Episode 1196 Scott Adams: The Kraken and Bigfoot Still Missing. The Bad Guys Are Hunting Me and Election Predictions
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The real war in progress, beneath the fake news
White House statement on Sidney Powell
"Not physically possible" to hack Dominion software?
Venezuelan whistleblower disinformation play
Chinese government person trolling me
Pardons on deck?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Probably the highlight of your whole week, if not your year.
It's been a crappy year, so it doesn't take much to be the highlight.
And all you need to make it better is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens when?
Now. Yeah, that's good stuff.
I feel the Republic getting stronger with each sip.
Shall we talk about the things, all the things that are happening?
Sure. Can we agree as a country on one thing?
Just one thing. We disagree on so many things, but can we agree on this one thing?
Trump is Trump.
Trump is not sometimes Bernie Sanders.
Trump is not occasionally Joe Biden.
Trump wakes up as Trump and he's Trump all day long.
And so all the people who are saying, I think he should concede while there is still a technical way he could prevail.
Did you not hear the first part where I said he's Trump?
What the hell good would he have been as a president if he would quit?
He's the ultimate come-from-behind guy.
He's been bankrupt and came back.
He was down in the polls in 2016 and came back.
He will probably get crushed business-wise.
The Trump business probably is going to take a huge hit.
But I'll bet he'll find a way to make that bigger, maybe form a BD empire or something.
But we should stop pretending there's any chance that Trump will wake up as Trump, change into some other person during the day, concede while he still has any chance left, and then, you know, call it a day.
That's not going to happen.
And you wouldn't really want it to happen, would you?
Because what made Trump succeed at the things that I would say he did succeed at is this sort of thing.
It's the fact that he finds the impossible to be merely inconvenient.
I've told you that before, that the most defining characteristic of Trump as a president is that he's no good at the easy stuff.
But he keeps doing the impossible stuff.
We just saw that Netanyahu's meeting with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia looks like maybe there's something good going there that'll be a continuation of the Middle East stuff.
That looked impossible.
Shaking hands with Kim Jong-un, it looked impossible.
Until he did it.
Getting those vaccines Available as quickly as possible?
It looked impossible, right?
I mean, I could make you a list of the things that looked impossible that Trump actually did.
I would argue even the trade war with China looked like it was impossible to win.
And in the end, I think if Biden takes over, we won't win on that.
But it looked like Trump had at least proven that it was way worse for China than it was for us.
I think the experts agree on that now, right?
The economists say, oh yeah, it didn't hurt us that much, but it hurt China a lot more, which was the whole point.
So I feel as if Trump, in a situation which looks to other people, To be impossible is one we've seen him in quite a bit.
And we've watched him succeed from a point that seemed impossible.
Now when I say he's bad at the easy stuff, I mean just not causing trouble.
You know, just wear masks.
You know, the easy stuff. He doesn't do the easy stuff.
All right. Let me give you a little view of the world that maybe you don't have.
And it will help you for my credibility.
For those of you who remember, back in 2016, when I said to you, I think there's a specific persuader that's helping Hillary Clinton, and I named him eventually.
I called him Godzilla until I was confident, and then I named him Robert Cialdini.
Now, he has not Admitted that he helped consult Hillary, but he's also not denied it when he was asked directly.
And that's the sort of thing where if you didn't do it, it's kind of easy to deny, right?
Did you consult for Hillary Clinton?
Nope. I mean, you would obviously say no because you would never say yes or maybe about consulting for a presidential candidate because people would know if you did.
It would be, you know, embarrassing professionally.
So I'm going to assume that I'm right about that and that I picked him out of a crowd of seven billion people as the voice that must be pushing some of the persuasion.
I still think that's the case.
Now, As we're watching this Sidney Powell situation play out, let me tell you a view of the world that may not be the one you had when you woke up.
And it goes like this.
I've made reference to this before, that there's a blazing war happening that you don't see.
There's the stuff that's in the public, the stuff that's in the news.
But below that surface, there is just a raging permanent war.
And various people are involved, you know, spooky people and, you know, operatives and the dirty tricksters, etc.
But a big part of that is the persuaders.
The people who have almost wizard-like talents of persuasion.
And they come in two flavors, I would say.
There's the ones who persuade positively, as in, this candidate will do great.
That would be like positive persuasion.
But then there's also the disinformation people.
Now that's the part you're less aware of.
And you might say to yourself, I don't think there's any disinformation going on.
But... Let me tell you, it's a small world, and the people who deal in this kind of content, they find each other.
So do you believe that?
Do you believe that the people who have this weird and unique skill that they can move an entire country, they find each other?
Because in many cases, they may have been trained in the same places.
They're watching each other.
It's a small world, and they know each other.
I'm going to make another prediction.
There's probably fewer than 20 people in the country who have the training and skill to pull off the Venezuelan election machine disinformation.
Now, I'm going to say that I could be wrong, right?
But it looks to me exactly like professional disinformation.
Meaning it's not just something that somebody came up with.
It's the work of real professionals.
And there are only maybe a dozen.
Maybe two dozen.
I'm not saying that it's an intelligence agency.
It could be. You can't rule that out.
But it could be just the Democrats.
Because you can hire these people...
They're people who have a skill.
You can hire them. You don't have to be an intelligence agency.
They're for hire. So, given that this has every look of a disinformation campaign, and let's compare it to the persuasion that's going on from the Trump campaign.
So now I'm going to take you from the surface of the news.
You're going underground with me now.
All right? So we're deep underground with the real war.
Not the fake one that's all just fake news up above.
Now you're down in the real one.
And the real one shows the Trump campaign using persuasion, in which I've described before, the laundry list.
In other words, they're saying...
There's a whole bunch of stuff wrong with this election.
You don't like that one? Well how about this one?
Not that one? How about this one?
How about this one? Now, the beauty of the laundry list is that although it would not hold up in court, in other words, every claim you make should be strong, and you should really get rid of the weak claims before you walk into a courtroom.
That's just going to make the judge angry.
I learned that from Robert Barnes.
But in terms of public opinion, the laundry list works really well.
It's sort of a dirty trick.
Because the point of it is they're not all equally strong things on the list.
But if you see enough stuff, you're going to say, with all that smoke, there's got to be some fire there.
I mean, you know, the sky is full of smoke.
There's got to be a fire. But that's why it's persuasion.
The point is to make it look like there's a fire, even if there isn't.
Now, in my opinion, there is a fire.
But they need some time to prove it.
But in the short run, you do the laundry list, you get the public on your side, and then here's the key part.
Alan Dershowitz talked about this.
Now, skipping some of the constitutional technicalities, and I'll skip over a couple of steps, but there's a step coming in which, if I understand this correctly, the House has to say the election was clean, clean, And certified.
And I believe the House, with, I think, I heard, you know, one senator and one congressperson, can hold up the process and say, wait, the election doesn't look fair to us, so maybe we can ignore it and just go ahead with the vote and pick President Trump, because he would get selected if the House does the selecting.
Now, Or at least there are more Republicans.
That doesn't guarantee it.
But there are more Republicans. So they could, if they wanted to, just vote in the president if they thought that was the right thing to do.
And they legitimately thought the election was stolen.
They'd have to actually believe that.
Or say they believe it. Now, the laundry list doesn't just work on you and me.
It doesn't just work on the general public.
It also works on Congress, because Congress is a bunch of human beings.
So a bunch of human beings in Congress aren't going to be that much different from a bunch of human beings anywhere, and we're all susceptible to the laundry list.
The laundry list is really strong.
So That's the path that the president has, which is keep the laundry list going and hope that there's enough smoke there that people will say, oh yeah, there had to be a fire.
And even if we don't have rock-solid proof yet, maybe you get Congress convinced.
Maybe they're convinced.
So that would be a path.
Now compare that, which is pretty strong, by the way, You know, in terms of a persuasion play, it's not bad.
Now, if I had to predict, I would predict that Biden will take the job.
So my prediction is that the system will install Biden.
But the Trump campaign is doing everything they can to make a difference there.
Now, compare that to the disinformation campaign and watch how well this is done.
So today I had people coming after me on Twitter to say some version of ha ha ha and dunk on me.
And what do you say now about this Sidney Powell thing?
Because the Trump administration and the campaign issued a statement saying that she did not work for the administration, did not work for Trump.
And I guess she agrees with that, because she was not being paid by them.
She's sort of independent, but related.
And so that made her story about the Venezuelan whistleblower and the machines, etc., that made that look even less credible than it was before.
So people came to me on Twitter and said, ha ha ha, Scott, you said that there was going to be good information coming, and And it looks like even the Trump administration isn't buying this Venezuelan whistleblower thing, so aren't you so wrong?
Except, I'm the one who said it wasn't true.
So now I'm getting dunked on for being right that the Venezuelan whistleblower thing was not credible and looked like disinformation.
So the people who are dunking on me agree with me.
But, This is how good disinformation works.
Because the point of disinformation is to spoil the rest of the information.
It's not supposed to just live alone.
It's supposed to be a spoiler so that everything else you've heard, you go, ah, that's probably not true either.
If this part wasn't true, that part's not true.
So here's what the disinformation did.
It took Sidney Powell...
Right off the field.
Now, maybe she's still got some game left.
She might have some plays left.
But at the moment, it really, really worked, persuasion-wise.
It took Powell off the field.
It divided the Trump supporters.
Certainly within the inner circle, you have to assume some of them were buying into the Venezuelan story.
Some were not. I assume.
I don't have any inside knowledge.
So it split the team, it got rid of one of their stronger players, and it took me out.
It took me out.
Because forever now, the fake news will record that I supported the Venezuelan whistleblower story, when in fact the clear public reality repeated a number of times, as I said exactly the opposite.
That I didn't believe it, that's the one you shouldn't believe.
So that's how good the disinformation is.
That I was not even part of being wrong at any point, at least in terms of that specific thing.
And yet, it took me out.
Because I will never be able to be credible on this topic again, because I will be blamed for something that I wasn't even part of.
That's how good it is.
Somebody says, you're lying now.
Now, let me get back to, and I think I know why you're saying that.
Normally, I would block you for just saying something like, you're lying now, because that's like mind reading or something.
But I think you're referring to, I did say, when Sidney Powell was originally coming up with her claims, I did say that that's going to be something.
Now, I'm going to give you some nuance here that at least a third of you won't be able to handle, because in a big crowd, a third of the people can't handle nuance.
It goes like this. It can be true at the same time that the Venezuelan whistleblower is disinformation, while it is also true that any software-based election system will eventually be compromised.
Now, I'm just saying that's the nature of the system, is that it is a compromisable system Which there is a gigantic motive to compromise.
So if it hasn't already been compromised, you can guarantee it will be compromised eventually.
Because it's built for that.
I mean, it's not built to prevent it.
Meaning that the system itself is not sufficiently secure that you could ever guarantee that at least an insider didn't do something, right?
You might be able to keep somebody from getting into it from the internet directly, But there's nothing you can do to stop an insider from getting at it, and there's nothing that would stop an intelligence agency from turning an insider.
I mean, that's pretty ordinary business, right?
So it can be true that you don't believe the disinformation about the Venezuelan whistleblower, while at the same time, I have a high confidence that the system was hacked, or will be hacked, if it hasn't been already.
Now, here's something that the head, it was the CEO of Dominion Voting System said, quote, This is a nonpartisan American company.
It is not physically possible for our machines to switch votes from one candidate to the other.
This is a CEO of a voting system who has a software-based product Who says, quote, it's not physically possible for our machines to switch votes.
Okay, he's lying.
Or really stupid.
Because it's software.
Right? And haven't you seen plenty of YouTube specials where people were hacking the machines right in front of you?
Yeah, it's the most ridiculously...
Ridiculously non-believeable thing in the world that they're not hackable.
Of course they're hackable!
Come on! Everything's hackable.
Do you think Google is hackable?
Yes. Do you think Twitter is hackable?
It happened. It happened.
Do you think Facebook is hackable?
Yes! Do you think that Google, Facebook, and Twitter have the highest level of technical people Compared to this voting company.
Yeah, yeah.
The very best, most protected systems in the commercial world get penetrated regularly.
It's not even a question.
So of course our electronic voting system is either already compromised, or will be, or will be, because it's not like people are going to stop trying.
And if you have a situation where people are going to stop trying, they can fail 99 times out of 100 and still succeed because they keep trying.
All right. So I would say that the disinformation people, who, by the way, just to make this extra fun, I'm reasonably sure that within that small group of people who actually pulled this off, this Venezuelan whistleblower thing, I think they're watching this right now.
So, if any of you are watching this who pulled this off, really good job.
Good job. Now, did the laundry list work?
Going back to the Republican persuasion play.
Here's the data.
The data is that 30% of Democrats believe the election was stolen from Trump.
30% of Democrats I think the election was stolen.
So how good is Trump's persuasion?
It's really good.
That's really good.
And of course, 75% of Republicans believe it is likely the election was stolen.
So I would say both the campaign, Trump campaign, as well as whoever it is, the dark forces working for the Biden campaign, This is good stuff.
This is really top-level persuasion brilliance.
Let's talk about something that's a little more fun.
So I told you people are coming after me now because they think I was buying into the crazy parts of the Venezuelan story.
So a guy named Peter Wang came after me on Twitter, and he said...
This will give you an idea of the quality of my trolls.
They're smart and stupid at the same time.
And Peter Wang says, 2020's season finale is showing us the existence of epistemic closure so tight that even intelligent people will stick their heads into themselves in awkward ways.
So as to turn into human Klein bottles of stupidity.
Not a good look for Scott.
Wah. Not a good look for me.
Yes, if you tweet, and your tweet has the words epistemic, closures, and Klein bottles in it, you're not a good tweeter.
You're not a good tweeter.
And one of the things that you should never do Is start an insult contest with a cartoonist in public.
Alright? Now, if you were dumb enough to start an insult contest with a professional humorist in private, well, nobody would know how stupid you are.
That might work out for you.
But you don't want to do it in public because I have a little more practice at this.
And so, noticing that Peter Wang has...
First name and the last name that are a little bit phallic, a little bit phallic, Peter and Wang.
I tweeted back this response.
I said, look, Dick Dick, you don't disagree with anything in that thread.
Stop pretending you do.
So that's the other thing my critics do, is they go after me personally, but they will never tell you what they disagree with.
And the reason is, They don't.
They don't disagree. So I asked him to tell me what in my tweet thread, it was the thread that he's complaining about, in which I have shown my stupidity.
I said, there's nothing in there you disagree with.
Did he come back and say, oh yeah, here's the part I disagree with?
No. He came back and insulted me again.
Because there was nothing he disagreed with in the tweet.
He just wanted to be a dick dick.
So that's the quality of my critics.
Here's another critic I got.
So apparently I'm on China's radar.
Now, if you don't know this, there are media entities that pretend to be independent media in China that are really just organs of the communist government.
So I get a clap back from this Chinese individual, Chen Weihua, I think.
And when he tweets at me, Twitter puts a warning on his tweet.
And complain, as you will, about Twitter with their little warnings, this one I appreciated.
Because Twitter is the one that made sure I knew, I would have known this anyway, but Twitter made sure I knew that this tweet came from somebody associated with the Chinese government.
So they actually added that label on the tweet.
Good job, Twitter. I would have known, but I don't know if everybody would have known, so that was a good label.
I appreciated that one. So this is what Chen says about me.
Now keep in mind, if he's saying it, probably he's doing it as an organ of the government.
It doesn't mean he got a specific instruction to send this tweet, but rather he's operating within that umbrella for the benefit of the government.
And he tweets this at me.
He says, Can't believe so many in the U.S. like to flirt instead of learning from China and other East Asian nations and regions.
Politicizing the virus is what made the situation in the U.S. so bad, like a failed state.
So here's an official Chinese guy who's clapping back at me, and it was in response to one of my tweets that he wrote that.
So I tweeted back to him and I said, so, how'd China beat the virus?
I'm all ears. Now, here's the advantage that I have in this conversation.
I can say anything I want, you know, so long as it's within Twitter's guidelines.
But if you're sort of representing the Chinese government, there's some topics you probably don't want to get into in public.
So watch me set the trap, okay?
So I asked, so, how'd China beat the virus?
Because I wanted to see him deal with this question.
Here's how he answered. He goes, the rigorous contact tracing...
Isolation and quarantine, which is key in China and East Asia, is virtually non-existent in the US and Europe.
It takes huge efforts, not to mention the masks and social distancing, all well observed.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe that the reason that China is doing so well is that they had rigorous contact tracing, isolation and quarantine, and masks and social distancing?
Good. Do you think that explains the whole situation?
And then he went on to say that South Korea, doing great.
Same thing. Contact tracing, same thing as China.
Wear the masks. Lots of compliance.
And then he pointed to Indonesia, I believe.
Indonesia, very similar, right?
Lots of masks and probably did some contact tracing.
Very similar. So he's making a good case, right?
He's made his case that the people who acted like China got the same result.
So it must be the way China is acting because people who imitated it also got good results.
Except, except, do you know who else got a good result?
Japan. And do you know what Japan did that is so similar to what China did to get a good result?
China got a good result.
Japan got a good result.
How did Japan do it?
Nobody knows. But they didn't do this yet.
They didn't do the severe lockdown, the severe masking.
They just didn't do it.
I don't think they did the contact tracing either.
So you've got another Asian country...
They didn't do any of that stuff, or they didn't do them at the same rate or degree.
I think they were closer to maybe the European model.
So I, of course, pointed that out as well, and also pointed out that South Korea and Indonesia and anything that's an island tends to do better.
Now, I think the island part matters because it's easier to close out outside infections.
I'm not positive about that, but there's certainly a correlation between If not a causation.
And so here's the part that got fun.
I asked him how all these Asian countries did so well, and I tweeted this.
I said, other than a weaponized virus, and then parenthetically I put, for which there is no proof.
There is no proof.
How to explain how China did well in all Asia, this is before I talked about Japan, no matter the method.
So why is it that...
Oh, this is actually after Japan.
So I said, why is it that these Asian countries are all doing well, yet they're using different methods?
In other words, Japan isn't doing what China did, and they're doing well.
So how do you explain it?
Now, here's the persuasion part that was entertaining to me.
The last thing that somebody representing or speaking under the umbrella of official Chinese government wants to hear in public is that the only other explanation I can think of is a weaponized virus, which, by the way, there is no proof of.
Let me say that again.
There is no proof of any kind of a weaponized coronavirus.
No proof. But what's the other explanation?
So the other explanations that people weighed in with is that these same countries had experience with prior coronavirus or prior other infections that gave them immunity.
Do you buy that? Is that enough?
Do you think that China got down to basically no coronavirus problems because of their prior infections?
I don't. I'm not going to say that this is a weaponized virus.
I'm going to say that all of the other explanations don't handle the observation.
Now, I think it would be crazy for any country to intentionally let out a virus that could cause this much trouble, especially if it did kill some people in your own country.
I don't see anybody doing that.
I mean, I suppose anything's possible.
But I don't see it.
It is, however, the only explanation that fits the observation.
That the country is in a certain part with a certain genetic commonality, perhaps.
Genetic commonality.
They're not suffering as much no matter what technique they use to fight the virus.
So I don't think Chen wanted me to talk about weaponized viruses, even though there's no proof, no proof, I don't know about you, but one of the things I'm looking forward to is not being in the kill box.
If you're a prominent Trump supporter, you're just always attacked all day long.
It's just nothing but attacks all day long.
And I gotta say that although my first choice would be a second term of Trump, I think I could be pretty happy not having a target on my back all day long.
I don't mind that at all.
And I was listening to Biden talk yesterday and some recorded thing.
It was on Smirkanish's Sirius show.
And by the way, let me give a shout out to Smirkanish.
You know him from CNN. He is the most fair and balanced opinion person on CNN by far.
I don't know if you've noticed that.
But Smirkanish, when he talks about Even when he's criticizing the president, he will talk about it with objective statements that you recognize as true.
It's like, oh yeah, that did happen.
They did do that.
But when other people talk about it, they talk about mind reading and flailing around and all kinds of crazy stuff.
He doesn't do that. Smirconish, you know, I feel like I can detect his opinion, which that's no surprise.
You can kind of detect everybody's opinion on Trump.
But he does a really professional job.
I take my hat off to him.
I was listening to him yesterday and he was doing that again, being very professional about this.
And even he was saying that Biden sounds weak and low energy and he just sounds so like there's nothing in him.
And he was answering questions and it was like, yeah, we should do this and we'll do this.
And I thought, oh my god, I'm going to fall asleep before he finishes that sentence.
And then this morning I heard a brief clip of Trump talking whatever announcement he made yesterday.
And then you hear Trump's projection and the energy and the power he puts into just talking.
You know, just talking about an ordinary topic.
And it just like fills the room.
I mean, the star power?
You don't really understand how big Trump's star power is until you see Biden doing the job of president.
It's going to be jarring.
It really will be when you see how little energy he produces.
He's like a 15-watt bulb.
All right. Here's an interesting thought.
The That disinformation campaign I was talking about, allegedly, about the Venezuelan whistleblower, could backfire.
Because if it convinces anybody in the Republican part of Congress to say no to the election integrity, it backfired.
I don't know how many people are going to believe that story, but it could backfire.
You never know. Joe Biden is picking his cabinet.
And, of course, because it's a simulation, and I told you that the simulation would be winking at us more often, the guy that would be really key to negotiating with our adversaries, the guy who would be the Secretary of State under Biden, his last name is Blinken.
It's exactly the word that you don't want to have in your name if you're negotiating.
Well, he blinked first.
My guy's blinking.
He's blinking hard. That's just a weird simulation thing.
All right, here's a question for you.
Trump is asking for a machine recount in Georgia.
They already did the hand recount.
Now, I can't imagine that the machine recount is going to do anything Because they can't do a signature check.
As I understand it, the ability to do a signature check ends on Election Day because they separate the envelopes and signatures from the votes.
That's my understanding.
So, is it even possible to audit?
I don't really understand how the Trump campaign could possibly prove that votes were illegal.
If they can't audit the signatures, and that doesn't sound like that's even a thing that can be done.
So unless you had eyewitnesses, and even if you had eyewitnesses, you know, imagine the Supreme Court is hearing this story, and all you have is eyewitnesses.
And you've got an eyewitness that says, I was in this precinct, and my boss said, do this or that with this little pile of blank ballots.
I think the Supreme Court is going to say something like this.
How tall was that pile of ballots?
And they're going to say, that was about an inch tall.
That's not enough to change the election.
We're done here. And that's it.
So the anecdotal stuff can support, let's say, data or some kind of documentary evidence.
But you would need something in cumulative that adds up to enough votes that it could have changed the election.
And the problem that Rudy and the lawyers have is that even if they've got 200 completely valid testimonies, probably if you added all of them up, it wouldn't be enough votes.
Even if every one of them was true and the judge believed every one of them.
So the question about why...
Why it's taking so long for the good argument.
I guess they've only used bad arguments so far.
But the good argument is going to be both witnesses and then the data and maybe the documentation that coincides with those witnesses.
And that takes a little more time to put together.
So people who are smarter than I am about the law have come to dunk on me on Twitter and say, Scott, Scott, Scott, if they had good information, they would have led with the good information.
And since they didn't, let me tell you as a lawyer, this is what people are saying to me, as a lawyer, let me tell you, that proves...
Pretty much, that there is no good evidence, because you start with the good evidence.
Indeed, have I not said the same thing?
I've said the same thing, I think it's in my book, that if you have good evidence, you're going to lead with it.
Anybody who starts out with bad evidence, well, you can just say, all right, we're done here.
If you started with bad evidence, that means you don't have any good evidence.
Right? Makes sense.
You would always start with the good evidence.
So why didn't they? Well, how about you live in the real world?
How about a normal good lawsuit takes a year to put together?
How about you don't know which of those statements from those sworn testimonies are real?
You gotta sort of look into them, because what you don't want to do is go into court with your strongest case, That also has some weak parts accidentally attached to it.
Because it will make the whole thing fall apart.
So you don't want to go into with your evidence until it's really tight.
And I imagine that takes a while.
So, does that mean that there is evidence?
Well, the evidence that will be by far the strongest will be the fake ballots and the ballots thrown away and the ballots may have been run through the machine twice, although that seems like that's something they could catch with the recounts.
I think it's going to be that.
It's going to be ordinary stuff.
We're just ballot mischief.
And somebody says you don't have to be a lawyer to figure that out.
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me there.
All right. So I don't know that any of the challenges that the Trump team is doing...
I don't think they can get an audit of the kind that they need.
I'm looking for a fact check on that.
But if you can't check that the ballots really came from a real person...
And I think you can't check that once the signatures are removed.
So that's the part I'm a little foggy on.
So fact-check me on this.
Is there any way to audit this election?
Because I think there's not.
Can somebody fact-check me on that?
And so I think that what will happen is that this will go the way of Kennedy versus Nixon, which is Kennedy took office, but historians could later You know, look at the facts and say, it looks like the election was stolen and that Nixon actually won.
So I think that's what we're going to end up with, that sort of thing.
And you would probably have to do that with the data analysis to show that things are impossible.
Now, by the way, there is a claim hanging out there that I've been waiting for the debunk.
And I haven't heard it.
So I'm going to ask you, have you seen a debunk of the following claim?
That there are a number of precincts which had far more votes than voters.
Is that a real thing?
Because I feel as if that should have been debunked on the first day.
Because I would think that we know how many voters, we know how many voted, So if that claim, which I keep hearing, I kept expecting that would be the first one to be debunked.
Have you seen that one debunked yet?
Somebody says that the election can be audited not with signatures but other aspects.
Well, other aspects may not be enough.
Alright, so that's enough on that.
There are going to be some interesting pardons if this is Trump's last few months in office.
Do you think you should pardon Snowden and Assange?
I say yes, because I think those two know things that we should know.
So yes, I think Trump should pardon Assange and Snowden, if only because it will make the intelligence agencies really, really mad.
The Brennans, etc., are really, really going to hate that.
And I think he might do it just for a final poke in the eye.
So if I had to put a bet on it, it's looking pretty good for pardons, even if he doesn't want to.
I think he might still do it, even if it's not something he personally wants.
Reuters did a tweet today, and it's funny watching these news businesses completely give up On being objective news.
So this is what Reuters says.
They say Trump's campaign distanced itself from lawyer Sidney Powell, who has aided the president's flailing effort to contest the results.
It's a flailing effort.
Flailing is kind of an opinion word.
Here is how they could have said it without the opinion.
Distance herself from Trump's Effort, which has so far failed 26 out of 27 lawsuits or something like that.
You could simply describe it.
You don't have to call it flailing.
Right? You don't have to call it flailing.
I would love to see Trump put Pence in charge on the last day and have Pence...
I don't know the legality of this, but could he pardon Trump for everything that happened prior to and during his presidency?
Is that a thing? Can a president issue a pardon that says, I don't even know what you might be charged with in the future, but everything from this date backwards, you're pardoned.
Is that a thing? I don't know if you can do that.
Or do you need to be pardoning with specificity?
All right. I'm seeing some yeses, but I don't know if you're answering the right question.
I'd love to see that, because I would like to see Trump be completely free of those risks should he leave office.
I'd like that. I think it's good for the country.
I would say that about any president, by the way.
There's a really interesting opinion piece by Shelby Steele, In the Wall Street Journal, Fox News has an excerpt from it.
And let me just read you this one sentence from it.
Now, Shelby Steele is a black man in America, which is important to the story.
Someday we'll never have to say that again.
But here's what he wrote.
He said, and it's part of a larger article, but he goes, Yet there is an elephant in the room, It is simply that we blacks aren't much victimized anymore.
Today we are free to build a life that won't be stunted by racial persecution.
Today we are far more likely to encounter racial preferences than racial discrimination.
Moreover, we live in a society that generally shows us goodwill, a society that has isolated racism as its most unforgivable sin.
It was that sentence That just lit up my brain.
This is such a good sentence.
Like, just as a writer, if you're a writer and you see a good sentence, you just go, oh, wow.
This is pretty good.
I have to read this again. Moreover, we live in a society that generally shows us goodwill, a society that has isolated racism as its most unforgivable sin.
That is just such a good sentence.
But here's what He caught my attention also about this.
So his statement is wildly provocative, right?
So I'm giving you his opinion, not my own, which is part of the story.
I can tell you what his opinion is, but I can't give you my own because, you know, I get cancelled.
But he's saying that they're more likely to encounter racial preferences than For being black.
In other words, let's say getting into college or getting hired by a Fortune 500 company that wants their diversity to be improved.
And I would like to reintroduce my idea that to get past racism as best we can, you know, some things can't be 100% solved, but to get past it as best we can, We should reframe our experience away from racism, no racism, fair or no fair, and have strategic parity, strategic equality.
And what I mean by that is, my path to success might be different than your path, but we both have a perfectly good path.
One is not worse than the other.
So if I were black, I'd say, oh, I'll build a strategy that works for me, being black.
So I would...
Study hard in school, probably get a scholarship to a good college, and then get a job at a major corporation that's looking for people like me, and that would be my path.
It's a very clear path, and a very good one.
That can get you to the top of a big corporation.
Very high pay.
It's an excellent path, and it's really available To 100% of people who can do well in school, at the very least.
So does every black person have the same opportunities that I specifically have?
Maybe not. There might be some small company that says, ah, you know, they're racist, you know, or something like that.
So we don't have the same path, but strategically they're very similar.
And I think that's the frame we should keep in our mind.
We don't have to walk down the same path.
We just want to get to the same place.
If my path goes left, yours goes right, we both get there, I'm not going to complain that you've got a path I don't have.
I'm going to say, I've got a path.
You've got a path. It's a tie.
And then here's the final irony of this Shelby Steele piece, and he's a really good writer, is that I couldn't have written it.
So his point is that he's more likely to encounter racial preferences than discrimination, and his article is an example of that.
Because what he wrote, I couldn't have written without getting cancelled.
Now, of course, I couldn't have written it also because I don't have that experience, blah, blah, blah.
But, so I wouldn't be credible saying it, but I also couldn't even make the point.
I can talk about him making the point But I can't make that point without getting cancelled.
So his point is well made.
There are some advantages, also disadvantages.
Unlike many of you, I do believe that systemic racism is real.
What you do about it, I think I stand alone in terms of what to do about it, but it's definitely real.
All right. And that is all I have for today.
And I think it was wonderful.
And if the simulation...
Somebody in the comments says, poor Scott, he falls for critical race theory.
Did I say that?
Did you hear me say that?
So this is my continual experience, is that people will imagine I have an opinion that I don't have.
I have the opposite of that opinion, and then I will get blamed for it.
So even now while we're sitting here, I'm being blamed for supporting something called critical race theory, which I am definitely opposed to.
But here I am being blamed for it.
In real time, I'm being blamed for the opposite of my actual opinion.
So, thanks for that.
Alright, that's all for now.
Alright, you YouTubers.
Got any more mind reading and bad takes on my opinion?
Pardon Joe Biden and Hunter.
That would be hilarious. Somebody says, Critical Race Theory Foundation, so somebody here is saying that systemic racism and critical race theory are basically connected.
Not in my opinion.
So when I say that there is, that systemic racism is real, I mean it in this specific sense, that black people in general started from a lower base, and that that has a ripple through time.
That's all. Is there anybody who doesn't agree with that?
Do you think that if any group, it doesn't matter who it is, if any group started with literally nothing, starting from slavery, and you fast forward 150 years, would you expect everybody to be doing the same?
It's just sort of common sense.
Now, the other stuff, you know, the details of it, I don't buy into that stuff.
But certainly, if you start from behind...
There is a greater likelihood you're going to stay there.
That's all. I think it's just common sense.
What are your thoughts on election oversight?
Comments are going by too quickly.
I think we have to rethink the whole election process, and I'll tell you how I would do it.
Cameras are really cheap.
I would say that you can't do any ballot handling unless you're in a room that has a Sealing cameras every five feet, enough so you can actually read a ballot.
I feel as if you shouldn't be able to have a ballot in your hand unless there's a camera directly above you.
Everywhere. Now, it can't be that expensive to have cameras, right?
I mean, there are a lot of small places that maybe can't afford it.
But you don't have to do all the small ones.
You could just do the big metropolitan ones because that's where all the volume is.
So I'd say camera the heck out of it.
That would be one thing.
Yeah, I know I can scroll the comments to pause them.
