Episode 1192 Scott Adams: Is the Kraken Still Lackin? I Tell You What to Believe
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
RNC news conference on clear and viable path to victory
"Drop and Roll" election fraud technique
Impossible vote processing speeds?
CNN Nic Robertson's irresponsible claims
"Follow the science" is for the young and/or stupid
Claims big enough to change the election
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
For coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip, which some of you hate.
Some of you love.
Some of you need it.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except the kraken.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm. I can feel the kraken getting stronger every minute.
Well, we'll talk about the kraken, but let's get to important things first.
The most important thing on my schedule?
December 16th.
The sci-fi show The Expanse comes out with its next season.
Now, if you're a nerd like I am, that's pretty exciting.
Pretty exciting.
So look for The Expanse.
If you haven't watched that, there are several seasons already.
You can catch up.
Carly Fiorina made some news with this tweet.
She said, inadequate men in big jobs are always dangerous.
President Trump has cemented his legacy as an inadequate man who lacks the mental faculties and strength of character necessary for the job.
How many others will prove, by saying and doing nothing, that they too are inadequate?
I feel as though, Carly, this is first of all a sexist comment.
Because it does seem like you're focusing on the man part of this a little too much, if you know what I mean.
Because it could have said inadequate people in big jobs can do bad things.
Wouldn't that be fair?
Somebody could say inadequate people.
But if you say inadequate men in big jobs, it feels like a comment about men, doesn't it?
Doesn't it feel a little bit?
And you know that you could not have said this with the genders reversed, obviously.
You could not say inadequate women in big jobs.
Imagine tweeting that.
Imagine using the phrase inadequate women in big jobs.
It would be the end of your career.
Would it not? I mean, quite legitimately, that would be the end of your professional career if you ever tweeted something like that.
But she can do that.
But she doesn't limit it to the president, where you allow that people are going to be a little bit more hyperbolic, but rather she extends it to how many others?
Others? Who are the others?
Will prove, by saying and doing nothing, that they too are inadequate.
I feel as if she's talking about me.
Because, as a Trump supporter, would I be in this category of men who are proving themselves inadequate by not doing enough?
Well, Carly Fiorina, I don't know what is adequate and what is enough, but you are a despicable cunt, and I think you should disappear forever From the public.
Now, I use that C word cautiously.
She earned it. Come on, women.
Admit it. She earned it.
She earned it. All right.
I wouldn't use that word for anybody else, but I think she moved herself into a special category.
Where I think that word just sort of fits in this case.
She's a despicable human being.
There's an important news conference coming up, President says, at 12 Eastern, in which the RNC lawyers will be showing their very clear and viable path to victory.
Very clear and viable path to victory.
What do you think? Will it be persuasive?
We will talk about some of the things.
We'll get to that.
Jim Cramer on CNBC made some news referring to the two White Houses.
So, as you know, I made the most unusual prediction about this race.
Once we got closer to the election itself, I started saying It looks like we're going to have two presidents.
Jim Cramer is making the same observation now, that we'll have two White Houses in the conceptual sense.
But then he went further and said that he thinks that if it comes to it, and Trump decides not to leave, Jim Cramer believes that the U.S. Army would take Biden's side.
What do you think? If the U.S. Army got involved, would they take Biden's side?
Well, I'm going to say they won't get involved at all.
I don't think that they will get involved at all.
Somebody says, you love yourself, good grief.
Don't you? I don't understand the comment.
Should we not be loving ourselves?
Why don't you love yourself?
Is there something wrong with you?
That you don't love yourself?
Alright. Do you ever wake up and you're feeling a little too aggressive?
And you think to yourself, I better watch it today.
Because I feel like I just woke up feeling aggressive.
And if I don't take care of that, I have to exercise or something.
I've got to take down the temperature a little bit.
But here's my belief.
I don't think there's any chance the US Army military will be involved in the White House decision.
Don't think they will get involved.
But if they did, if you're treating it as a hypothetical, I think they would go with the consensus.
Meaning that if it looked like the process had elected Biden, they would probably back him.
But I don't think they'll get involved.
I don't think you have to worry about that.
Let's talk about some of the pieces of evidence.
Gateway Pundit It's talking about something they call the drop and roll.
Before I talk about any of these alleged claims about election fraud, let me remind you that my general framework for this is that there's a 95% chance that any individual claim of fraud is Just BS. So as I speak to each of these individual claims,
just know that in my head, I'm saying, there's a 95% chance that's not true.
But I do believe, and I'll talk about this later, that the election had some fraud.
We don't know how much yet. So the drop and roll, as the Gateway Punda is calling it, goes like this.
They drop a big bunch of votes that are presumed fraudulent, and then once it changes who's ahead, so it's the big drop, puts Biden ahead, and then all of the allegation is that that's the drop, and then the roll part is that all the precincts that haven't yet reported come in at the same ratio.
In other words, they're The coincidence that a whole bunch of different precincts would have exactly the same split is so unlikely that it couldn't happen naturally.
Now, the counter to that is that the Gateway Pundit is looking at the wrong column.
And that the column they're looking at is the cumulative percentages.
And after the big drop, which changes the percentages...
The little precincts that come in afterwards, even though they might be a little bit different, they're not big enough to change the overall cumulative percentage.
So if you're looking at the cumulative percentage not changing, you could say, well, that's the biggest coincidence in the world.
How could the average not change as you're continually adding data?
It would fluctuate, wouldn't it?
I mean, you'd think, but it doesn't.
But the counterargument is that it's because you're looking at the cumulative, which doesn't fluctuate that much, if you're only adding small amounts to it.
Do you think that the claim is stronger than the debunk?
This one I would say I don't have an opinion on, except for my general claim that 95% of all things will turn out to be false about the election.
But I don't know.
Without knowing the source of the data, without looking at the individual changes that are coming, I don't have an opinion about whether this drop and roll thing is true or not, but I'll throw it in the bin with the things that are 95% likely not to be true.
Could be. Could be.
I'm not debunking it.
I'm just saying it's in that category of things that you shouldn't automatically trust.
In the big news, Wayne County, which had at one point said, two Republicans said, we're not going to certify the vote in Wayne County, which would include Detroit, which would be a big, big deal for Michigan's overall vote.
But they were threatened and insulted and browbeaten by their By their peers, until I guess yesterday they had decided, all right, all right, all right, we will certify it.
And then after there was much public uproar, and probably because of it, I would guess, the two people who had agreed to certify rescinded their certification.
Now, it gets more complicated because I think they rescinded it after it was submitted, and I don't even think that their certification matters.
It might not matter.
I think it's the state that certifies, somebody said.
So there's some lawyer complication in this.
So the fact that they did not certify or that they reversed their certification doesn't really tell you which way it's going to go.
Because you need to know the details.
Maybe it ends up in court.
Who knows? But here's what I like about the story.
These two Republicans who were threatened They were threatened in public.
They decided that they would not live as people who had been cowed and threatened in public.
Good for them. Good for them.
And indeed, I think they should have reversed their certification just on principle.
Even if they didn't think they needed to, they should have done it on principle.
Because if you're being forced to To agree, at risk of threat, that's when you've got to go hard in the other direction.
You can't let that stand.
So I think we're happy that that got reversed.
The actual functional difference that it makes, maybe none.
Might not make any difference to anything.
But maybe it does.
We'll see. Can't you see at this point already...
That no matter what happens between now and forever, would you say that you can already predict the following will be true?
Are you ready? Can you predict that some large number of Republicans will believe that the election was fraudulent no matter what happens from today on?
Who's with me?
Would you agree that Republicans are just not going to be convinced Doesn't matter how much evidence is presented to debunk the claims.
The Republicans are going to say, okay, there were 25 claims and you've allegedly debunked all 25, but I'll bet there's another 50 things you didn't find.
Right? No Republican is going to believe it was a legitimate election.
It just can't happen. There's no...
There's no way to get there.
Because you can't prove a negative.
In other words, nobody can give you a piece of proof and show it to you and say, there it is.
Look at this. There you go.
There's your proof that there was no fraud.
Because you can't prove it doesn't exist.
You can only know you didn't find it.
And in an election with so many complications and precincts and different systems involved and different people, you can never know if you found it.
You can never know if you've looked hard enough to find it.
It's unknowable.
So we don't have a way to get past this.
We will have a president.
We will have one president eventually.
But we don't have any system for this.
We'll figure it out.
You know, it's not going to be the end of the republic.
We'll figure it out. But there's no way we can get to the end of this without people thinking that Trump was really elected president.
It just can't be done at this point.
All right. Here's another rumor that's being debunked.
I guess officials in our government are debunking the claim that the US Army seized some election-related servers in Germany.
You heard that story?
Allegedly, the CIA and the army seized some German servers that had our election data on it, and that is being denied.
Now, the fact that it's being denied...
Does that mean it didn't happen?
Nope. It doesn't mean that.
But we do have a debunk from an official source.
If I had to bet on it, if you said, Scott, we can't know if it's true or know if it's really debunked, but what would you bet on?
And I would say, I would put a pretty large bet on that not being true, that there was no server that got captured by the U.S. military.
That's just my feeling about that.
What about the hammer and scorecard software?
What's your current feeling about whether those claims are true, that there's software built into the Dominion and maybe other systems, which is designed for the purpose of throwing an election and changing the votes?
Do you believe that's true?
I'm going to go with my 95% likelihood it's not true.
Okay? 95% likelihood, just because it's still in that category of all of these claims, 95% of them are just not going to be true.
So this is just another one.
There's no direct proof of it, meaning that I can't look at it myself.
You know, I haven't examined the code But we do have individuals who say it's true.
So there is some witness testimony, but they don't actually show you something.
They're just talking.
Are they credible?
Not really. Not really.
Doesn't mean they're lying, but they're not in that category of people you'd say, oh yeah, if that person says it, If you hear from this person, that's true.
We don't have that kind of witness.
We have the kind of witness you'd say to yourself, could be true, but I'm not going to believe it just because I'm hearing it from this one or two people.
So let me separate the question of whether a hammer and scorecard are real from the related but different question Of whether the system could have been gamed or hacked in general.
My belief is that the odds of the system being gamed or hacked or, you know, somehow fraudulently manipulated in general is very high.
Closer to 100%.
The odds of these specific claims and those specific pieces of software are probably low.
Here's my feeling.
If you were smart enough to pull off this kind of fraud, wouldn't you do it better?
Would it be so obvious?
And it seems to me that since this hammer and scorecard thing were already out there as a thing, that you'd find some different, more clever way to do it, writing different software or something.
Because that's what they would be looking for, is the hammer and the scorecard.
So I don't put too much...
Trust in those specific claims, but I do believe that the election is fraudulent to some degree.
I don't know if it's enough to change the election result, but I would say with complete certainty there is fraudulent and fraud in the system somewhere.
Russell James, I don't know who he is exactly, but he seems to be technically capable and has said...
Based on his analysis, that at least in one portion of the reported voting, there were more ballots processed within the time frame than the equipment is designed to handle.
So he's saying, we know these are fraudulent because you couldn't even process this many votes in this short a time.
Is that, generally speaking, the kind of claim, the class of things...
That if you were to fast forward into the future, you would find out it had been debunked, or you would find out it had been true.
Not based on the specifics of this, but that general kind of claim that it was physically impossible to do something technologically.
How reliable is a claim that something was technologically not possible in terms of timing?
Specifically in terms of timing.
I would say that is a very low credibility.
My guess is that this falls into the category of things that later you find out, oh, they had upgraded the system, or They didn't really process them all in that hour.
They only reported some of the things that had been processed earlier.
Or we have more processing equipment than was reported.
Or the timing of when it was actually done is different.
Or 10,000 different explanations.
So if I had to put in odds on this one, again, Again, without saying it's necessarily false, how would I know?
I'm going to say it's in the category of things that are 95% likely to be false.
Okay? Again, there's probably fraud, but the specific claims, probably not.
How about the Minnesota spike, the 4 a.m.
Minnesota spike? Is that proof of fraud, or has it been debunked?
Well, the president tweeted out that claim, I think yesterday, and a lot of credible people are looking at that and saying, how do you get this gigantic dump of votes all in four in the morning, and they're mostly, very, very much mostly for Biden?
Looks a little suspicious, doesn't it?
Well, USA Today attempted to debunk that by saying that we expected that spike, and all it was is they counted the votes in a Biden territory, and once you have the votes from the biggest city that you know is going to go strongly for Biden, that's all it was.
That's all it was.
You were waiting for a big population center, and then it came in.
And you already knew that that big population center would vote quite overwhelmingly for Biden, and they did.
So where's the fraud?
The bump was just what they expected, and the outcome was what they expected, too.
Where's the fraud? Well, here's the problem.
The claim is not demonstrated, at least not proven, by the data that we have so far.
In other words, the fact that there's a big bump at 4 a.m.
doesn't prove anything. Would you agree?
Simply the fact that a metropolitan area got counted and reported at 4 in the morning by itself doesn't mean anything.
I think you'd agree. Also, by itself, the fact that most of them were Biden votes, that alone also doesn't prove anything.
Because you already knew that city was going to go Biden.
But here's what you don't know.
How many were there supposed to be?
So there's this, you know, if you see it on a chart, you see these little bumps coming in for the smaller areas reporting, and then there's this gigantic surge, which is, was it Minneapolis?
I forget, Milwaukee or someplace?
But how big was that big surge supposed to be?
Does anybody know? Was that surge 20% bigger than the number of voters?
How would you know?
If I were going to fix this election, I wouldn't necessarily do it by faking a gigantic surge of votes at 4 a.m., because that would be a little bit obvious.
But suppose I thought to myself, there's this big batch that's going to come in at 4 a.m., it's legitimate, But if I added 20% in the same ratio as the rest, would anybody notice?
See, here's what you wouldn't want to do.
You wouldn't want to add so many Biden votes that it's so far different than the poll numbers that it's obviously fake.
So you wouldn't want to have 99% Biden votes, right?
Too obvious. Let's say the votes that were natural were 75-25.
I don't know what they were, but let's say that.
75-25.
If you were going to add some fake votes, you would just make them also 75-25.
It would be invisible.
Because nobody knows how many votes there were supposed to be.
Because we did it differently this year.
There's no baseline, no history to look at, because we didn't do this many mail-in votes before.
So the perfect crime is Is to go for the biggest batch of votes that were already going to go to Biden and just make it bigger.
Right? Now, what evidence do I have that that's what happened?
None. None.
I don't have any evidence that that happened.
I'm just telling you, if you were going to do a crime, you would do it the smart way.
And it's pretty obvious what the smart way is.
Don't make it 100% Biden votes.
Go where there's already a lot of votes and you don't know what the number is supposed to be.
Add 20%.
That's how I'd do it.
How would you do it?
Right? Somebody says it was obvious, and I don't think you're right on that.
I don't think it was obvious.
I think it feels obvious.
But there was going to be a big bunch of Biden votes...
As soon as those votes came in, it was going to happen.
You just don't know how big it was going to be.
All right. Let's talk about Benford's Law.
Some of you know about this.
Benford's Law has to do with the fact that certain digits will naturally occur more often than others.
For example, the digit 1, if you're looking at lots of random numbers, there should be more of the digit 1 than there would be of other digits.
Now, I don't know exactly why that makes sense, but apparently there's something to it.
So when you do the Benford analysis on the votes, it looks like it violates Benford's law.
So it looks like they're unnatural, which would suggest that somebody rig them.
But... Experts on data analysis have weighed in and said that Bedford Law doesn't work all the time.
And one of the cases in which it wouldn't work is exactly this one, where you have a cap on the number of votes.
And they're roughly evenly divided between two parties, Democrats and Republicans.
Under that specific situation, say some number of experts, I don't know if it's all of them or some of them, say some experts, Benford's law does not apply because you have this artificial situation with a cap on the number of votes and the fact that you already know it's about 50-50-ish.
I don't know. I'm no expert in this area, so I will just tell you that there is a debunk being offered that sounds to me as strong as the original claim.
I would say, ah, I can't tell if the original claim sounds good, but I also can't tell if the debunk sounds good.
I call it a tie, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that Benford thing.
Pfizer says that their vaccination is 95% effective.
This comes soon after, was it, Moderna said that their vaccination was 94.5% effective.
And Pfizer had before said they think it's better than 90%.
And coincidentally, and this is just a wonderful coincidence, when Pfizer looked a little more closely At their claim that their vaccinations were over 90% effective.
What a coincidence.
They found out that it was just a little bit better than their competition.
So you can trust that, can't you?
Speaking of coincidental numbers.
But let's be positive and say that that's probably true-ish.
It's in that category.
And now... Now that it looks like Biden has more votes, you see the news is willing to say that if you've had the virus once, you probably do have long-term immunity.
So now that people think that Trump will not be re-elected, now they're willing to say, yeah, you were probably right about that, that long-term immunity.
Don Lemon is up to his old tricks of mind-reading the president.
I watched a clip of him saying that Trump, quote, knows he lost.
Does Don Lemon know, does he know, that Trump knows he lost?
Because I don't think he knows he lost.
Now, I also can't read his mind, but I would say that the claim that he knows he lost It's just crazy talk.
It's crazy talk.
He's certainly not acting like he lost, and there are certainly tons of claims.
If you had to say, based on what you know of this president, does he believe he lost?
I think he believes it's possible, but there's so many claims of fraud, I think he believes he won if I had to put money on it.
But again, since I'm not insane...
I'm not going to try to imagine what somebody thinks.
CNN is doing this clever trick.
So Nick Robertson had a piece on CNN.com.
This is a sentence from his piece.
He says, while Trump wages a legal fight at home over what he falsely alleges is election fraud, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, this is a news site.
It's a news site, so they deal in facts.
Now, even though it's an opinion piece, if you run an opinion piece on a news site, the news editors are probably going to weigh in if you say something that's just not true.
So you can be opinion-y, but it's a news site.
They don't want you putting stuff in there that's not real.
And Nick Robertson was allowed to publish a statement that says...
That the president is falsely alleging election fraud.
How does anybody know that?
How does anybody know it's false?
Nobody knows that.
You could have an opinion.
You could think, I think when it's all done, there won't be that much fraud to change the election.
That would be reasonable. Might be right, might be wrong, but it's reasonable.
But let me tell you what is just...
Flat out not reasonable to say that the president's claims of fraud are false.
You can't say that.
You can say it might turn out that way.
But how in the hell does Nick Robertson know what the election software says?
Has Nick Robertson done a line-by-line code check to find out there's nothing in that software?
Has he counted the ballots himself?
How in the world does he come to this conclusion that it's false?
Here's what would have been fair.
It would have been fair to say...
He makes these allegations.
The legal system is looking into it.
CNN cannot confirm any of these allegations to be true.
That would be fair, right?
But to just flat out say they're false while the process is ongoing and nobody really knows the answer of whether it's false is really irresponsible for a news organization.
Even as an opinion, it's irresponsible.
Alright, here's the best brainwashing trick the Democrats are using on you right now.
And it's basically that.
So the best brainwashing trick is that because the courts have not confirmed any fraud in the election, it is therefore proven not to exist.
That's what they're trying to convince you.
That while the process is ongoing, and we don't know how it's going to end, Because the court has not yet ruled that there's definitely fraud, that's proof it's not there.
Now that is, that's some pretty devious brainwashing.
Because it's not rational.
They can only prove they haven't found it.
But they also aren't looking for it, are they?
Is CNN doing a code review of the software?
Don't think so. Where would you hide any mischief if you were going to rig an election?
Where would it be? Where would you hide the signs of that?
In the code. It'd be in the software.
That'd be one of the places.
You could also do it with paper ballots.
So, if CNN isn't looking into it, and there's nobody else looking at the code as far as I know, right?
Can anybody do a fact check on me?
Is there anybody doing a line-by-line software review of all the software that was involved in this election?
No. I don't think so.
I feel like we'd know about that.
So nobody's looking for it.
So to say that we haven't looked for it and we didn't find it, therefore it doesn't exist, they're actually selling you that.
And people are buying it.
A lot of people are buying it.
Amazingly. And they're also pretending, with this word widespread, we've talked about this before, they're trying to make the claim that there's no widespread fraud, meaning it's not under every rock and everywhere.
But nobody's making that claim.
The claim is it's in strategically selected cities, because that's where you can make the difference.
There's only a few places you can make a difference.
So the claim is that's the place it's happening.
The claim is not widespread.
Nobody makes that claim.
So they're debunking a non-claim.
So here's my opinion.
For a normal crime, say a burglary or a murder, if you saw nothing missing from your house, you would probably eventually conclude you had not been robbed.
If you did not find any dead bodies or any signs that anybody is missing, Could you conclude that a murder had not been committed?
Well, you can't be 100% sure, but you can be pretty sure.
There's no body, and there's not even a claim of a body.
So a lack of evidence in those cases would be not proof, but pretty good sense of certainty that there's no actual crime.
But those crimes, burglary and murder, are very different from this big, complicated election situation.
For the election situation, I think you have to look at the situation.
And if the situation is one in which it will always go in one direction, because that's the situation, then you don't have to find proof that it went in that direction, because there's only one way it could go.
Let me give you an example. If you live in a bad part of town where there's a lot of crime, and you leave your front door open, and then you go on vacation for two weeks, Do you have to check to find out if a crime happened and your apartment was robbed?
Remember, you're in a high crime neighborhood, you left your door open all day and all night, and nobody was home.
Do you have to check to find out if you were robbed?
No! No, you don't have to check.
You were robbed.
Because the situation is one in which it can only go one way.
There's only one way that can go, right?
Now, nothing's impossible, so maybe you could imagine there's some chance it didn't happen, but you should assume it happened.
Now, the election...
Has a huge upside potential if you can rig it and get away with it.
So it's like the biggest gain you could make would be fixing an election.
So it's a big payoff.
That's one requirement.
Secondly, it's feasible.
We've heard how many, like 15 different ways to rig an election.
It's certainly feasible.
At the very least, you could get an insider working at one of these election software companies.
You could bribe them or threaten them until they put in some code.
So it's feasible.
We just haven't seen it in a way that's court-proven.
But definitely feasible.
Huge upside gain.
Lots of complication.
And lots of people involved.
And when you have lots of people involved, that's the part that guarantees you can find somebody willing to take a chance.
Because if you have enough people, you can get somebody...
Who's willing to do absolutely anything.
You just need enough people.
And the election system has lots of people.
So you're going to have crooks, because you've got lots of people.
You've got opportunity to fix it, and it's the biggest gain you could ever imagine, you know, fixing an election.
So in my view, it had to happen.
Whether or not you can find this specific proof is somewhat immaterial.
It had to happen.
And when you add to the fact that half the country thought they were looking at a second term of Hitler, of course it happened.
It couldn't not happen.
We just don't know how much.
That's the only question.
The only question is, was it enough?
I did a little mask survey on my Twitter accounts.
So this is very unscientific.
And I asked people if they think masks work.
I was interested in what the net effect of all the conflicting news is.
Here's what you said, keeping in mind that most of my Twitter followers are Trump-supporting people, but 63% said masks do not work.
Now this is just people, not science, right?
Just people. 15% say they do.
And 22% said some form of maybe.
Maybe they do. I'm in the maybe category, meaning that I can't know, but maybe.
Maybe. So here's my question.
We've seen lots of studies about masks, right?
Or at least you know they exist, if you haven't read them.
There are studies that say masks might work.
There are studies that say masks don't work.
So let's say you want to be a pro-science person, and you want to follow the science.
What do you do? What do you do?
Because there's science that says they work, and there's science that says they don't work.
So how do you follow the science?
What's that even mean?
So the Democrats who like to say, follow the science, and Joe Biden says that, is some of the dumbest things anybody could ever say.
Follow the science assumes, first of all, you can determine which science to follow.
And you can't.
You're just sort of guessing.
And secondly, it assumes that the scientists and the people putting together the studies are credible and do not have a dog in the fight.
But they usually do.
Half of studies end up not being valid.
So anybody who says follow the science, they're either very young or stupid.
Because that mantra, follow the science, feels like really bad advice.
Like, really bad advice.
What you should do is be really, really careful about following the science.
Wouldn't that be better? Instead of, follow the science, follow the science, follow the science.
They don't follow the science.
We follow the science.
They don't follow the science.
That's all we're getting now, and it's just flat-down stupid.
Smarter is be very careful.
Be very careful About following the science.
You want to look at it.
You definitely want to look at it.
And you want to keep working toward refining it and getting it as credible as it can be.
But follow science is for suckers and idiots.
It really is.
Consider it important to look at and make sure you understand it and all that.
Very important. But follow it blindly?
That would be for stupid people.
Not you. You're all smart.
There's a New York Times op-ed by Kristoff.
I don't think he's been a big Trump supporter in the past, but he says this.
Some things are true even though President Trump says them.
Great way to start an article.
Quote, Nicholas Kristof, I think, is his first name.
Quote, Now, how big a deal is that?
It's a pretty big deal. Because if you're going to blame Trump for the United States having a high coronavirus infection rate, and people do, you're going to have to also give him credit for getting this thing right when, remind me, hold on, remind me, the people who said to close the schools, were they following the science?
Yeah, they were. They were.
They thought they were.
That's the problem. They thought they were following the science.
But were they?
No. There was a little bit of science, and then people used their subjective opinion, and they followed their subjective opinion.
That's what they followed.
They never followed the science Because apparently the science was pointing in the other direction.
So what science they were following was either wrong or incomplete or not credible or out of context or something.
So here's a perfect example.
Joe Biden followed the science.
And he would have said, keep the schools closed, follow the science.
Who would have been right?
Trump or Biden?
Trump would have been right...
Because the science caught up to Trump.
That's what Kristoff is saying.
The science caught up with Trump.
Now, Trump, of course, was not making, per se, a scientific claim.
He was saying that kids don't have symptoms as much.
But he was making the larger claim that, on balance, it's better to take this risk.
And science caught up to him.
So I feel as though if you're going to give him the blame for the death count, you also have to give science the blame for destroying a year of our children's lives.
Right? That's not on Trump.
That's on science.
So if you're keeping score...
Science is a tie on masks, because at first they said no, then they said yes, and now we're seeing studies coming out that say no and yes.
So on masks, I would say science versus Trump, it's kind of a tie.
I think it's a maybe, so I'd say still wear them, but Trump said that too.
Trump also said, you know, we don't know.
I'm pro-mask. Go ahead and wear them.
I think Trump was as right as science was on masks.
I think on lockdowns of the economy, we're also seeing studies that say those don't work.
Are those studies credible?
No, because 100% of the studies you see about coronavirus are not credible.
None of them. You know, I hope the vaccines are credible, at least At least with the vaccines, they set it up so they can measure something that's measurable.
So that's probably credible.
But pretty much all of these studies about masks and lockdowns and kids in schools and pretty much all of that is not credible.
And there will be studies on both sides.
All right.
So Trump was right on something pretty, pretty big, the school stuff, according to Christoph, and I think he's right on that.
I'm seeing people tweeting that they're worried about how to unbrainwash Trump supporters after Trump is out of office.
Somebody says, Scott, don't let the COVID-19 hype panic you.
I wouldn't say I'm panicked or frightened in any strange way.
If you were to compare how much I'm afraid, if I could use that word, afraid to capture nervous or concerned, all those things.
If you said, how afraid am I of the coronavirus today?
Versus, let's say, March or April of this year.
I would say in March or April, it was kind of like a 9 out of 10 for my personal safety.
Like, I was really worried.
I don't want to get this because I could die.
You know, I've got a certain age, etc.
Today, I almost have no fear.
Now, that's not because I shouldn't have fear, and I'll still use my common sense to take all the right precautions that make sense in my opinion, but I've lost basically all of my fear.
Is anybody else having the same reaction?
And it's not that the science changed that much.
I would say that my risk of getting it is roughly what it was before.
My risk of dying is roughly exactly what I thought it was back in the earlier months.
I'm looking at the comments.
I'm seeing a lot of people agreeing.
Remember I told you, and I tell you this too much, you can get used to anything if you do it long enough.
You can get used to bad things if you do it long enough.
You can get used to good things, of course, fairly easily.
So I feel as though what happened is we just lived with the virus long enough that it has started to take more of a perspective and we can see it better in context with all of our other risks.
And I would say my fear, the irrational fear, I still have a mental fear, meaning that my brain knows to stay away from COVID. It's not like I don't know that there's a danger.
But my physical part, where you're irrationally shaking, you know, I never got to that point.
But, you know, the part where you can't control the subjective, the irrational part, it's kind of gone.
It's gone. Now, part of it is this.
Years ago, when I had a surgery to correct my vocal problems, the surgery had an 85% chance of working, 15% chance of making me permanently unable to talk.
But that choice was easy to take with no fear whatsoever, because the alternative was worse.
So as long as the alternative is worse, it's pretty easy to make a decision to do the right thing.
And with the coronavirus, living as a prisoner is worse than the risk of getting the disease and maybe having a bad outcome.
So once you get to the point where you just say, you know, it might kill me, and I'm still willing to go to the store.
It might kill me, and I'd still rather be a free human being who can go to the store.
So the fear just goes away once you realize it's just that's your life.
You've got to live with it. All right, so I was talking about the unbrainwashing of the Trump supporters, and here's what would really help if you wanted to Let's imagine that they're being sincere, the Democrats, when they say they want to brainwash or unbrainwash Trump supporters.
What would be a good way to start?
How about not lying about 100% of the things you talk about?
I mean, that would be a start.
If you want Trump supporters to trust Democrats or trust their message or their ideas or anything, the place to start would be to stop lying about Everything.
Just everything.
If you don't start there, don't bother.
Don't bother. Don't try to convince Trump supporters that they need to be fixed.
Because you know who needs to be fixed?
Carly Fiorina needs to be fixed.
She needs to be fixed really bad.
Don Lemon? Don Lemon needs some help.
He needs to be fixed.
But Trump supporters? Do they need to be unbrainwashed?
I don't think so.
Were they causing a lot of violence?
Were Trump supporters hurting people and rioting?
Nope. Nope.
Do you know who needs to be unbrainwashed?
The people who were looting and burning black-owned businesses to support less racism.
There's a lot of people who need to be fixed and unbrainwashed.
And really, you could argue everybody could benefit from that.
We're all a little brainwashed, right?
You don't have the option of being the one person who didn't get a little bit brainwashed by life.
So we're all a little brainwashed.
We could all use a little less brainwashing.
Might be good for all of us.
But you would have to be a little bit credible to be part of that process.
And Democrats have not earned that credibility.
All right. Here's the most fun thing of the day that I thought I wrote down, but maybe I didn't.
But luckily I remember it.
Rasmussen has some numbers coming out.
I don't think that they're public yet, but I got a little sneak peek.
What percentage of Democrats do you believe...
Think that it is very likely or at least a little bit likely, somewhat likely.
What percentage of Democrats think it's somewhat or very likely that the election was fraudulent?
Give me your your guesses in the comments.
All right, so your guesses in the comments and look at each other's guesses.
How many Democrats Think the election was stolen.
I'm going to read down some of your comments.
I'm seeing 45%, 1%, 0, 0, 15, 30, 5, 10, 5.
The answer is 30%.
Just let that hang there for a little while.
Democrats. Democrats.
30% of them think the election was fraudulent.
30% of them.
What's that tell you?
You can't even convince Democrats that this was a fair election?
I mean, work with me here, right?
I mean, Democrats are spring-loaded to say, oh yeah, that was fair.
That was a fair election right there.
Got just what we wanted.
And 30% of them can't get there.
Even 30% of Democrats know there's something fishy going on.
Now, it's not specific enough that they would necessarily believe it would change the election outcome.
So that part is not in the question.
But 30% of them think there's at least opportunity and motive for that.
Now, should you be surprised?
Remember, this is a category of people, Democrats, In which probably 80% of them believe that Trump is an existential threat and would destroy the planet Earth.
So if you were in a group who believed that there was a chance Trump would destroy life on Earth, and you knew your other Democrats and how they felt about it, yeah, you would think that they would cheat.
You would expect your fellow Democrats to cheat.
And indeed, if they had to take the day off and you were to fill in for them at the election vote counting place or whatever, you'd probably cheat too.
If you think you're saving the world.
So, yeah. Even the Democrats feel that something was going on here.
I think that's all you need to know, isn't it?
I feel like that one data point summed up the entire everything.
Because, you know, we're going to argue forever about this allegation, that allegation, this allegation, that allegation.
But when 30% of Democrats even don't believe the vote, eh...
You don't need to talk about the details so much.
Now, let me give you my Kraken update.
So I've seen the details of the Nevada Legal Challenge, which is just updated, I guess.
And the Nevada Challenge has a lot of claims on it.
A lot of claims.
And each of those claims is backed up With a witness or some data or some direct observation or video or whatever.
So they have evidence and they got a lot of claims.
Here's the problem with the claims though.
When I read the legal description of the claims, it's written for a legal process.
The legal process has its own requirements of how you do things.
So when I read through it, it looked well-written and very clear in terms of what it was trying to allege.
But in terms of persuasion outside of the legal system, it wasn't that kind of a document.
So it left me thinking, I don't know what to think about this.
Because the claims look credible.
Some of them look pretty big, like they would be big enough to change the result.
But what they didn't do is the part that I needed.
Because I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge.
I'm just... You know, a guy.
And what I needed was to see the bullet points of the claims with the number of votes that it could have affected and a total at the bottom, like a summary.
So it would say, all right, claim one could affect up to 500 votes.
Let's say a claim that dead people voted.
It's not enough to change the election.
But it does tell you That there was intention to cheat, right?
So if you found that 500 dead people voted in Nevada wouldn't change any of the election outcomes, but it would tell you something.
It would tell you that there was an intention to cheat, and that when they found a way to do it, they took it.
That tells you something, right?
So if you see, you know, I don't know how many claims there were, six to ten claims somewhere in that neighborhood.
And if you see them all, and then you see the number of votes, that could be very compelling.
Because I need to see that subtotal.
But if you see it in a long form text of this claim is this, and here's why, and then we go on to the next one, my head can't put them all together.
So here's the takeaway from the legal document.
My takeaway was, I saw big claims that would be big enough to change the election.
But I did not see, this is just me personally, I did not see all the evidence to back up those claims.
So I can't say that I've seen the Kraken.
Because I've seen big claims, but I haven't personally seen the Kraken.
The evidence. And then there are a number of smaller claims that also look pretty credible.
Pretty credible. But you haven't heard the other side.
Remember, in a legal context, every claim sounds credible at first.
They really do. Doesn't matter who's saying what about whom.
First claims, they kind of always sound credible.
You've got to wait for the other side to talk.
And so if you're just looking at what the Trump people are alleging, yes, it looks very credible.
Yes, it looks credible.
I don't know what number of votes would be influenced.
That's the part that needs a little more connecting material.
But again, you probably don't need that for the legal process.
You do need it for the persuasion game and the political game.
So I hope we see that at some point.
Here's my take on this.
If we're not learning something new today, I'm going to lower my slaughter meter.
So by the end of today, I've got it set at 97.
97% chance that we'll at least find that the election was fraudulent.
Won't necessarily mean that Trump takes a second term, but 97% chance we'll find the election fraudulent.
I will lower that to 75% at the end of today if there's no new news that changes that.
And by Friday, I'll lower it again to 50%.
Again, if I haven't heard new information that would raise it.
You should be doing the same thing in your minds.
Because you don't want to be caught Thinking there was a 100% chance that this is going to be proven, and then a month from now you've got nothing?
You want to give yourself a little bit of the cats on the roof?
You want to talk yourself out of your belief gently, because nobody else is going to be able to talk you out of it.
So you need to be able to talk yourself out of it if the evidence is not going your way eventually, right?
There's a time and a place, and we're not there yet.
At the moment...
I'm perfectly willing to say the reason you haven't seen the good stuff is because it takes a while.
This would take months.
If this were a normal process, they would take months to research this.
They've got a few weeks.
So I wouldn't put too much weight on the fact that you haven't seen conclusive proof yet.
It just hasn't been enough time.
But if you're not seeing it by Friday-ish, I'm going to feel that that tells you something, right?
And I'll lower it to 50% on Friday.
Now, if next week I'm down to 20%, which is entirely possible, and then it turned out that the election didn't find any major fraud and Biden just took office, at least I would not be in cognitive dissonance.
I would still think that there was fraud in the election, because there always has to be in this setup, but I wouldn't know that it changed the result, and I wouldn't necessarily make that claim.
So I'm in the process of talking myself off the roof, just in case.
Because I want to be in a position where if the data doesn't go in my way, the way I think it should go, that I'm not out there like a crazy person saying, it was 100%, 100%.
Don't be the 100% person.
Be the 95% person.
All right. I do think there's a very good chance that the legal process will force more audits.
I think the odds of that are pretty good.
And I think that's all they need.
Because if they can buy time, force an audit, force a digger, digger, a deeper dig, they'll find something.
All right. Somebody says, of course it changed the result.
That's why they did it. Well, they couldn't have known in advance how much to cheat.
So you can be sure that people tried.
You can't be sure they succeeded.
The question is, with what you've seen, do you think it is enough?
With what I've seen, I've not seen proof.
So I've seen allegations of things that look really very credible...
In other words, if you added them together, they probably wouldn't change the outcome.
And I've seen big claims that would change the outcome, but I haven't personally seen something that puts me on that team.
I think there's a 100% chance that the voting software system has been At least attempted by somebody, foreign powers, Democrats, bad actors, whoever.
But somebody has, of course, tried to compromise the voting system.
There's no doubt about that.
You know, over years and years and years, and all the bad actors in the world, and all the opportunities they would have, and the fact that it's software at all guarantees that somebody's going to take a run at it.
What we don't know is if they've already succeeded.
If you wait long enough The bad actors will get control of the election process.
They will. It's kind of unavoidable.
Because they can keep trying and failing forever.
They only have to succeed once.
And then they own it.
Let me talk about the big reset.
I think the big reset is just a bunch of bullshit.
And you should just ignore all of it.
That's what I'm doing. The big reset, here's my problem with it.
It is true that people in power are saying out loud that the coronavirus gives us an opportunity to sort of reboot society and rethink how we do everything.
But that's just true.
That's not a plan.
That's just an observation.
It's the first thing that I and lots of people said when the pandemic started.
I'm not part of some big reset Plan to take over the world.
But it was obvious to me that a whole bunch of things would be different and that we should take the opportunity to say, hey, if everything's up in the air for a few months, let's redesign some stuff.
Let's see what else we can do.
So if you're worried about the Great Reset is how the socialists take over, I think everybody looks to take advantage of a crisis.
Well, I don't know that there's a meeting somewhere where they're having big reset strategy meetings.
I wouldn't... He says, Scott, you're missing on this point.
Klaus Schwab.
Is Klaus Schwab somebody I can look at?
I'm sure that if I look at it, I'll find that there's somebody who says it's my plan to do the Great Reset and change the world.
But because it was somebody's plan, it doesn't mean much.
Because the pandemic was going to happen.
And it was going to change things.
It was just going to happen.
I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Alright, that's enough for now.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
You YouTubers are still here.
Periscope is turned off.
You know, one of the things I've noticed when I look at the comments, there's a real difference between the YouTube comments and the Periscope comments.
The Periscope comments are mostly people who follow me on Twitter, and so they tend to be friendlier.
The YouTube comments are far more trolls.
And the trolls that are the dumbest are the ones who imagine they know what I'm thinking.
Or they imagine they know what I know.
And those are just always ridiculous.
You don't know what I'm thinking.
You don't know what I know.
Or what I don't know.
Yeah, people are more crass here.
here.
I think just YouTube is a bigger platform so it brings in more people.
Alright, just looking at my printer update.
I could not get my printer to work this morning.
I had to use a different printer.
And I'm going to probably try once to upgrade the drivers, but after that I'm going to throw it out of the window.
People who stuff ballots broke the law and should be charged...
Of course they should. Um...
Where's the right place to look for fraud?
Well, the right place is with the paper ballots, and then the second right place is with the software.
That's a big statement.
You have to look at the paper ballots.
But things you should look for, for example, how many ballots do you think should have been sent to the same address?
If there's somebody who got 50 ballots at the same address, I'd look into that.
And there's some claims of that sort of thing.
Klaus Schwab runs Davos, somebody say.
I'll Google him.
But I'm pretty sure it's not going to change my opinion that the Great Reset is just wishful thinking.
All right.
Yeah, Trump's thing is going to be in an hour, so let's make sure we're ready for that.
But...
Oh, some are saying that the Build Back Better is the great reset language.
Now, I would say, so I have some special insight on that Build Back Better thing.
It goes like this.
As a professional creative person, you know, I write jokes for a living, And you would be amazed how many times I will write a joke, and I'm positive I'm the only person who could have thought of that joke, and I'll see somebody saying the same joke in an hour.
It happens all the time.
So there are things that you think, there's no way two people independently thought of this.
It happens all the time.
And then if somebody puts it out there, other people see it, maybe they don't remember they saw it, But it sticks in their head, then they're coming up with their own ideas, and they use it, but they don't remember they saw it.
Let me give you an example. Years ago, I did a comic about a fake opera singer.
And in my comic, this was a Dilbert comic from 25 years ago, I said that the name of the fake opera singer was Placebo Domingo.
Now, his real name was Placido Domingo, But the joke was that he was a fake opera singer named Placebo Domingo.
Now, I wrote that comic and finished it and was ready to submit it.
And before I had submitted it, I picked up the newspaper and there was a comic strip called Travels with Farley in it.
And I look at the newspaper and that day in the newspaper for that day was a comic in which he talked about a fake opera Opera singer named Placebo Domingo.
That day, while my comic was sitting next to me, that day's newspaper had my joke, Placebo Domingo, and by the way, it was not suggested by anything that was happening in current events.
It was literally, my mother used to listen to him, Placebo Domingo, and so it was a name in my head.
It was nothing that triggered both of us to think of it at the same time.
What I'm telling you is that coincidences that look like they couldn't possibly be a coincidence happen all the time in my work.
The number of times I'll do a comic and then see somebody make exactly the same comic, It's a lot.
It's a lot. So my comic, I did not submit.
I threw it away. I trashed mine.
Because I knew that if I printed it, everybody would say, well, you just copied his comic.