting and would say, Joe Biden.
And then the person who was inputting would take it and was supposed to double check it, but there are a lot of ballots.
So they would just hear Joe Biden and they would just type in Biden and just put it in a pile.
Without really checking that it really said Joe Biden.
Now there's some allegation that one of the watchers saw them saying that the Trump ballots were really Biden.
Second person doesn't even look and just inputs Biden.
And so it happened multiple times.
So apparently the allegation is that one way you could cheat is just have the person who's reading off the votes just say Biden.
Now, is that the rock-solid voting system with checks and balances that you thought you had?
Where somebody could just say, oh, it says Biden here.
Yeah, trust me. Yeah, it says Biden right there.
That's it? You can actually cheat that way?
Are you kidding me?
Here's another way I heard.
And again, I don't know if any of these are real.
These are just allegations. I've heard that, I think this is a Philadelphia story, if I remember correctly, about somebody asking whoever was running the polling station, who should we talk to to drop off the blank ballots.
So one way is just deliver pallets of blank ballots when it's time to put your candidate ahead.
And, alright, so here's another one.
Turning off the signature matching.
So apparently there's electronic signature matching.
Who knows how well that works?
I don't know. Can you really electronically match a signature?
Is that even a thing? But let's say it is a thing.
But you could just turn it off.
You could just go to the machine and go, turn it off.
Then every ballot goes through when normally lots of them would get rejected.
Lots of them might be 3% as opposed to 0.03%.
But you could just turn it off.
But you could also turn down the sensitivity because you've got a lot of work to do.
You don't want to be checking everything just because the machine told you to.
So you could just turn down the sensitivity.
Did you know that?
You could probably dial the winner of the election just by how sensitive you made the signature check.
It could be that easy.
To throw an election. Just go in there and go, let's take 20% off the signature sensitivity checking.
Might be enough, right?
Now, again, I don't know that this happened.
These are all just allegations.
And all the allegations are equal until they're not, meaning that they're all unproven until they're proven.
And then, of course, I haven't even mentioned the software system, you know, the Dominion systems.
So if you have software, you have a million different ways.
Somebody says there's proof that there's no cheating because Scott did not do this in 2016.
Well, you know, if the person you didn't expect to get elected gets elected, you should check.
Don't you think you should check into that?
So if somebody had made the same claim in 2016, and I don't remember it being made, but if somebody had, I would have taken that seriously.
Are you telling me that I would believe that no Republicans had ever tried to cheat in an election?
How can you be seriously even considering that?
Of course! You have to assume that both Democrats and Republicans have cheated in elections at whatever scale, I don't know.
But you have to assume it's both.
So if there had been those accusations in 2016, I'd probably treat them the same way I'm treating these.
Which is, well, the allegations are just allegations.
Should they be proven through the correct mechanisms, I will treat them as facts.
But if the allegation had been made in 2016, I definitely would not have ruled it out based on it being impossible on face value.
I wouldn't have done that.
Scott said about Rigged in 2016.
I don't know what that comment is.
There's a whole industry of people rummaging through my old tweets and statements to try to find an inconsistency.
It's a weird thing about being a public figure.
It happened, you know, even this morning.
Somebody produced some tweet that they imagined was inconsistent with something I say now but isn't, of course.
All right. So Sidney Powell, as you know, super lawyer, is making some really strong allegations about this software.
And it's almost so crazy that you can't even describe it.
But apparently the allegation is that she has a whistleblower, a high-level military person, but I don't know military of what country, she doesn't say, but somehow was present or had close personal knowledge of This same software that we use for our elections being originally created for Chavez in Venezuela for the purpose of throwing an election.
So the allegation is that it's designed to throw elections.
It's not designed just to count elections.
That it's specifically designed to cheat on elections.
And that it was used in Venezuela effectively and other countries, I think, effectively.
And that now that same software, which is made, allegedly, to throw elections, is the one we're using.
Now, here's the thing.
It's easy to believe small allegations, isn't it?
If somebody says, oh, somebody stole a loaf of bread, it might be true, it might not be true, but it's easy to believe.
It's easy to believe a person could steal a loaf of bread.
But would you say something as big as this?
That the entire election system of the United States, the greatest alleged democracy in the history of civilization, that our voting system is completely fraudulent?
Just completely fraudulent.
As in, whoever has access to this feature that changes votes is the only person who gets to determine the election.
That is such a big claim That your brain can't process it.
And that's the problem.
The problem is that the claim is too big.
You know, I hate to make analogies from Hitler, but isn't there a Goebbels or Goebbels or whoever it is quote about the bigger the lie, the more easily it can be believed.
So the big lie in this case is that the election is fine.
It's all secure.
Software is not a problem.
Who could hack software?
So that's the big lie, that there's no problem with the elections.
And when you hear this allegation, it too is so big that your brain can't even process it.
If tomorrow this story went away, you would probably just stop thinking about it.
You would just stop thinking about it.
As soon as the news stops reporting it, You'll stop acting as if it were real.
It's the weirdest psychological thing.
And here's the thing. I don't know if it's real.
I don't know. I do know that if there's such a thing as a piece of software that, you know, various different countries have their fingers in it, somebody at least tried.
So wouldn't you say that you could say with 100% certainty The various entities have certainly tried to mess with that software.
I can say that with complete confidence.
Because if the CIA has never tried to mess with that software, what the hell are they doing?
Why are we paying them if they're not messing with that software?
That software is used in other countries.
Our intelligence services, probably like every other intelligence service, is looking for ways to influence other countries.
Of course look at their elections.
Of course. So are you telling me our CIA didn't at least try to use that software to at least try to influence other countries?
If they didn't, they all need to be fired.
Likewise, the intelligence agencies of China and Russia and Great Britain and Israel and everyone else.
If they haven't at least tried to get in that software, they all need to be fired.
That's exactly what you should be doing all day long, is trying to get into that.
In fact, if there was anything else you were doing, you should be fired.
Because you're not a very good spy if you're not working full-time trying to get into that software.
Now, my guess, if I had to guess, is that...
And again, this is just based on knowing people.
Knowing motivations, knowing people, knowing large organizations, knowing the job of intelligence agencies, and knowing that lots of time has gone by.
So just knowing those assumptions, here's what I believe.
That the software has not only been penetrated by bad entities, but probably multiple.
So, for example, There are probably more than one employee by now who's been placed in these voting system companies that are actually just agents of foreign companies, foreign countries.
Wouldn't you say that the odds that they've at least tried to get people that they can influence on the inside?
100%. They've at least tried.
So by now, since lots of time has gone by...
Almost certainly they've succeeded.
And I would say the same thing about the social media platforms.
The social media platforms by now should be completely penetrated by all the major intelligence agencies.
Or at least they've tried.
I would imagine they've succeeded by now.
So to me it's almost unimaginable that the right people haven't tried And had enough time to make a difference in any kind of a system.
So it's not an allegation about specifically Dominion or specifically anybody.
It's just when you have that set up, it can only go one way.
It's not like there are two different ways that this goes in the long run.
In the long run, the intelligence agencies, of course, will take control of voting systems.
They have to. It'd be crazy for them not to.
That is their job.
Lin Wood, who's also working on this issue, working on the Georgia recount, this is a guy who does defamation lawsuits for a living, and he said this in one of his comments, and he said that he's very careful about defaming people in public because it's what he does for a living is defending people who got defamed in public.
And he said still that he's willing to say in public That the governor of Georgia is crooked and that the election was stolen.
That is pretty direct, isn't it?
Now, do you think that's true?
Do you think that Linwood, with all the connections that Linwood has, would know for sure whether Georgia is a corrupt political situation?
Do you think he'd know?
Now, whether he could prove it or not is the separate question.
But do you think just as a person, Do you think he knows?
I feel like he probably does.
Because there probably aren't too many people who have more access to, you know, behind the scenes and how things really work than a high-powered, you know, government kind of lawyer.
So I think Lin Woods probably knows.
But, you know, I'm not going to make an allegation because I don't want to be sued.
But he's somebody who would know.
And that's a pretty direct allegation.
So, I think what you're going to find, and here's the big red pill that the country is getting ready to take, if I had to put money on it, and I did actually, so let me correct that.
I did put money on it, so I do have bets that we will discover that the election is fraudulent.
Now, the bet is in the form of thinking that some of the states will be reversed.
So I've got some bets about some of the states being reversed, which would indicate fraud.
So here's what I think.
I think that the country is going to learn that our entire voting system is corrupted.
And when I say the entire system, I don't mean, oh, it's just the software.
Nope. I think we're going to find it's literally everything.
I think it's going to be soup to nuts.
I think we're going to find the software is completely corrupted.
I think that we will find that the physical ballots are completely corrupted.
And I think we'll find that whoever does the counting and the way they organize the count is completely corrupted.
My guess is that it is corrupted from top to bottom and really corrupted.
And I think that what this country needs It's some kind of a government in a box for the local part.
I feel like the country needs some kind of a federal option where you can go to the people in the town and say, all right, Detroit, just picking Detroit to pick on for a moment, you citizens, we're going to give you a federal election that will not be managed by your locals.
And this federal election will ask you one question.
Would you like a government in a box for two years?
I'll just pick a random time.
If they say yes, and the federal government does the election, not the locals, if they say yes, the federal government comes in and for two years they replace the entire local government.
So all of the corruption and the bribes and everything stop.
Because there's nobody to bribe anymore.
It's these federal people, government in a box, and they're not going to stay that long.
And then it cleans everything up, sets up a credible government, and then takes off after two years.
I feel like we might need it.
I can't say that's a well-developed idea, so there might be some problems with that, But it looks to me like as long as the cities can throw the national elections, and it looks like that's what's happening, city governments doing that, the locals, I don't know how we can have a good government.
So we almost have to be able to have some mechanism to dismantle corrupt city governments.
According to Lou Dobbs, the FBI is looking into the election, but we don't know about that.
If the FBI is looking into it, That would suggest they have at least enough evidence to look into it.
Newt Gingrich agreed with my tweet, and as did others.
I asked the question, why is it that it's not considered a hate crime when Trump supporters are attacked for simply being Trump supporters?
Shouldn't that be a hate crime?
And I'm told that it's not a hate crime because it's not Called out as a protected group.
But apparently, I'm not the only person who thinks that it should be.
And to me, that's a no-brainer.
Because if you're attacking somebody for their political opinion, a completely legal political opinion, that's a hate crime.
And it's a hate crime because the fake news gets people all worked up to think that they're killing Nazis or something.
So it's definitely hate involved.
Here's a fake news story of the type we see all the time.
It's reported by, let's see, the New York Times reported this.
The reporting that Trump asked last week, asked his senior aides what possibilities he had for an offensive strike on Iran's primary nuclear site.
Now, if you see that story, you say to yourself, oh, wow, the president wants to attack Iran.
Right? That's how you would interpret it.
If he's asking his aides about options for attacking Iran, your brain processes that as, oh, it looks like Trump wants to attack Iran.
But these stories are all so illegitimate, because if you're the head of the military, you should be asking this kind of question just routinely.
You should always ask, what are my options?
And if you're talking about Iran, one of the options is always attack.
If you're the commander-in-chief of the United States, shouldn't you always be checking in to find out what your military options are for an active topic like Iran?
Do you think that the Israeli military, do you think Netanyahu has never asked his military what options they have for attacking Iran?
Of course he has, which doesn't mean he's planning to do it next week.
It just means you have to know your options.
It doesn't mean anything except checking your options, and they turn it into a story, and it's a non-story.
It should be just baseline, nothing happened.
Checking your options is nothing happening.
That's nothing. All right.
Here's CNN with a little fake news.
Wolf Blitzer was reporting that Lindsey Graham was asking the Secretary of State of Georgia to toss out Legal votes.
Do you think that Lindsey Graham asked anybody, much less the Georgia officials, do you think he asked anybody to throw out legal votes?
Of course not!
Of course not!
He believes that some votes will be determined to be illegal because they don't meet some requirement of signature or whatever the details are.
And that those would be illegal votes according to the laws of the land, or at least the laws of Georgia, and that Georgia should follow its own law.
And that gets reported as Lindsey Graham wants to throw out legal votes.
No, no, that's not really what was happening here.
Here was an interesting story.
It's a Van Jones story saying that He is quoted as saying, Tuesday night was devastating.
The polling had been suggesting that there would be just a wipeout of Trump, and the fact that it wasn't a wipeout was crushing.
So here's what I get from that story.
So Van Jones thought that the polls would be correct and that Trump would be wiped out.
But why did Van Jones think the polls would be correct?
There's something with this story that doesn't make sense.
Because a lot of you believe, again, it's just allegations, but a lot of you believe that the polling was intentionally fraudulent for fundraising reasons or to depress Trump votes or something.
Why didn't Van Jones think that?
Why is it that you think You thought from all last year, you thought the polls were fraudulent.
But why didn't Van Jones think they were fraudulent?
Because based on his answer, I think he really thought they were real.
Why? Why do you think they were real?
Well, here is my assumption.
He wasn't in on the steel.
So don't take this too seriously.
But if you imagine that it was all coordinated, then you imagine that the fake polls were coordinating with the people who faked the election so that the polls, you know, somehow they'd all be on the same team.
But I don't think anybody talked.
I doubt that any election fraud...
was so widely coordinated that there were meetings and Zoom conversations and stuff like that.
I think just everybody knew what they needed to do.
I think that the people handling the software, if they saw an opportunity, they took it.
The people handling the ballots, if they saw an opportunity, I think they took it.
I think that's all it is.
But so many of them took it that Now Biden's vote total is 79 million.
And one of the things that critics are saying, critics of Trump and his supporters, they're saying that there's no evidence that the election was stolen.
To which I say, define evidence.
Because I would acknowledge that there's no proof.
My understanding of how systems work is that Let's say in the legal system, if there's evidence of a crime, then you start the legal process.
If that evidence does not turn into proof, well then the person is innocent.
But you don't say there's no evidence just because you couldn't get a conviction.
There's plenty of evidence.
You know what the evidence is?
79 million votes.
That's a lot of evidence.
Could it be that there's another explanation?
That it was just a really high turnout and Biden got a lot of votes because people really didn't like Trump.
Is that possible?
Yeah, of course. That's possible.
But the evidence would suggest there's something up.
Because it's a pretty big coincidence.
Or maybe it's not a coincidence, but it would surprise a lot of people, shall we say, if that number held.
It would surprise a lot of people.
Alright. Somebody says the vote count doesn't matter because it's an electoral college.
It does matter in this limited context of figuring out if the vote itself was real or fake.
Because the total number of people voting, that certainly would suggest there's something going on here.
Especially when you compare it to the size of Biden's rallies.
If you look at the strength that people wanted him to win, he just didn't have the energy that would suggest 79 million people showed up.
It just doesn't make sense.
So I would say there's plenty of evidence.
What there isn't yet is proof.
But there will be.
So I think that the world is going to Get a little bit unraveled this week because you're going to start to see the good stuff, you know, the actual valid stuff that holds up and looks credible, and you're going to see it soon, probably all this week.
So that's really going to change stuff.
Now, one of the things I was worrying about when President Trump Brought Dr.
Scott Atlas into the office and put him on the Corona Task Force.
I thought that I would eventually be confused with him, and sure enough, I was.
So I tweeted an article that calls him Dr.
Scott Adams. Now, I knew, I just knew, that I would get confused with him eventually.
Because even when President Trump says...
Dr. Ego Scott Atlas.
When I'm listening to it live, and I hear, I'm just listening to Trump, you know, while I'm doing something else, and I'll hear Trump say, and I'd like to introduce Scott Atlas, and I'm like, what?
It's a list? Oh, okay, that's not me.
All right. Hunter's laptop was hidden from view, somebody says.
Okay, I don't know how that's relevant.
Okay. 29 states will be forced into a hand recount, some people say.
Perhaps. We shall see.
Alright, I'm going to say goodbye to Periscopers.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
YouTubers, still with me?
6.9 thousand.
Wow. There's a lot of you here today.
Scott, would Trump bluff this long if he had nothing?
He might. He might.
Just because he doesn't like to lose, maybe it keeps the issue alive.
He might. But I don't think...
The thing that surprises me is watching the attorneys.
I don't think you would see Lin Wood or Sidney Powell or any of the lawyers.
I don't think you would see them make such specific, dangerous claims unless they knew something.
Yeah, Rudy Giuliani.
You could maybe imagine that Rudy Giuliani was the president's guy, so maybe you could see him using a little hyperbole, but you don't really see the other lawyers necessarily buying into that.
I don't feel like Sidney Powell or Lin Wood would throw away their careers making this kind of claim, unless they knew there was some meat there.
Slaughter meter is 97%.
97%.
The other thing we keep learning is how many interconnections there are.
How many people are connected to one thing and also connected to another thing and connected to voting.
It's pretty scary.
Catherine says, I feel like China is involved.
Well, again, why wouldn't they be?
Why wouldn't they be? They can send us fentanyl by the boatloads and coronavirus and bad trade deals and steal our IP and nothing happens.
Why would they not try to ruin our election?
It would make sense for them to try.
What is the slaughter meter?
So the slaughter meter is a momentary it's a slice of time that says how the election will go.
And at 100% it would say that Trump is 100% going to I think the slaughter meter has to be revised.
I think that we will learn the election was stolen.
That's my prediction.
I think we will learn the election was stolen, but the mainstream media has the power to make that disappear.
And I think that's the way it's going to go.
So I think that we will know that the election was stolen.
Historians may record it that way, but that Joe Biden will probably take the office.
Because the mainstream media will just say, yeah, he won.
And it just doesn't matter if it's not true.
They'll just say he did.
And then he'll take the office.
All right. What would happen if Trump retook the White House in terms of riots?
Well, there would be great civil unrest.
And so one of the plays that Trump has available to him...
Is to win the election and then resign.
Resign, put Pence in charge, have Pence pardon him for everything, and then start a media platform and really have some power.
I've got to tell you, it's a lot more fun criticizing things than it is defending things.
If Biden takes office, you also would be heading toward Republican control of Congress fairly soon.
