Episode 1191 Scott Adams: Show us the Kraken or Maybe we Stop Believing it is Coming
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Election officials rate themselves EXCELLENT!
4 Georgia counties found significant Trump votes?
Democrat threats to prosecute Trump and family
Ned Staebler's outrage at Republicans
Where is the Kraken?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Best time of the day, and we'll be looking for the Kraken today.
Yes, we will.
But first, I would like your opinion.
I have been trying to print my notes for today to my printer.
My printer has decided not to print my notes.
Doesn't give me an error message, doesn't tell me what to do, has plenty of paper and plenty of ink, but it just won't print.
And what I need for you is an opinion.
Should I rip it out of the wall and throw it off of my balcony so we can watch it crash in pieces on my sidewalk below?
Or should I just calm down and let it go?
So I'll leave it to you.
Should I destroy it on camera?
Or should I let it go?
But first, in order to enjoy this day to the maximum, you're going to need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea, a canteen jug or a flask or vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the ultimate.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better, except the cracking.
And it happens now. It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Ooh, yep.
That's pretty good. Alright, well, let me look at my little notes on my tiny little phone because I can't print them out because my printer just isn't getting it done today.
Yes, I did restart it.
That didn't work. Alright, have you noticed that the news is boring without Trump?
Is there anybody who's noticed that yet?
You know, All Trump has to do is dial back his own public efforts by 30% or whatever, and suddenly there's no news.
Because the news industry completely stopped looking for actual news, and they just started reporting on whatever Trump said, and then insulting him.
And that was it.
That was the whole thing.
So, alright, there are enough people telling me that I should...
I'm going to recycle my printer.
Then I'm going to do it, but only to show you that it doesn't work.
Okay?
Hold on right there.
All right, I'm back.
So I'm going to recycle my printers.
If that doesn't work, maybe we'll throw it off the balcony.
All right. We'll let that reboot for a moment.
So, it looks like the United States is getting money from Mexico for the wall.
Not directly.
My printer's making noise now.
Not directly, but apparently we have some kind of deal with Mexico that if somebody tries to destroy the wall to get through it, that they will be fined to pay for the repair, and Mexico will collect that fine and give it to the United States.
And apparently that's actually happening.
So if a Mexican wannabe illegal migrant hurts the wall, We get paid to fix the wall.
That's not nothing. Better than nothing.
But it's not Mexico paying for the wall, of course.
Other big story is the president wants to draw down forces in Afghanistan and maybe other places.
And somebody says, where'd I go?
Oh, you saw me go off screen.
And here's a little story that is good context for deciding whether the president or the generals and the pundits are the ones who are right about troop levels.
And here's my story.
Years ago, I used to be a budget guy at a big bank and then the phone company.
And at the phone company, my job was to go to all the individual departments And say, how much budget do you need for next year?
And then I would sum up all of their detailed requests and take it to the big boss.
So I summed up all the individual budget requests, took it to the boss, and it was too much.
The budget was higher than he could afford.
So I thought that what would happen next is he would look at each of the individual department requests, and then each one individually he would look at and say, okay, they're asking for a little bit too much, or This one's a higher priority than this one, so we'll cut this one, but we'll fund this one.
None of that happened.
Instead, the big boss looked at me and he said, cut everybody's budget by 10%.
And I said, well, that doesn't make any sense.
That would be completely irrational, because all of these managers have done detailed studies To find out exactly what budget they need to do the job that you've told them they have to do.
So you can't just cut it 10%.
Because some people probably padded it, maybe some people didn't ask for enough.
It's completely irrational to just cut it 10% across the board.
So I made my argument that that didn't make sense and the big boss looked at me and he said, just cut it all by 10% and watch everybody make it work.
So I did.
I cut everybody's budget by 10% and what do you think happened?
They made it work.
It didn't make any difference.
So 100% of the underlings Complained bitterly because their detailed budget was just ignored.
And they just said, I just give them 10% less than last year.
That was it. And it worked out fine.
There wasn't a single problem that happened because of that decision.
Now, when Trump says to his generals, you need to draw down these forces, what do the generals say?
No way. We've done a detailed study, and we can't possibly operate without this many people.
We're at the bare minimum.
In fact, you should be adding people, not subtracting people in Afghanistan.
And what does a good, experienced, big boss say in that situation when all of the experts, all of them, Every general, every person who's fought there, every one of them says, no, you can't cut those forces.
Cut it anyway.
Cut it anyway.
Here, we'll take care of you so you don't have to suffer.
Problem solved. So, if you've ever worked in a big company, you know that the president is the one who's playing the smart game with Afghanistan.
Nobody knows how many people we need there, but less at least is leadership, right?
At least if you say, my goal is to get rid of all of them, and I'm going to do it as fast as I possibly can, at least it's leadership, right?
And I feel like the generals, etc., will make it work.
So apparently he's going to draw down some forces, and they will make it work.
Amazon is going into the pharmacy business, which could be a gigantic deal.
Because I feel as if Amazon should be your doctor.
I took some blood tests and urine tests the other day.
So I got a full panel of, you know, just generic blood tests.
Now everything's fine, so that's the good news.
There was nothing to worry about. But when I get the report, it's sent to me as the patient, and it goes to my little online account, and I take out my app and I look at it, and it's two pages of things that make no sense to me as a consumer, because I don't know what these little, you know, these various figures mean.
Now, it does tell you if you're within the field or not, but it doesn't tell you if you had too much of this or too little of it, what would it mean?
Because some of the values are sort of, you know, toward the edge of the field.
Now, if they had made it friendly and simply said, look, here's your test, and you can read it, and if anything is confusing, just click on it, and you can see a full description.
Of what may be problems you might have if this indication is too high or whatever.
And it's completely useless the way it is.
Now what is it that Amazon does amazingly well?
User interface, right?
The user interface for Amazon is just crazy.
It's so good. And Apple does a good job of that stuff too.
So if you see Amazon getting into the health business, The first thing you should say to yourself is, are they going to make it simpler?
Shouldn't I be able to get a blood test anytime I want?
Because all they do is draw blood and send it off.
Shouldn't I be able to get that myself?
Pay $25 and just get one anytime I want?
And get results that I don't even need a doctor to look at?
Then I could just read it and say, oh, this one says you should cut down on dessert and maybe exercise more because you're a little pre-diabetic.
I could completely understand that if they put it in English, but they put it in medical terms, so I can't.
Anyway, so if the only thing that Amazon did is start turning the medical field into something that has a good user interface that you could actually understand what you're looking at, that would be gigantic.
And it would certainly help the competitive situation.
So President Trump fired the Homeland Security Cyber Chief, Christopher Krebs, because Krebs had announced publicly that this was the most secure election ever.
And I guess if you're working for Trump at the moment, And you say the election is the most secure one ever, you're going to get fired.
So he got fired.
And it's also being reported that the election officials in each state had been contacted, I think by the New York Times.
The New York Times contacted all the election officials in each state and said, has there been any fraud or problems this year?
And every single state...
Said, no problem.
So that's pretty good, right?
All the people who were in charge of the elections in each of these states have reported, and I think we can believe them, that the people who were in charge of the elections did a great job, according to the people who were in charge of the elections.
And the New York Times asked the people who were in charge of the elections to If the people in charge of the elections did a good job, and the people in charge of the elections said, yes, the people in charge of the elections did a great job, maybe the best one ever, it's possible that nobody's ever done a good job this good.
And the New York Times printed that like that was telling you something that you needed to know.
So here's a little experiment.
Go into any prison.
And ask the prisoners if they're guilty.
Some will say yes.
But you'll be amazed how many people in prison will tell you that they're innocent.
And they must be innocent, because you're asking the person who knows, right?
I mean, the person in prison, they have the most information, the most credible information about whether they committed the crime, because they were a direct witness to whether they committed it or not.
So just ask them.
And if they say they're innocent, well, I think you have to free them.
Because that makes sense, right?
You ask the people who would be incriminating themselves if they answered one way?
You could trust that.
So when the guy who's in charge of making sure that our elections are fair says that he did a terrific job and it might be the best election fairness you've ever had, fire that asshole.
You should fire that asshole.
Because he does not get to say, the election is great because it was my job to make it great, so trust me and give me a big promotion.
It just doesn't work that way.
If there wasn't somebody auditing him, you don't know.
Right? Because the last person you should trust Is that guy.
He's the one person in the whole country that you shouldn't believe.
Because if you go to any employee and say, how'd you do?
Have you ever done an employee performance review?
Did you ever have your employee come in for an employee performance review?
You say, how'd you do?
And the employee says, you know, wasn't my best year.
I've had better years, honestly.
I feel like I didn't work very hard and everything I tried was a failure.
Has that ever happened?
No. Nope.
And it never will happen.
Because if you ask people if they did a good job, they're kind of going to say yes.
Pretty much every time.
So we can't listen to any of the people who were in charge to ask them if they did a good job.
The reason that you have a special counsel, Durham or whatever, looking into the Department of Justice, it's because you can't ask the Department of Justice if they did a good job.
Because do you know what they'll say?
Yeah! Yeah, we did great!
Best year ever!
So if you don't have a special counsel or an audit, you don't have anything.
Alright, so that was a good firing.
Here's something that should have been in the news, but instead it came to me in a DM on Twitter.
And so, I need you to fact check me on this, alright?
Because I should not be getting better information from people on Twitter than I should be from the professional news organizations.
I don't think what I'm going to read is correct.
So, You know, don't put too much faith in it until you see some fact-checking in the comments.
But according to Kyle, who messaged me this morning, he believes that he has seen in the news so far four errors out of Georgia, because they're doing the recount there.
And in the following counties, he says that the recount has had the following changes.
Floyd County, 800 more votes to Trump.
Fayette, 449 to Trump.
Walton, 176 to Trump.
And then DeKalb, if this is true, 9,626 to Trump.
Now I need a fact check on that.
Is it true that there are four different counties with problems in Georgia and that the numbers I just read are...
Okay, let me pause.
I'll call it DeKalb, okay?
Instead of DeKalb, DeKalb, DeKalb.
Is that the correct pronunciation?
Do you think I care how they pronounce their county?
I don't. If you put an extra letter in the spelling of your county, I'm going to pronounce it any fucking way I want, and I'm going to pronounce it with the L. Get rid of the L. If you don't want me to pronounce it the wrong way, Get the hell out of there.
Anyway, so are there four counties?
And would the total of those four counties be over 11,000 votes that have switched to Trump and that Biden only won by 14,000?
Are my numbers right?
So that would give you only another 3,000 that you would have to find that switched to Or that would be switched to Trump to put him over the top in Georgia?
Are those numbers right?
Okay, I'm just looking at your answers.
So give me a fact check on that.
Because at the very least, why did the news not give me a summary of these changes in Georgia?
Why do I have to get it from a DM? Right?
It's the craziest thing.
The news is so defective that this little bit of summary, which is the only thing that puts any of it in context, because you don't know if Georgia is going well or poorly for the president, unless you see the summary.
Why do I have to get it from individual on Twitter and not the news?
I mean, it's just crazy. Yeah, so the 9,600 were taken away from Biden but not added to Trump.
Somebody says DeKalb votes were only switched in recount, which means what?
Because I'm seeing something about the numbers that will be reported are not the recount numbers but the original, and I don't even understand that story.
Why would you report the original numbers if you're doing a recount?
That doesn't make sense. Most of the news doesn't make any damn sense, does it?
I swear that all the context is left out of all the stories.
So you read the story and you can kind of understand what it's saying, but it doesn't make any damn sense because everything's missing.
So how in the world does it make sense?
Well, change the topic.
All right. About half of all Republicans, according to a new poll, Reuters, Ipsos poll, I don't know who Ipsos is, but about half of all Republicans believe that Trump won the election, rightfully, in terms of votes, and that voter fraud is the only reason that Joe Biden won.
Now, do you believe that? Do you believe that half of all Republicans believe that the election was fraudulent?
Half? Does that sound right?
I don't know where they get half, because I don't know anybody who thinks it was a fair election.
Do you? Have you met anybody who thinks the election was fair?
I mean that literally.
I have not met anybody who was a Trump supporter.
I've not met any who think that the election was credible and fair.
Have you? Where do they come up with 50% of people who thought the election was fair?
Now, it's possible that it was.
I like to say this.
I like to drop that in every now and then.
Because if you don't keep open the possibility...
That all of the reports are just BS, and that maybe it was just fine, or maybe the problems are there, but they're small.
It's possible. You can't rule out yet, can't rule out that either one of them won.
They're both possibilities at this point.
All right. I'm seeing a horrible trend, which is the Democrats are all talking about Prosecuting the Trump family, and they don't even talk about for what.
Think about that.
There are multiple stories about Democrats saying, yeah, when Trump's out of office, let's prosecute him and prosecute the whole family.
And what they leave out of all those stories is for what?
Are you aware of any crimes that are even alleged?
Against anybody in the Trump circle?
Now, I know that there are some kinds of investigations going on, but have we heard anything about any of those that would tell you that there's something out there?
I've heard zero reports of anything that would look like a crime that any of the Trump members were involved in.
Why are we talking about it like it's a given That there are some crimes out there, and if he's not president, he'll be prosecuted.
What crimes? Are you telling me that four years of looking for crimes, and you can't find any, but you're going to find them the minute he's out of office?
Maybe. I don't know.
But it doesn't look like people trying to find justice.
It doesn't have that feel to it, does it?
It feels like hate, And revenge.
And that's all.
It just feels like hate and revenge.
So the same impulse that makes people want to hunt down Trump supporters and punish them for their political opinions, it's just more of that, except directed at the Trump family.
So this is the worst of humanity here.
Apparently Biden himself, to his credit, is hesitant to Want to prosecute Trump?
And he should be. Because if you make that your standard, it's coming for you.
If you're the president, if you get elected president, the worst thing you can do is go after the person you beat.
Do not do that.
Because if you go after the person you beat, whoever replaces you is going to do the same thing.
The only thing that protects a president after office is that the president in office doesn't want to be treated that way, and so, you know, maybe takes a little easier, or pardons, or whatever they have to do.
All right. Did you see the video of this guy Ned Stabler?
He's a Democrat in, I think it's Michigan, and he was on a Zoom call that got recorded, and he's threatening two other county officials, Republicans, I think, who didn't want to certify the vote.
Now, it turns out that they got talked into it or threatened into it, so they did certify it.
But when you listen to this guy, Ned Stabler, and the hate that he has for his fellow humans, it's not about policy at all.
It doesn't seem to be about differences of opinion.
It just seems to be hate.
And so I say again, we need to get some hate crimes on the books for Trump supporters.
Meaning that if you're targeted for being a Trump supporter, and let's say if you're being, if you're called a racist just for being a Trump supporter, should you be fired from your job and or prosecuted?
I don't know if you could be prosecuted for an insult, but let's say, could you be fired from your job for saying that a Trump supporter, let's say a co-worker, is a racist because they're a Trump supporter with no other evidence needed to make the case?
I feel like that's a hate crime.
And that if your co-worker accused you of being a racist for supporting Trump, you should be fired.
The person making the accusation should be fired.
Because how would that be different than a racist accusation?
It's all based on...
It's basically just racism.
That's all it is. So...
So as we're looking at what mattered in this election, it turns out that calling for defunding the police while the news is showing nonstop rioting on television...
Doesn't help your candidates on the down ticket.
So, no big surprise that most people like police.
But I did see a story that said the coronavirus wasn't that big of a decision.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that people's decision about who they wanted for president didn't have much to do with coronavirus?
Because I was feeling ahead of the election, I was feeling that might be the case.
And partly because...
The coronavirus is going to sort of take care of itself.
In other words, whether Trump's in office or Biden's in office, you kind of know where it's going to go at this point, right?
You know we're going to have a really ugly winter and our health care workers will be stretched to the max.
It doesn't matter if it's Biden.
It doesn't matter if it's Trump. Our hospitals are going to be full this winter.
There's basically no way around it.
And we know that the vaccine is promising, and almost certainly by the end of 2021, things should be looking good no matter who the president is.
So I have a feeling that when people voted, and this is the way I would have processed it, I would have said to myself, you're not really voting for the past.
So even if you think Trump should have handled coronavirus differently, it's the past.
You can't go back.
You can't go fix it.
You know, Joe Biden said that he would have handled the crime bill from the 90s.
He said he would have done that differently.
But he can't go back, right?
He doesn't have the option of going back.
So you've got two people who both had a little, let's say, some baggage, according to their critics, of something that happened before.
But if those things are not likely to come up again, And they don't seem representative of, you know, who they are as leaders, you can kind of discount them a little bit.
You can kind of say, I don't think we're going to have a second pandemic.
And if we did, we'd be fairly ready for it, I think.
You know, we had some practice.
So probably people are saying some version of what do we need the president for for the next four years, not the last four years.
And On that basis, you could probably say coronavirus isn't your number one thing that you're voting on.
Whereas defunding the police definitely is going to affect you in the next four years if it happens.
I saw a couple of studies about masks.
So we now have the definitive word on masks.
We've been talking about it for months and months.
Do masks work?
Do they not work?
And now we have two studies, and finally we can say with certainty that one of the studies says that masks do work, and the other one says they don't.
So, trust science is what I say.
Trust science.
And science says, unambiguously, that those masks definitely work, and also, also true, They definitely don't.
So science is spoken, and I think unless you are a bunch of unscientific flat earthers, you should believe science when it tells you that masks totally work and also, also at the same time, totally don't.
So it's both true.
Listen to science.
So both of those happened today.
Even Jake Tapper says that the speed with which the vaccines have been created is, quote, this is an unmitigated success, and we should acknowledge that, said Jake Tapper, which I agree and appreciate.
I think, you know, as...
As we move into the future, I think Trump's warp speed thing here is going to start looking a little bit like a moonshot.
And it might become the model that people talk about for how federal government can make the country do something that even the country didn't think it could do.
So I have a feeling that's really going to last the test of time in terms of good leadership and Even if other things that he did do not.
Sweden is throwing us a curveball.
Of course, little Sweden was always fun to talk about because they did everything differently.
They didn't do a severe shutdown.
They took their lumps, had a high death count, but then the death count went down to practically nothing.
And people said, whoa, Sweden, smart little Sweden, you must have done something right.
Your non-shutdown, non-lockdown, Maybe you got some kind of herd immunity going.
We don't know what, but it worked, whatever you did.
So maybe we should be using this Sweden model.
Oh, except, update.
Sweden decided to lock down.
So Sweden is not going to be as locked down as maybe European countries or even us in a few weeks, I'm guessing.
But Sweden is getting tougher, so they are putting lots of limits on public gatherings, etc.
Now, I think that they're still a little looser than most places, but apparently Sweden decided that they don't want to be like Sweden.
So let me put it this way.
If you were in the United States and you were an American and you said to yourself, why can't we be more like Sweden?
Congratulations. You're now just like Sweden.
Because they're doing what we're doing.
So if Sweden was a big success story, which many Americans were saying, can you explain that to Sweden?
Because apparently Sweden has not noticed that their old plan was so successful because they decided to shit-can their old plan and do what everybody else is doing.
Which is, you know, lock down and put restrictions on, etc.
So, if Sweden doesn't think Sweden was doing it right, should you?
Really? I mean, wouldn't you expect that if anybody were going to take credit and say, yeah, we did it right, it would be Sweden.
And Sweden doesn't think they did it right, or they wouldn't have, you know, completely changed their strategy.
There was an article in Time by Michael Mina.
I think he wrote it.
And he's the one who always talks about we could get on top of this pandemic if we had rapid testing that was cheap and people could do it at home as much as they wanted.
We do have an approval for a relatively inexpensive at-home test that you don't have to mail it anywhere.
You can get a result pretty quickly.
But you need a prescription for it.
It's like we can't do anything completely right.
The whole point of these at-home tests is that you want to be able to do them like popping a breath mint.
You want to be able to take them anytime, anybody, anytime, just make it as available as a pack of gum.
And then it doesn't matter that they're a little bit less accurate than other tests, because you'd be doing so much testing, you'd get everything done.
Pretty quickly. So we could be done with this by Christmas if we had these cheap tests.
The math certainly indicates that.
Now here's my problem with the Biden administration, future potential administration, we don't know yet.
And also the Trump administration on coronavirus.
I've said before that there might be an argument against this method.
There might be some argument that says, no, this idea of using these super cheap tests at home won't get you what you think it will get you.
But I haven't heard it.
I've not heard anybody make the argument.
In fact, 100% of the people I've heard talk about this idea...
Fall into one of two categories.
Either they don't understand it, or they think it's terrific.
There's nobody who understands it, and also thinks it's a bad idea, that I've seen.
Surely such people exist, but I haven't seen any.
So here's my problem with both Trump administration and whatever Biden's planning.
Why aren't we hearing about this?
We should at least be hearing why they don't want to do it, or we should be hearing how soon they can do it, or we should be hearing a lot of conversation about it.
But we're not.
It's like Michael Mina writes an article or tweets, you know, we boost it, I boost it, and then it just sort of doesn't go anywhere.
Now, I know that his concept of the cheap testing, which is different than just cheap testing, right?
It's a specific kind of cheap testing.
His idea, I know, has gotten to the task force.
So I know that they've looked at it.
I know that they have seen it.
I can say that for sure, just personally.
Where is their comment on it?
Where is their timeline, their response?
Something. Something. And the lack of that, I don't know, I can't see it as competence.
So to me it looks like the task force is dropping the ball really big on the rapid testing.
Like really big.
Like really, really big.
I would say that...
Even if you give Trump full credit for the vaccines, and of course we probably should, this falling down on this testing stuff, I don't know how you explain that.
Like, can you give me any explanation that doesn't make it look like criminal incompetence?
Because it looks like criminal incompetence to me, even if It's not a good idea.
You should at least tell us why it's not a good idea.
All right. Shall we talk about the election?
I believe you want to.
So, where's the kraken?
In the comments, somebody says the kraken was lacking.
Yeah, I think the kraken is lacking.
So I told you that you would see some of the good stuff Probably this week.
I did give myself a little bit of a fudge, and I said, well, it's probably this week, might be next week, but I'm thinking it was this week.
Have you seen anything that you would consider the good stuff?
I have not. Not in the public.
So I've got some questions whether such good stuff exists.
And I feel as if I would give you this guideline.
It's the same kind of thinking I would use for hydroxychloroquine.
Remember I told you that when we first heard good news about hydroxychloroquine working, I said, well, so many people say it works even without a good controlled randomized study.
It seems there's so much anecdotal that it just makes sense to try it because the downside is small risk.
And then I told you that as we got into the spring and then through the summer, That every day that went by that you didn't get a confirmation that hydroxychloroquine works, you should reduce your confidence that it does.
So I started out with, I don't know, it looks like 75% chance you've got something here.
But then time would go by and it wouldn't be validated.
Couldn't quite see it clearly happening in the real world.
I'm like, ah, 50-50.
Ah, 30-50.
Maybe 20%. I would put it down to maybe 10% now.
Every day that goes by, if they can't show it works, it's probably because it doesn't.
Probably. Likewise, as you're watching all of the claims come out about the election, on day one, you know, there's a bunch of claims, and you don't know.
They could be good. They could be bad.
What estimate did I give you ahead of time?
You may remember That I said to beware of all the individual anecdotal claims of fraud because 95% of them will not be true.
At least 95% of them are not true.
Can you agree that my original estimate, that 95% of the claims would eventually be debunked?
Doesn't it look like that's exactly what's happening?
Wouldn't you say? Because I would say closer to maybe 100%.
Now, there are some things that are real that are smaller than what it would take to overthrow the election.
So there are a bunch of real things.
I'm not saying there's no real stuff.
It's just we have not found real stuff big enough to change the election outcome.
Have you seen any?
I haven't seen any in the public.
So today is sort of the day where you start with whatever your percentage, you know, number was.
I think there's, you know, I would say I would start with a 95% chance personal opinion that the election was stolen.
By the end of today, if I have not seen the goods from either Sidney Powell or Giuliani or something, my 95% certainty is going to start to reduce.
So it'll be lower tomorrow, and then if we go yet another day, and I haven't seen any good evidence, I'm going to lower it again.
That's a good model for you to keep in mind, right?
At about today, If you're not seeing some good stuff, you have to wonder if it's going to come, right?
You can certainly say, give the people who are looking into it a few weeks to do the data.
They need some time. So the first week or so that people are looking into it doesn't mean anything.
Second week, maybe that doesn't mean anything either.
But we're now at the point...
Where if we go too much further with just claims without a photograph or the witness who signed an affidavit or something, I would just dismiss all of it.
Pretty much all of it.
All right.
And the Dominion software thing looks a lot...
Messier than you thought.
Because now there are denials about whether the Smartmatic software was ever used with Dominion.
There's now some credible doubt about every part of the story from top to bottom.
Here's one thing that I feel I can say with certainty.
The election was not secure.
Do you think we can say that with certainty?
Now, you can certainly say it's not proven that the election was stolen.
But can't we say with certainty that it wasn't secure?
Right? Does that seem fair?
That even if you believe it wasn't stolen, it definitely wasn't secure.
Because, just take one example, the The thumb drives that were found that weren't uploaded?
What kind of a crappy system would allow you to get to this point in the process without knowing that all of the precincts had even reported?
Really, seriously, how do you get this far without knowing if you've even collected the information?
You know, if there are like gaps in the information you've collected, how do you get this far?
Now, obviously, if there had not been a recount and all this stuff, we wouldn't have even noticed that a whole bunch of people voted.
It was put on a flash drive, and then somebody stuck it in a desk drawer somewhere or wherever the hell it was.
And so all those people voted, and their vote was just completely wasted because it just got put on a disk drive and didn't go anywhere.
So... The disk drive stories alone...
Tell you that whoever put the system together didn't have basic controls.
Because the most basic control is to find out that the number of people who voted ended up in the total.
That's pretty basic, even if, you know, the votes got changed or something.
All right. I always get blamed for pacing and leading.
You know, it looks like pacing and leading if you just give a balanced presentation.
So if you allow that the other side has an argument and you simply express it at the same time you show the other argument and make a decision, it looks like you're pacing, but sometimes it's just telling the whole story.
Now, I'm seeing people accuse Rudy Giuliani of making a tremendous amount of money from working on the campaign's legal stuff.
And some people are thinking that he's just making up stuff and throwing spaghetti against the wall.
That's the phrase that the Democrats are using.
But do you think that you could get Rudy Giuliani...
Lynn Wood and Sidney Powell, all top famous lawyers, do you think that they would all be willing to just completely lie and make stuff up?
It doesn't feel like that.
You know, you can imagine any one person doing that, no matter who it is.
You can imagine anybody lying.
But that's a lot of liars.
How do you get that many people willing to tell...
Whoppers of that size.
How would you ever live that down?
If you were Sidney Powell, let's say Sidney Powell doesn't deliver anything.
Let's say we never find any problem with the software or whatever in the long run.
What does that do to her credibility?
Her future ability to get work?
It's kind of a big hit.
I don't feel like you would make a claim like that unless you were pretty, pretty confident that you had the goods.
So I feel like they think there's something there.
When do we get to see it?
All right. Oh, Sydney just tweeted a link to exhibits of evidence.
Well, let's look at that right now.
Let's look at that link.
I'll bet without looking at it, I'm just going to make a guess, that it will be something that I can't tell is real or not.
What do you want to bet?
That I'll look at the evidence and I'll say, I don't know.
Could be real. I can't tell by looking at it.
Alright, so here it is.
No, that's a freedom of speech thing.
So it looks like what she retweeted was evidence of the big...
No, she did not retweet evidence of fraud.
Yeah, I would like to see the signature verification story.
Do you think the software can check signatures?
Yeah. Because I think that's what they're claiming, right?
The software is checking the signatures or can.
Do you think it can?
I don't know. I feel as if I don't sign my name enough the same way that the software could necessarily tell if I signed it.
So Michael Yan is talking about a civil war coming.
I don't think you have to worry about a civil war.
I just don't see that happening.
I think that in order to have a civil war, you have to have a lot of people who want one.
And we don't have that.
The main requirement for a civil war is missing.
The main requirement, somebody has to want one, right?
Have you met anybody who actually wants a civil war?
Not really, right?
If you talk to people on the left and you said, all right, you know, you Antifa people, what if you could get your wish?
Full-out civil war.
Are you down? How many people even in Antifa would want a real civil war?
Because they're not going to win.
That's the first problem.
So I got a feeling that the left doesn't really want a civil war.
And I know the right doesn't want it.
I've heard exactly zero people talking in any kind of a positive way that a civil war will fix everything.
You have to have somebody who's in favor of it.
It just can't happen without that, right?
We don't have leaders who are in favor of it, do we?
Can you name one leader on the left or the right Who is in favor of a civil war?
None. None.
Can you think of anybody, even at the, you know, the marching level, who will say out loud, yes, civil war?
No. No.
Now, you might get these, like, non-violent color revolution things that feel like a slow-motion civil war all the time, but a shooting war?
No chance. There's just no chance.
You have to have at least one person who wants a civil war.
We don't have that. Do we?
Think about it. Think about the fact that you've been convinced that there might be a civil war and nobody wants one.
There's not going to be a civil war.
There just won't be.
Not even close. It's not going to be a near miss.
It's not going to be a close call.
There's going to be nothing. Just the way I predicted that even if Trump lost the election, and certainly that's the way it's being reported by the news, didn't you think, or not you, but didn't people say, it's going to be a civil war, no matter what?
Zero conservatives showed any interest in the civil war.
Did you see any of the militias activate?
Did any conservative militia activate?
Not that I know of.
I don't think so.
So I wouldn't worry about the Civil War.
All right. I'm just looking at an article that just got sent to me.
All right. I don't think I have much else.
And the Proud Boys?
You know, the Proud Boys are hard to talk about because you want to pigeonhole them and put them in a category.
But they just sort of defy categories.
Because you want to say, ah, it's a bunch of racists.
But then you find out it's a multi-ethnic group.
You're like, okay, that didn't quite explain who they are.
And then you say, they like to fight.
I think that's probably true.
They probably like to fight.
That might be the only thing that defines them.
Yeah I've been having quite a bit of trouble breathing in public with a mask on.
Does anybody get mask breathing panic?
Does that happen to any of you?
Where you feel like a little twinge of panic, basically, that you can't breathe just because you're wearing a mask?
I get that every time I put a mask on.
Usually I can fight through it, but it's not pleasant.
Yeah, I'm seeing some others say yes.
What did you hear about the Kraken privately?
Well, I can't tell you what I've seen privately, but I will tell you that there's a data argument that I haven't seen made yet.
And I don't know if that's because the people who are preparing it have given it to the lawyers and we haven't seen it, or maybe they found out it wasn't as strong as it could have been.
I don't know the details of that.
But I will tell you that there is a strong argument that exists.
That the public has not seen.
And every day that you don't see that you have to reduce your certainty that it even exists.
In other words, I think I've seen it.
I believe I've seen it with my own eyes, but you can't really look at a bunch of data and know that it's accurate.
You can't know that the context is right.
You can't really know what you saw.
So it's possible that the things I've seen are not as persuasive as they should be.
All right. Yeah, and the other thing I would say about our experience with this election is There are so many opportunities for mischief in an election, I had no idea how many different ways that cheating could happen.
So if it didn't happen, it would be pretty amazing.
Somebody says yes.
Oh yeah, a lot of people have that mask panic.
Now, I have asthma, so Anything that reminds me of breathing difficulty gets right into my lizard brain right away.
So I can't process that rationally because an inability to breathe goes right to your survival mechanism.
So it's tough to be rational about that.
Alright, so there's a claim that there are places with more votes than registered voters.
I feel that that claim will be debunked if it hasn't been.
Because wouldn't that be the end of the story?
If you had seen data that there are more votes than registered voters, and it was more than, let's say, one county or something that might have been a mistake, that would tell you a lot.
Wouldn't that be sort of the end of the game if you knew that that were the case?
And I've heard those stories, but yet I'm not seeing credible information on that, that that's a widespread thing.
It could be. They may not advance a data argument for the sake of the country.
No, the one thing I can tell you is that the people doing the data arguments will advance them.
So there's nobody on the data side who's going to sit on anything for the good of the country.
Because I don't think they think that that's necessarily the good of the country.
Yeah, somebody said that Code Monkey Z is going to release some evidence today.
So I think today's the day.
All right? If you don't see some good stuff today, I'd start worrying.
I'd start worrying after today.
Certainly after tomorrow.
If we get to the end of the week and you haven't seen anything, I would reduce my odds that you will ever see something to 50%.
So I'm at 95% that the election was stolen and we can prove it.
If it's the end of the week and I still haven't seen it, at least in public I haven't seen it, I'm going to lower that to 50%.
But we've got a few days.
days.
We'll see.
Did Scott strike out?
Strike out on what?
The link to the initial evidence is on Lin Wood's timeline.
Alright, I'll take a look at that.
So somebody says Lin Wood has a link to it.
Do you have to be registered to vote?
I don't know. I mean, I know there were some places that let you register and then vote.
So you could do same-day registration in some places.
So I don't know. I don't know if you were not a citizen.
Could you vote in some places?
I just don't know. The story about the German server is, I would say, highly unlikely to be true.
If you were to rank all of the stories we're hearing in terms of, well, on first look, how likely are they to be true?
I would put at the top of my list of fake news, the German server.
That would be number one as the least likely thing to be true.
The most likely thing to be true is any small story where one person voted and their vote didn't get counted or they find one flash drive that wasn't loaded.
So the small ones at least have a good chance of being true.
The big one, like the German server, I don't know.
I think that one's pretty unlikely.
Somebody says they bet the German server story is true.
I would take that bet. Am I being hunted yet?
Well, I have been threatened at my home by some stranger.
And I'm continually...
Bullied online by people saying I will pay and karma's going to get me and it'll all come back to me, etc.
So not directly as in I would have to act on it.
Somebody says no because they are not checking this year.
Checking what? Registration?
Somebody says Google Proud Boys and Iran.
If I Google the Proud Boys and Iran, will I find out that Iran is funding the Proud Boys?
That doesn't seem likely to me.
Because the Proud Boys are primarily patriots.
So whatever that Iran connection is that is alleged there, that doesn't sound real to me.
Somebody says, Scott failed bigly on election predictions.
Did I? Did I? The weird thing about this election is that you could guess or predict who got elected incorrectly and still be the best predictor.
You know how that's possible, right?
So in my case, I predicted that the professional polls, the ones that showed a big difference, were all fake.
That's a pretty big prediction, isn't it?
That's a pretty bold prediction.
That the main polls are just fake.
That they're not even close.
Was I right that the polling was atrocious?
Yeah. And that was a pretty bold prediction.
That did get the election at least close.
So the people who thought that Biden would walk away from it, even in the battlefield states, they were very wrong.
So the people who said that Biden would win, but he would win by this much, were wrong by this much.
If you're listening to this on audio, I'm holding my hands at a certain distance.
Now, I guessed the president wrong, but in terms of how wrong I was, I was only wrong this much, because the vote was close.
So even though I guessed the wrong winner in terms of the first draft of the count, even though I got that wrong, I was pretty close.
The people who got the right president were off by a mile, because they thought the polls were right.
In other words, Van Jones correctly thought that Biden would win, but he missed how much he would win by a mile.
I thought Trump would win, but it was kind of close election, so I was actually closer while being wrong, which is very similar to what Nate Silver would say of 2016, which is in the end the polls were actually kind of close.
So you can always make an argument with the data that you weren't as Now, I would also say that it is my personal belief as of Wednesday that the election was stolen.
So if you say that I was wrong in my prediction, I don't know that I was wrong.
Now, my more current prediction, the most recent one, was that in this coin flip the answer would be edge.
I did a comic about this a long time ago.
I think it was Dogbert or Dilbert, I can't remember.
They did a coin flip and one of them guessed it would land on its edge, and he guessed correctly.
I guessed that this election would turn into nobody won, or both of them won.
In other words, they would both be claimed as the president.
That was a pretty bold prediction.
Has anybody ever predicted that the winner of the presidential election would be both?
Nobody ever predicted that before, but I did, and I think we're there.
To me, it looks like we have two presidents who both have a claim, and they're both pretty good.
Biden's claim, of course, is strong, but I think Trump's claim is pretty darn strong and might get stronger.
So I'm still going to go with history will record that Trump won on votes, But it might record that Biden took the job because the media can just make whatever reality it wants, and it looks like that's the reality they want.
All right, that's all I got for now.
Somebody said, how did Trump win again if the election was stolen?
Simple. And I will talk to you tomorrow.
All right, Periscope is gone.
Any of you YouTubers have any questions for me?
Yeah, so Laurie is agreeing with me that history will record that they both won.
What did you hear about the Kraken privately?
Well, the things that I've heard privately are data arguments.
So in other words, There are alleged a number of irregularities that really couldn't be explained by anything but fraud.
There just isn't any second explanation for it.
Why am I giving YouTubers special treatment?
Don't you deserve it?
Trump's chance of a shadow presidency...
Well, the scariest Trump would be Trump in charge of a media entity.
Now, think about the fact that CNN is for sale, and Trump might be looking to own some media entity.
Trump could literally buy CNN with investors, etc., And he could fire all the CNN people he doesn't like and just use the network for his own network and just turned it into a conservative network.
That would be the ultimate revenge, buying CNN and firing everybody that didn't like him.
I don't think that's going to happen, by the way.
It would make more sense for him to just start his own thing.
Give you an example of the good stuff.
Well, I don't want to do that.
Because I don't want to tell you more than I should.
But it's a data argument.
Let's put it that way. What if Biden tries to take guns?
Civil war then?
It just won't happen.
Because there is not going to be a situation where somebody knocks on your door to take your gun.
It's just not going to happen.
It would be too dangerous.
I could see a situation where he would say, you can't buy one.
That might happen.
But it would also guarantee that Republicans take the Congress in 2022.
So I think that whatever Biden does might be a short-term situation.
Because I feel as though the writing is on the wall at this point.
the Republicans will take over the Congress in 2022 or 2024.
Yes, Cindy, you were right.
There will not be. Somebody says you live in a gated community.
I don't, actually. I do not live in a gated community.
I have a choice to live in a gated community.
But I don't like it because the gate is such a gigantic pain in the butt.
So I'm pretty secure here, so I don't need a gate.
