Episode 1197 Scott Adams: Odds of Rigging an Election and Getting Away With it? Whiteboard Time!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
What did President Trump "break" that Biden will fix?
What if election fraud proven AFTER inauguration?
A REALITY BASED view of the election and fraud
Whiteboard1: Election Fraud Motivation
Whiteboard2: Can Election Fraud be Detected?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah, just when you thought Today couldn't get it any better, and then you found out that Coffee with Scott Adams features a whiteboard, and you said to yourself, oh, that's as good as it can get.
Wait, wait, wait.
It's a double-sided whiteboard.
Yeah, you didn't see that coming, did you?
That's right. And in order to enjoy the double-sided whiteboard, to its full extent, what do you need?
Not much. A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a challenge or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
And you can fill it with your favorite liquid.
I am partial to coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Way better. 75% better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now. Go. I feel science becoming more accurate.
I feel data starting to be credible.
And that's just one sip.
Imagine if I finish that entire mug.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah. All right.
We'll talk about the election and allegations of fraud in a moment, but some fun stories first.
We have yet another potential vaccine that could make a big difference.
Oxford-AZ, so AstraZeneca, I guess.
They've got a vaccine that has a strange story to it.
Here's the strange story.
It was a big old scientific trial, and it was supposed to be two doses to each person.
But they discovered after they had given a bunch of the first doses that the first doses had been, by mistake, half as much as they were supposed to be.
So then they said, well, what do we do now?
Because we started this trial, and the first doses are all the wrong amount.
So they said, well, we can salvage it by at least giving the full dose on the second one, and let's just see what happens.
And what happened was, it turns out, according to their initial data, I've got some questions about the accuracy of the data, but their data says that when they got a half dose, followed, I think, a month later by a full dose, that they got to 90% efficiency of the vaccine.
But when they did it the way they were supposed to do it, two full doses, it was only 60% as effective.
Now, there are a few possible ways to explain this.
Number one way, everything about this trial is wrong.
Now, was there a point in this whole vaccine situation where you said to yourself, I'm feeling pretty good about science.
Because scientists are killing it.
You know, this whole warp speed thing.
Man, clap, clap, clap for our scientists around the world.
Not just in the United States, but other countries too.
And they're just killing it with this development of the vaccine.
So science is something you can depend on.
Except, wait, what was that thing you said to me, Scott, about science Did an entire randomized drug trial of the most important thing in the world that could be tested at this moment, coronavirus vaccine, and in the most important trial, or one of the few for these vaccines, one of the most important trials in the world, maybe in all of civilization.
And how many people had to look at that Whatever the directions were, how many people looked at that study before rolling it out to not know that they had somehow accidentally given everybody half a dose?
Are you still really confident about your scientific process?
Because the trouble is that science as a system is terrific compared to other ways of understanding your reality.
But unfortunately, Science is populated with people.
And while we can all agree that science, as a concept, is pretty darn awesome, can we also agree that human beings, as entities, are pretty darn shitty?
In fact, I could give you a pretty long list of human beings who are total crap.
And unfortunately, when you take a Concept like science, which is terrific, really excellent, and you combine it with organic creatures who tend to be pretty shitty on average, you get something that's the average of something awesome, science, and something pretty shitty, people.
So that's how you get half a dose.
So, put that right in your arm, huh?
Yeah. Let me shoot up with a vaccine that the best scientists in was in Great Britain couldn't figure out the difference between half a dose and a full dose.
Yeah, I got a lot of confidence in that one.
I think I'll take the American vaccine.
That's just me. I think I'll take the American one.
Not that it's necessarily better.
By the way, I am pro-vaccination, just to be clear.
I'm pro-vaccination.
But it's always a tentative opinion, meaning I'll change it in a heartbeat if the data changes.
So I'm not going to make a personal decision about taking a vaccine, the coronavirus vaccine, any one of the different vaccines.
I'm not going to make a personal decision until when?
Last minute.
If you're making a decision now, instead of waiting for the last minute, You're doing it wrong, because there might be new information.
So, you know, I'm not going to wait for people to take it, then wait a year to see if they have any health problems.
I probably won't do that.
But I'm certainly going to wait as long as I can before I make a decision, just in case.
I think that I'll probably take it.
But here's the other interesting thing about this Oxford-AstraZeneca story.
The accident may have discovered something that's really, really important.
In the same way that yellow sticky notes were discovered by accident, and I think penicillin was discovered by accident, and a lot of things get discovered by accident.
Could it be, and some of the scientists have speculated, that there is something about giving a half dose And sort of maybe priming your body a little bit, you know, it's like putting down a primer coat of paint or something, and then a month later when you give the full dose, what if that makes the vaccination way, way better?
Could it be that they accidentally discovered an effect that is monstrously important?
Which is if you give people a small dose of a drug, let your body acclimate, and then give them a bigger dose, is that something that could work in other situations?
Or is it something unique to this one vaccination?
Or is it just bad data?
Could be any of those things.
But possibly it's a gigantic, possibly, a gigantic discovery that we're just seeing the first glimmer of.
Maybe. You never know.
I like to look on the bright side.
Well, the big story, of course, is that Trump has authorized the GSA to fund and assist in the Biden transition.
Does that mean that President Trump, in his secret inner thoughts, is really conceding?
Well, we don't know his secret inner thoughts.
We don't know them at all.
But I would say if he is consistent with his past, he keeps his options open.
Why wouldn't you? Everything we know about Trump is that he always keeps his options open.
So he does have, technically, a path to the presidency.
Another term. So the fact that he's doing something in case it goes the way most people think it's going to go, at the same time he's keeping his option open in court, etc.
Nothing wrong with that.
Completely consistent.
And does not tell us his state of mind.
In the same way that it made sense To do Operation Warp Speed by producing a bunch of vaccines before we had tested them, just so we'd have them ready in case they worked, it's the same thing.
Good risk management is what Trump did with Warp Speed.
He said, let's put a billion dollars into it, or probably multiple billion, to make the vaccines just in case they're safe.
We'll find out later, but we can always just throw the vaccines away if we have to.
So, same reason.
They should do the transition just in case it goes the way it looks like it's going to go and still keep your options open.
So, apparently there's some data out there 79% of Trump supporters believe the election was fraudulent.
79%. Now, do you remember back in 2016 one of the biggest One of the biggest criticisms that I personally received was, Scott, are you telling me you think that President Trump, or candidate Trump at the time, are you telling me you think Trump is persuasive?
Where's the evidence of that?
I don't see any evidence he's persuasive.
Well, how about convincing 79% of his supporters that an election had been thrown?
You can't get much more persuasive than that.
Now keep in mind that persuasion tends to only work on your own team.
It's not like the Democrats are persuading the Republicans or vice versa.
That's sort of not a thing.
It used to be. A little bit.
But it's not really a thing at the moment.
So watching Trump persuade his own base is really a remarkable thing.
Do you think anybody else could have persuaded 79% of their base to think the election was rigged?
Maybe. I don't know.
But it's still pretty impressive, right?
Oh, yes. And in the comments, somebody's reminding me that 30% of Democrats think the election was fraudulent.
30%. That's about as persuasive as you can get.
Or is it? We're going to get to that in a moment.
We'll talk about whether it would be reasonable to assume, as these many people have, that the election was fraudulent.
In the face of, don't the Democrats tell us every single day?
There's no evidence.
Where's all the evidence?
If you have zero evidence, how could you possibly convince 79% of the people that fraud happened with zero evidence?
How's that happen? Well, it could be because there is evidence, and Democrats just say there isn't.
You know, I would say the sworn statements from over 200 people, that they personally observed irregularities, is evidence.
So, here's a question for you.
Just hold this question in the back of your head, because it will get funnier over time, all right?
So we'll just put it in there now and let it, just let it simmer.
It's going to get better. And here's the thought.
Democrats have said that Trump has done tremendous damage in his first term.
And indeed, one of the reasons for them wanting to replace him is to prevent the further tremendous damage that he would do.
So how long is it going to take Biden to fix all of that damage?
And what was the damage?
Can somebody remind me what the damage is that Biden is fixing?
Is it the climate?
Because there's a big difference in the climate opinion, right?
But correct me if I'm wrong, hasn't the Trump administration lowered our emissions below the Paris Accords if we had stayed in them?
So it doesn't look like there's much to fix in terms of the climate because we were actually doing great.
What about the Middle East?
Will Biden go in there and fix everything that Trump broke in the Middle East?
Well, no, actually, it looks like Trump fixed the Middle East, or at least it's heading in the right direction.
Israel's making friends with a number of neighboring countries like never before.
Iran seems to be, you know, marginalized, and things seem to be relatively less warlike than normal.
So I don't know what he's fixing there.
How about the economy?
Trump had the economy just humming along until coronavirus, of course.
Now, will Biden fix the coronavirus?
There's not much he can do for the economy.
The economy is going to do what it does.
But will Biden come in, and on Inauguration Day, he's going to come in and say, people, people, wear your masks.
And then people will, this is my understanding of how this is going to work, People who had been under a Trump administration because he was a little less, let's say, assertive about wearing masks, he agrees with it, but he's not really pushing it.
It feels as if when Trump was, let's say, a little tepid, a little lukewarm about masks, that that caused people to wear fewer masks.
That's the claim, right?
So when Biden becomes president, Will you be more likely to wear a mask?
So in the comments, tell me.
Because obviously the Democrats are all wearing masks, is my understanding.
I mean, you could fact check that, but my understanding is that since Democrats don't listen to Trump, or they want to do whatever is the opposite he says, you expect the Democrats are already wearing their masks.
Right? I mean, sure, maybe sometimes they get caught without one, but let's say generally they're wearing their masks.
Oh, in the comments, you think I'm wrong.
You think Democrats are not wearing masks?
Well, that doesn't make any sense.
How could it be that Democrats are not wearing masks completely?
Because they're not listening to Trump, because they're Democrats.
Oh. Well, Anybody who believes that Biden is going to tell the public to wear masks and then we just will?
I don't think you understand how people work.
I don't think he's going to fix the mask thing.
And how about if he does some kind of a national standard for the states?
Are the states going to say, oh, well, that's what we're waiting for.
We're waiting for that national standard.
I don't think so. I think the states are going to say, uh, we're all different.
Every state's different.
How about we know what we're supposed to do?
We're listening to the same experts.
Why don't we do it our way, and you do it your way, and maybe we'll see who did better.
I don't know exactly what Biden's going to fix.
Do you? Can you give me a list of all the things that Trump broke?
What did he break? What did he break that's going to get fixed?
Because this is a very basic belief of the Democrats, not only that Trump might do bad things, but that he already broke stuff.
Now let's say you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, the obvious one is the coronavirus.
The United States has a higher death rate than a lot of places, and therefore Trump broke that.
Now suppose I say, okay, Let's take that as a given.
If I accepted that that's true, isn't that in the past?
Because how do you fix the past?
Is Joe Biden going to use his time machine to go back and fix the past?
I don't think that's an option.
So what is it he's going to do that would be that different than what Trump would have done if he had a second term?
I feel like the mask wearing is going to be pretty similar.
I feel like the shutdowns are going to be pretty similar.
And I feel like the vaccines are going to come out and be delivered pretty similarly.
So even if you accepted, oh, we hate what Trump already did in the past, and even if you accept that it was a mistake and caused X number of lives, even if you believe that, how does that translate into the future?
Because now we actually understand the situation in a way we didn't before.
So now that we understand it better, I would imagine that a Republican and a Democrat would end up acting the same way.
When you didn't know what worked and what didn't, which is the early months, then you would expect some people would get it wrong, some people would get it right.
But now that we're far more informed, still not quite informed, but more informed...
I would expect a Democrat and a Republican to look pretty much the same.
You know, they might have a difference in what school?
So did Trump break school?
No, it looks like the Democrats broke that and the teachers' unions.
I think the teachers' unions broke the schools.
That wasn't Trump.
He tried to break the teachers' unions.
All right. So look for that.
Just think about where is all this damage that the Democrats are fixing And what are they doing to fix it?
Remember I predicted that if Joe Biden won, Republicans would be hunted, and I was roundly mocked through society for such a ridiculous thing.
Well, of course, we've seen people get assaulted just for being Trump supporters, so indeed they are hunted on the street.
And certainly they will be ferreted out in employment, etc.
But here's something that Rachel Maddow said last night, I guess.
So Rachel Maddow asked an NAACP legal defense counsel, Sherilyn Ifill, she said, Trump officials are challenging the election.
She asked if they should be sent to jail for challenging the election, which is not a crime.
And she knows it, right?
So, Rachel Maddow is literally in public, right?
This is not a private conversation, and there's no question about whether she said it or not.
You know, it's on video, it's public.
And she's asking the question in public, if people who broke no laws, because there's no even allegation of a broken law, just questioning the outcome, If they should be jailed.
You fucking bitch.
You fucking piece of shit.
Rachel Maddow.
She's asking if Trump supporters should be jailed for not breaking a crime.
Just doubting the outcome of an election.
Think about that.
Now when you were mocking me for saying that Republicans would be hunted, what the fuck is this?
What the fuck is this?
If this is not a pretty clean signal that Democrats are willing to jail...
I mean, that's her word.
She used the word jail.
I'm not interpreting.
The word jail should be sent to jail so they feel like they did something wrong.
Who the fuck calls me at this time of day?
Jesus Christ. Sorry, didn't mean to take your Lord's name in vain there.
Slipped out. But this is shocking.
So Rachel Maddow should lose her job for that, don't you think?
I mean, it's not going to happen, but don't you think she should lose her job for suggesting that Republicans should be jailed just to make them feel differently?
She said that. I'm not making that up.
She said, do you think they should go to jail so that they feel like they did something wrong in order to stop Trumpism from becoming the norm?
She actually said that.
Amazing. I hope that Trump does some kind of a clever pardon before he leaves office.
You know, something like stepping down on the last day of his term and having Pence pardon him for everything he's ever done.
I hope that happens.
Now, normally I would say, I sure hope that anybody who committed a crime gets caught.
I mean, typically I would like people to get caught for doing crimes.
But what exactly is Trump's crime?
Can you think of one? I have not heard a crime even alleged, have you?
Apparently there are all these lawsuits in the Southern District of New York and they're looking through his financials and stuff.
But do me a fact check on this.
Has anybody alleged a crime?
And why haven't we heard it?
What is the specific crime?
Because otherwise it looks like they're just looking for a crime.
Are you okay with that?
Are you okay that a politician can be examined just to see if there's a crime without any evidence that there was a crime?
Are you okay with that?
I'm not okay with that.
And as a principle, I would prefer that if you imagine that Trump broke some law, I would prefer that he get away with it rather than have a norm That you can just go looking for crimes if there's no evidence of a crime.
Which looks like what's happening.
Now, if it turns out there's all this evidence of a crime that I don't know about, then I will revise my opinion.
But based on what we know now, it looks like they're after him for political reasons, and I think that should be shut down.
So if Trump and Pence used a political trick to sort of pardon him for everything that happened up to that point in life...
I think that would be appropriate.
Because there's a trick being used against them.
So if you use a trick to counter another trick, I'm okay with that 100%.
And I very much hope that it happens.
And again, I don't care if there's a real crime or not.
Because whether or not there's a real crime is a much lower priority than we shouldn't be doing this.
We shouldn't be doing this.
Because, you know, if I could go to your house and tear it apart and look through all your financials, could I find any crimes?
I'd probably find something.
That's why we don't do that.
So I guess Joe Biden has picked Jake Sullivan to serve as National Security Advisor, and Joel Pollack points out that Sullivan...
Would be taking the job that Mike Flynn had briefly, and that Sullivan had falsely accused Flynn of Russia collusion.
So the guy who would take Flynn's job is somebody who falsely accused Flynn of a crime of Russia collusion, not even just a normal crime, but like the crime of all crimes.
You've got Bill de Blasio closing public schools because the city is at 3% positivity for coronavirus, but the schools themselves are only at 0.28.
So we should follow the science, right?
I could say this a million times, and most people won't be able to hear it.
There are some ideas that That we just can't hear.
It's an unusual phenomenon.
I'll give you one. Some of you will be able to hear what I say next.
Some of you just can't hear it.
It'll be like noise like Charlie Brown's teacher.
So this will be an experiment.
And it goes like this. We all know we should trust science and we should trust the experts.
But they interpret things differently.
The experts and the scientists look at the same data and they interpret it differently.
So how can you trust them?
Trusting science is a good idea.
Trusting scientists is the dumbest fucking idea in the world.
Because they're people.
And people can't be trusted.
People can be right.
And people can be wrong.
But you can't trust them.
You can't trust them.
You can trust them if you've got lots of visibility and, you know, there are controls and somebody is double-checking.
But that's not really trusting, is it?
That's more like making sure that all of the opportunity for cheating and mischief has been removed.
But trust science.
But I don't have access to science, do you?
Reach into your pocket and grab me a handful of science.
Do you have any? Because I don't have any.
Look at my shelves.
I got some books on my shelves, but I don't have any science.
I don't have science.
I can't get my hands around it.
I don't have access to it.
I'll tell you what I do have.
People telling me their opinions.
That's what I have. I don't have any fucking science.
I got people telling Telling me their opinions about science.
I don't trust people.
Are you kidding me?
I don't trust people at all in that way.
Or as somebody wise said, I forget who, somebody said recently, the one thing you can trust is that people will act like people.
You can definitely trust that.
You can trust that.
All right. Hypothetically, here's a question I asked, and I got some answers that I think are pretty good.
Hypothetically, what would happen if the process goes forward and it goes all the way through the Electoral College process?
Biden gets confirmed, goes to the House.
I don't know the exact process, but I guess the House says that they confirm it or they validate it or whatever.
Let's say it goes all the way through the system and Biden is...
Ready to be inaugurated, or even he gets inaugurated.
My understanding is that the actual inauguration is unnecessary.
It's more of a ceremony.
But let's say he goes through the process that he's absolutely the President of the United States.
Our Constitution is active.
The Supreme Court is spoken.
If they get involved, it's just done.
And then, hypothetically, just asking the question, and then after that, Proof comes out that the election was rigged and rigged sufficiently that it changed the outcome.
What would happen?
Because haven't all the experts been telling us it's too late?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hasn't every expert said, you know, once it gets to this point, well, then it's just too late.
It's over. Is it?
Is it? I'm not so sure.
Because let's say it were proven in court that the election was wrong.
Let's say it went to the Supreme Court and they said, all right, here it is, it's proof.
And let's say the Supreme Court looks at the proof and they go, oh, okay, that's proof.
Yeah, that actually is proof.
And let's say, hypothetically, they were convinced.
What did they do? Now, somebody said impeachment.
Maybe. I don't know.
I have no idea.
I have no idea. And I'm not sure our system quite knows.
But if you tell me that producing that proof after Biden gets officially in office, if you're telling me that doesn't matter, I'm not so sure.
I think it might matter. It might matter.
Maybe we'll find out.
So Trump tweeted that in Wisconsin, so he's quoting Victoria Tenzing, who's also an attorney, and he's quoting her saying, in Wisconsin, somebody has to be indefinitely confined in order to vote absentee.
So I guess this claim is you'd have to be, I don't know, Shut in or something.
And in the past, there were 20,000 people in Wisconsin.
This past election, there were 120,000.
And Republicans were locked out of the vote counting process.
So the president tweeted that, and I looked at that and I thought, uh, that's a pretty easy claim to check, right?
I mean, these are facts which are in the public record.
So I thought, is that true?
So I just tweeted down and said, is this true?
And it took about five seconds for somebody to send me a link to the Wisconsin page that shows that this is not true.
It's not even slightly true.
It's not even in the zip code if true.
It's not in the galaxy if true.
It's nowhere near true.
There's nothing about it that's true.
So which of the experts we're listening to is Victoria Tenzing.
She's an attorney, high-end attorney, and she obviously has all of the skills and expertise to look into a, let's say, a legal election situation and then interpret it for you.
Because that's what an attorney does.
They'll look at the law and then tell you what they saw.
So she's an expert.
Is she right? It doesn't look like it.
So, anybody who tells me to listen to the experts, what planet are you on?
What planet are you on that listening to experts has worked out really well for you when they disagree?
I promised you, I don't know, a couple weeks ago, that your understanding of reality was about to change because of this election situation.
I would argue that it has, but I saw some critics pushing back saying it hadn't because it looks like Biden's going to take the job.
But let me fill this idea out a little bit, all right?
Do you think the will of the people was important to the election outcome?
In other words, do you think that we just experienced something like democracy?
Do you think that people looked at the information, made decisions, voted, we counted the votes, we picked a winner?
Is that what happened?
Because here's what I saw.
I saw, first of all, that social media has been brainwashing the public for years.
So I saw social media brainwashing that's very, very effective because they're good at it.
So where does brainwashing come in from social media with your free specific example that's just mind-boggling?
Mind-boggling.
So last night on the show The Five on Fox News, Richard Fowler was sitting in for the person representing the left.
Sitting in for Juan Williams, I believe.
And he claimed on television, in public, that he personally believed that the President of the United States had once recommended drinking bleach.
He thinks that happened.
Now, the other members of the five literally yelled at him when he said that.
In unison, that didn't happen, because it didn't happen.
The president never used the word bleach, never used the word drinking.
He talked about injecting disinfectants in the concept of light as a disinfectant.
You can put it on a ventilator, stick it in the lungs, and there was a trial that was being conducted You know, ready to look in to see if that could work.
So, the president said he was just joking, which I don't buy that one, but in either case, it is easy to confirm he definitely didn't say drink bleach.
And Richard Fowler, and I'm sure he was not lying, you know, he looked completely honest when he was saying this, and I believe it, because I don't think he's, you know, I don't think he would lie about it.
He believed that He actually saw it.
He didn't believe he heard about it.
He believed he witnessed it.
Think about this.
Now, Richard Fowler is not just a voter.
This is somebody whose job is talking about presidential politics every day.
He's a professional.
Richard Fowler would be, I would guess, my cat's doing a walk by here, I would guess that Richard Fowler would be in the top 1% of well-informed people in this country.
Would you agree with me?
Somebody who does it for a job, and they're so good at it that they're on TV, they're on radio shows, podcasts, whatever.
Richard Fowler is a high-end, super well-informed political person.
He thought he witnessed the president Telling the country to drink bleach or suggesting.
And it never happened.
But the fake news said it happened so many times that he has a false memory of it.
I mean, to watch this happen is amazing to see it happen in real time.
So you got your fake news, you got the changes in the mail-in ballots.
Probably that alone changed the election.
If we know that Republicans like to vote in person, we know the Democrats and low-motivated people might send in a ballot.
We know there's more possibility of mischief.
So probably the thing that affected the election was Whatever social media brainwashed you for, whatever the fake news created as your reality, the mail-in ballots, which is a process change, which probably changed the outcome.
Just the fact that there was a coronavirus and they had to do mail-in ballots probably could change the outcome.
And then what about the fraud?
We'll talk about that in a minute.
So how much of what I just mentioned That's my cat talking to you.
How much of what I just mentioned is the people's will?
None of it. It's the opposite of the people's will.
Nothing like democracy happened.
There was nothing like democracy that just happened in the United States.
But we probably will get over it.
We probably will get past it within a civil war, which is a credit to the country, I think.
Now, I don't recommend this, and let me emphasize this.
The next thing I'm going to say, I do not recommend.
Do not recommend it.
But if it happened, it'd be funny, which is Republicans rigging the Senate race in Georgia using the same tricks that they believe the Democrats used that the Democrats say are impossible.
It would just be hilarious.
Because if the Republicans used their same techniques, and the Democrats knew it, what would they do?
Because they couldn't really call them out for the technique.
Because their entire argument is that these techniques can't work.
Not that they didn't work.
That they can't. It just isn't possible.
So, again, I'm not recommending it because it's breaking the law.
I never recommend breaking the law.
But it would be funny.
I'm just saying it would be funny.
I don't recommend it.
All right. So I tweet that said the Milwaukee recount is going slowly because Trump's attorneys have been constantly interrupting and challenging Tens of thousands of ballots.
What is it that you would challenge on these ballots?
If an attorney challenges a ballot, what would be the basis?
Well, I would think the basis would be a technical problem, like an address wasn't complete or a signature didn't match.
Aren't those supposed to be rejected?
Now, I know there's a process for curing them, going back to the voter, But that process is past.
I believe that there's a time limit that's probably past in which you can cure a ballot.
So what happens if the attorneys find a whole bunch of ballots that maybe could have been cured, some of them if you were in the right time frame, but that time frame is past?
What happens? This is really untested territory.
I don't know what the legal result is.
Do they throw them out and then they can never be cured?
Because I've got a feeling if you put a lawyer in a room with a bunch of ballots, that lawyer's going to have a lot of arguments.
It's like, well, that doesn't look like the letter E to me.
That looks like the letter C. You got the address wrong.
Throw that one out. Alright, so then another tweet, and again, I don't believe anything that's data in 2020, alright? Doesn't matter what the topic is, it's voting, it's coronavirus, it doesn't matter.
If you believe any public, regardless of the source, if you believe any data you see in public in 2020, you haven't been paying attention.
It's pretty much all unreliable.
Some of it is true, but it's all unreliable.
Okay? And here's one of them.
59 counties in Georgia rejected zero mail-in ballots this year.
Not zero rounded to the nearest decimal, says the tweet, but actually zero.
What are the odds And of course, typically it's only going to be in the 0% to 2.2% range.
National average is 1%, and it was 1.4% in 2016 and 2018.
So is that a big difference?
I mean, maybe the difference between 0% and 1%, maybe there are lots of counties that have zero rejected ballots.
What do you think? I think the odds of that are pretty close to zero, meaning that they probably just turned off the controls.
Isn't it far more likely that what happened is nobody was rejecting ballots in those counties?
I can't say it's impossible, but I also don't know if the data is even correct.
So don't let me make you think past the sale, because I think I did that accidentally.
The sale is whether the data is even...
Real. Don't get past that.
And then thinking that if it is real, it shows that there's fraud.
You've got to back up.
I don't know if this data is real.
And if it is real, I don't know if it's unusual.
So you've got to figure that out first.
Don't think past the sale.
Let's talk about whether election cheating is possible.
Here's the big payoff for this live stream.
How many of you think that it's possible to do enough cheating that you would change the result of a national election and not be spotted?
How many think that's a thing that could be done?
Change a national election, so it's got to be enough fraud to do that, but also not be spotted.
Is it possible?
Because I'm talking to at least one smart person who says, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Don't you know that this system is designed with way too much transparency?
There's people watching at every step.
You've got witnesses. You've got cameras in the ceiling.
You've got signatures.
You've got verification. I mean, they've removed the ability to cheat, at least cheating in a big enough scale to change an election.
What do you think? Now, when the Democrats, and I'm talking to one in particular, who's very smart, very, let's say, very worldly in terms of would not be some kind of a virgin about the fact that crime exists in the world.
Somebody who's seen enough of the dirty side of life, who should know where fraud can and cannot live, believes that the election system Is sufficiently free of it that you could conclude this was a fair election just because of the way it's designed?
What do you think? Let's go through it.
Number one, do you believe that the Kennedy-Nixon election was rigged?
Now, if it was rigged, and I believe historians now agree on this, right?
Give me a fact check.
But I think the historians agree that the Kennedy-Nixon election was rigged.
Now, did it have to be widespread?
Apparently not. I think it could have been done in maybe one city that was Democrat-controlled.
For example, Chicago or whatever the claim is.
Ohio, I forget. But it didn't need to be widespread.
And it was not detected at the time.
Now, have things changed since...
The early 60s.
In terms of, have we gone from an election that could be rigged to an election that can't be?
Well, I wonder if you went back in time and said to the people who had created the election process, hey, you guys created this process.
Is there any way anybody could cheat enough to change a national election?
What would they have said in 1960-whatever?
Somebody says, Scott's going full QAnon.
You have fallen.
I'm going to block you for saying that.
You have fallen for the narrative.
You won't find anything that I say here that you disagree with.
I'll bet you. I'll bet you there's not a single thing that I say that you'll disagree with.
So, don't you think that during the Kennedy-Nixon time, the people who designed it thought that they had a system that couldn't be cheated?
They probably thought they had it.
But they didn't, apparently.
So, just put that in the back of your mind and we'll continue.
So, have you seen...
Did you see the special on CNN... I hope you all saw this special on CNN where they went through the entire voting process from beginning to end.
And they showed you all the controls and the way that they monitor it so that you could see with your own eyes from beginning to end.
There's a trail of custody that's watched the whole time.
You have multiple observers.
You've got cameras. You all saw that special, right?
That showed... That election cheating is so difficult it basically couldn't happen.
Did you all see the special?
Oh, no, you didn't.
Because it doesn't exist.
Yeah, there's no special like that.
But why not?
Isn't that the most obvious news content you can imagine?
What would be a more obvious thing to put on television if you were CNN? Then a little segment that says, look, people think this election was stolen.
Let us show you how that's impossible.
All right? Let us just walk you through it, you stupid Republican rubes.
Let us just show you how the process works.
And then... You idiots.
You won't be thinking it was fraud, because we'll just show you.
You couldn't have a fraud in this situation.
We'll just lay it out for you.
Look at it yourself.
You can see there's no opportunity for fraud in this process.
Yeah, you didn't see that fucking special, did you?
And you're not going to see that special.
Do you know why?
Yeah, you know why.
You know exactly why.
Nobody wants to put that on the air.
Alright, so I asked the question, why are no experts saying that it can't be done?
And an election law expert weighed in, David Becker, UC Berkeley grad, so we know he's smart.
UC Berkeley, very smart.
So what do you think an election law expert said when I asked the question, why haven't we seen somebody saying that these are secure elections?
And he says, I'd really hope you'd listen to experts on this, because experts are really fucking believable.
So he says, I really hope you listen to experts on this.
More paper ballots, more identity validation, more audits, more bipartisan observation and transparency than ever before.
Widespread fraud is not possible and didn't happen.
See what he did there?
You see how he inserted the word widespread?
Did I say widespread?
Nope. If he had not put the word widespread in there, would he be Would he be so confident?
Nope. Was the Kennedy-Nixon election that was allegedly rigged, was it widespread?
No. No, it was very targeted.
So he had to change the argument to debunk it.
And you see this very consistently.
And then when I pointed out that he changed the argument, he changed it to some other argument.
So basically, Nobody is going to touch this question of whether these elections are cheatable.
Who would be a good expert to tell you whether a city election was rigged?
Would you want to hear from an election law professional?
Or would you want to hear from Rudy Giuliani?
Now say what you will about Rudy Giuliani, but don't you think he's kind of an expert on Municipal fraud.
I would think he would know more about that than just about anybody in the world.
If you've been a mayor of a major city, and you've been a prosecutor, and you've prosecuted the mafia, and you lived in this world of fraud and crime, and it's part of your experience, I think Rudy Giuliani's an expert.
And Rudy Giuliani says, if Philadelphia had a fair election this time, it's the first time in 60 years.
Why don't you listen to him?
Because, listen to the experts!
The listen to the experts thing is purely stupidity.
Because you can't tell which expert to listen to.
If you could, you know, that's a different conversation.
But you can't.
You can't tell.
Is it Rudy, or is it this election professional?
They have different opinions. Alright, so let's talk about whether you had the motive and the opportunity for fraud in this election.
I'll move this whiteboard over here so you can see it.
Let's talk about the motivation first.
The fake news has told Democrats that they were dealing with some kind of a orange hiller.
If you thought that you could stop Orange-Hiller from a second term, would you break the law to do it?
Well, some of you would.
Some of you would not.
If only one person was involved in elections, well, maybe that person would never break the law.
But that's not the case.
Millions of people are involved in elections.
You only need enough of them to be willing to break the law for the law to get broken.
You don't need everybody to break the law.
You just need enough.
And if you have millions of people who believe that Orange Hitler might be taking a second term, are there enough people who would be willing to break the law?
Yes. Clearly and unambiguously, yes.
So there would be enough people willing, but willingness is not enough to get it done, right?
Just be willing to do it.
Did they think it was an existential threat?
And did they believe the hoaxes?
Did they believe the fine people hoax?
Did they believe the drinking bleach hoax?
If you believe this stuff because you believe the fake news, does that create a situation in which the motivation for massive fraud involving potentially lots of people is the motivation there?
Yes, right?
Is there anybody watching this who would disagree with the statement that the motivation to cheat was higher than it has ever been?
By far.
Not even close.
Because we've never had this situation where people had actually been brainwashed to think that Hitler was maybe taking office for a second term.
That's unprecedented.
So, I think everybody would agree, no matter what kind of expert you are, and, hey, wait a minute, am I an expert?
Am I an expert on, let's say, human motivation within a large organization?
I kind of am, in my own way.
If you're the author of the Dilbert comic, you are kind of an expert on human motivation in large organizations.
But I don't have a degree in anything like that, so I won't make that claim.
All right. Now let's talk about the question of, is it possible?
Because I think this is a really important question.
If you have the highest motivation in the world to cheat, and I would argue it is literally the highest motivation in the world to cheat, and that does exist, is it possible?
That's the only other question.
Because if both of those exist, The highest motivation, and it's practical to do it, would you not say it's guaranteed to happen?
I think it would be, right?
So, if it happened, could you detect it?
And how would you detect it?
For example, could you observe it directly?
Well, the complaint is that the observers were not allowed to observe.
And in a number of cases, there are no observers.
So could direct observation be enough to guarantee that there are no places that there could be fraud?
I think the answer is obviously that's not enough.
Direct observation can be good for plugging specific holes.
For example, the things that are happening within the room where you're counting are Probably give some direct observation.
Probably have some cameras.
But I don't think there's anybody who believes that these alone, the cameras and the direct observation, given how limited that is for the entire chain of custody, is there anybody who drives around behind the vans carrying the ballots?
Does anybody drive behind those vans to make sure that they don't stop and unload anything?
There must be massive parts of the process that are not witnessed by two witnesses.
Wouldn't you say? How about the recount?
Will the recount find fraud?
No. Because if the ballots are fraudulent, you would just count them a second time.
So there's nobody who believes...
My dog's going crazy downstairs.
I might have to go deal with that in a minute.
Nobody believes that a recount finds fraud.
A recount can only find a specific kind of fraud, such as...
Can you hear that?
My dog is going crazy downstairs.
So I either have an intruder or something.
I don't know what's going on down there.
So a recount won't detect fraud.
It would only detect a very specific kind.
How about an audit?
So an audit is more than a recount.
We don't do audits.
Could an audit find problems in the system?
I think it could, but we don't do them.
We do an audit in a very small way, similar to the IRS. If the IRS calls you and says, we're going to audit you, do they audit everything that your tax returns claim?
No, no.
Even an auditor from the IRS only looks at a certain question.
They might say, ah, there's a red flag on your return.
We're going to look at that question.
But they're not going to open up your entire return.
I suppose they might if they saw some major fraud.
But that's not the intention.
They're looking at just the question.
Likewise, an audit of An election process, at most, is going to look at a specific question.
Is there anybody who's going to be double checking the software line by line in the election system?
No! No!
Nobody's going to check the code.
That's not happening.
Have you heard that happening? If they don't check the software, have they really done an audit?
Not really. So I would say that anybody who tells you there's something like an election audit happening, that's more untrue than true.
It might be that they've audited some specific questions.
Doesn't mean they're auditing everything.
How about lawsuits?
You file a lawsuit, then you've got discovery, and you can really dig into the details.
Could a lawsuit Find irregularities.
Well, it turns out there's a problem.
Because you can't file the lawsuit unless you have evidence.
And you can't get evidence with a recount.
You can't get it with an audit.
And you can't necessarily get it with direct observation or cameras.
So how can you file a lawsuit if you don't have any evidence?
And you don't have any way to get it.
Because the system is not designed to present it.
It's just not there. So you can, you know, you can do things around the margins, but you would expect to have a situation like the Trump legal team.
You'd expect 26 Senate 27 lawsuits to be tossed out because the court says, uh, where's your evidence?
I can't get it.
I can't get the evidence.
So I can't even get the process started because I can't get the evidence.
But what about data irregularities?
Do you think you could prove election fraud with data irregularities?
Well, maybe.
And I've been telling you for some time now that you would see evidence that would convince you that there was fraud.
The evidence that I think would be the convincing stuff is the data irregularities.
But, as we saw with the Wisconsin tweet that I talked about, do you trust anybody's data yet?
Nope, you don't.
Almost every claim we've seen about the election, pretty much every claim, has turned out to be false.
And it doesn't even matter who's making it, Democrat, Republican.
It feels like just about every claim about the election has turned out to be false.
So eventually, Given time, I think the data irregularities can be found.
So this is probably the only place you could find fraud.
Now, if you found it here, that might give you cause for a lawsuit, which might allow you to dig into things and, you know, maybe find something.
But the data irregularities we probably will not find, or at least will not be confident of, until the whole Biden process is done.
So here's where I think we're going to be.
At some point in the future, and I got in trouble for saying I think it would be in two weeks, so I'm going to take the deadline away from it, because I got myself in trouble with the deadline, because I'd just be guessing on deadline.
Eventually, the data irregularities will make the case as convincingly As I think the Kennedy-Nixon election.
And then what do you do?
Then what do you do?
Now there's one other phenomenon I haven't seen anybody talk about that I'm going to add to the conversation and it's going to make you mad and you're going to realize it's true.
Let's say there was some evidence We got 220 sworn statements, right?
So that suggests that maybe the direct observation and the witnesses worked to some degree.
So let's say of those 220, they can put together a dozen good lawsuits.
And let's say that they're all pretty valid.
You've got a witness.
Maybe after that you could get some documentation to demonstrate it's true.
Maybe the cameras show it too.
Then you take this to a judge and you say, I got it now.
Now, we found this source of a problem.
Let's say we found that a nursing home had sent in 100 ballots, but none of the actual residents are aware that they voted.
So you say, ha-ha, gotcha.
We found that you used this senior center to harvest votes.
You just took them out of the mailbox, you filled them out yourself, and you sent them in.
So I'm going to make a lawsuit about that.
I'm going to take it to court.
Gotcha. What does the judge say?
Does the judge say, show me your evidence?
Nope. Because the judge doesn't care.
Because the judge at first asks you, how many votes are we talking about?
And you say, well, I got 100 votes.
There were 100 people who will swear they didn't vote, and yet their vote was registered.
And the judge says, uh, so what?
If I overturn 100 votes, it doesn't change the election.
Get out of here. So, if you don't find it all, you can't do anything about it.
So, you could find a lot of it, but if you only find chunks of it, here's a chunk, here's a chunk, here's a chunk, the chunks are worthless.
Because each chunk doesn't add up enough to change the outcome.
And so the judge says, there's nothing to work on here.
Yeah, you could prove that these 100 votes don't count, but it's just this little chunk doesn't change anything.
So I'm not even going to hear it.
So it's sort of a perfect situation.
Somebody says that's appealable.
Yeah, I suppose anything's appealable.
Um... Somebody says, who here wants to start a civil war?
You know, the thing that I appreciate about this country is that we're not going to have a civil war.
It's just not going to happen.
And the reason is so simple.
You know why we won't have a civil war?
Don't want one. That's it.
That's the whole reason. You have to have somebody want one.
Right? Right?
Nobody wants one. Even the militias, they're not looking to start one.
I mean, they may independently want to overthrow the country or something, but not over the election, necessarily.
I just don't think anybody wants one.
And you would have to have a lot of people wanting one.
It just doesn't happen on its own.
All right. And I would like to say to my Democrat friends who believe that Orange Hitler was a real thing.
And believe that the president is a real racist and suggests drinking bleach.
If you could stop that election and you didn't, you are cowards.
You're cowards.
Because if you didn't cheat in this election, you've got a lot of explaining to do.
You should be able to tell me you threw the election and you're happy about it.
Because you saved the country.
In your opinion. Saves us from Orton Schiller.
Wouldn't you be proud of that?
Well, I would think you would be.
All right. I think I may have said everything I want to do.
Oh, Biden is boring us to death.
And the only other thing I wanted to say about...
Oh, does anybody think that the Senate race in Georgia is going to be a clean election?
If, let's say hypothetically...
Hypothetically, if Democrats had rigged the presidential election, and now we're doing this Senate special election in Georgia, wouldn't they rig that too?
And wouldn't they just do it exactly the same way?
So we're going to learn something interesting.
Because if both Republicans lose in Georgia, which is what people are not expecting, it's going to reopen this question of fraud.
And if the Democrats cheated in the main election and got away with it, why wouldn't they do it again the same way?
If it works, why wouldn't you do it again, really?
So James Mattis says he hopes Biden gets rid of America first as a concept.
To which I say, now I see why two different presidents fired that guy.
Mattis was probably the most overrated general of all times, as it turns out.
I had been a big fan, but once you hear him speaking candidly, he doesn't seem even bright.
There's something going on there.
Because if you're an American general and you don't think America first, That does not preclude being generous to other countries.
Saying America first doesn't mean you screw France.
America first doesn't mean you throw Great Britain into the ocean.
It means that you operate in an enlightened way about self-interest.
All right. That's all I got for now.
And I'll talk to you tomorrow.
All right. Periscope's off.
YouTubers, you have my full attention.
Somebody said Great Britain is already in the ocean.
Okay. Technically.
You need to invite Robert Barnes.
You know, he'd be a great interview.
Robert Barnes would be.
But now that I'm doing live streaming on two platforms, I don't have the technology to do a guest that both of you could hear on YouTube and Periscope at the same time.
Why do the YouTubers get more time with you?
Well, no real reason.
How did Stacey Abrams become so important?
By doing a good job.
Stacey Abrams, she's doing something right.
I mean, she almost became governor, and she's credited with changing the election situation in Georgia.
So she's doing something really well.
Somebody said I should go to the Megyn Kelly show.
That's a podcast? I would...
I'm taking some time off from doing podcasts and stuff.
But she would be fun.
Do you think vaccine should be mandatory?
I don't think that's possible.
I don't think it's possible.
But I do think that it will be effectively mandatory.
So I don't think the government needs to do it.
Because you saw that Qantas already said you have to have a vaccination to fly in their airlines.
I would expect all the airlines to go that way.
So I think that if you want to operate in the real world, probably you're going to have to get a vaccination at some point.
But I don't know that the government has to do it.
I think commerce alone would do it.
How many hours a day do I work on comics?
Maybe an average of one or two a day.
But I work on weekends too.
Is this the golden age?
It might be. It might be.
You know, the coronavirus, as horrible as it was, and is, changed so many things for the better, I think.
It just forced us to shake the box and rethink everything.
So we may be.
Yeah. Yeah, you know, the thing that everybody does, that's an exaggeration, not everybody, but a lot of people do, is they pretend that if you're in a group, that you agree with everything the group has done.
So while it's true that Trump supporters have done X, I didn't do X, so why do I get blamed?
Why is it my fault if I like a president and somebody else likes a president and somebody else kicks a dog and we both like President Trump, why is that my problem?
I'm kind of not that person.
I'm a different person. 2024 candidates?
Well, the obvious ones will be Pompeo, Matt Gaetz, I think you'll see Tom Cotton, maybe Rubio, all the usual stuff.
Are you going to write another book?
I haven't decided yet.
I might. Yes.
All right. So I'm reading your questions, and it's very boring to watch me read your questions, so I think I'm done.