Episode 1199 Scott Adams: Come Join Me For Thanksgiving and Catch up on All the Narrative Crackin'
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fluffing Joe Biden and the Democrats
General Flynn's pardon
Is a Snowden pardon on deck?
Rudy destroyed 3 Democrat narratives
Twitter suspends Senator and Mastriano
Biden supporters missed key Biden news
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
All you need is a cup of mug or a glass of tank or gels or stye in a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
You fill that thing with a beverage of your choice.
And then you can join me for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the Thanksgiving blessing you've been waiting for.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And watch it happen right now.
Go! That is good stuff.
Good stuff. Well, are you prepared for your Thanksgiving feast today?
I am. You want to see it?
You want to see my Thanksgiving feast?
I got it right here.
Mmmmm.
Yeah.
Delicious.
Now... I'm what you call an unorganized person.
I'm not really good at planning in my social life.
In my business career, I plan 40 years in advance.
Actually, literally, I plan 40 years in advance for business.
But for my personal life, I plan about 10 minutes in advance.
So I went to the grocery store yesterday saying to myself, looks like I'm going to be socially distancing on Thanksgiving.
I better make sure I have some food in the house.
So I drove down to my local supermarket, put my mask on, got out of the car, Walked over to my grocery store and saw the line going out the door and down the block.
And I said to myself, I think I'm going to eat whatever is already at my house.
Because I didn't want to get in that line and get the COVID while I'm getting my food.
So it turns out this is the only food I have in the house.
So this will be my feast tonight.
Oh, you think this is sad?
It's not. This is delicious.
I put it in the convection oven for eight minutes.
Slice it out like a surgeon.
Put a little soy sauce and pepper.
Don't forget the pepper.
And this is a delicious meal.
You don't even have to peel it.
Just cut it and then eat its little guts out when it's done.
Mmm-mmm. You want to talk about politics?
It's a holiday, so we don't have to, but I feel like there's just so much going on that we sort of want to, right?
So let's dig in. So I believe that both Iran and China have congratulated Joe Biden now.
Does that scare you?
We'll get to the Krakens and the Pennsylvania hearing and all that stuff.
But here's an out-of-the-box thought.
Could it be that Joe Biden is actually the perfect president for right now?
It's possible.
And here's the argument.
I've argued many times in the past that there's no such thing as a good president or a bad president.
The only thing you have is a president who either fits the challenges as they surprisingly pop up, or doesn't.
Because one personality could be great for a peacetime, one could be great for a war, one could be great for a pandemic, one could be great for the economy, but you don't really get all of that in one person.
So your best case scenario is that the person and the problems match up coincidentally at the same time.
Trump was perfect to goose the economy when it was already recovering.
Perfect. I thought Obama was actually a good choice for an economy that was teetering on the edge and just needed some confidence.
He did make you feel confident.
Most people, anyway.
Not all of you. So, here is my thought.
Could Iran make any kind of a deal with a President Trump?
Think about it. Was that even a possibility?
Was there any way that Iran, after being, you know, bitch-slapped for years by Trump, could Iran be bitch-slapped for years and then just say, you know, hey, I got an idea.
How about we negotiate a peace?
It's not really possible, is it?
But, imagine Biden taking over, and we still don't know that that's going to happen.
We'll talk about that in a little bit.
But imagine if he did.
If the consensus majority is right and he takes over, could Iran do a deal with Biden?
Now, is Biden likely to immediately remove all the sanctions?
Maybe. Maybe.
But I feel as if just sort of keeping them on there a little while would be easy for Biden, because doing nothing is easier than doing something.
It would be hard for Biden to add sanctions, but maybe if he goes into office and they're already on, he can ride it a little while.
And maybe, maybe Iran will say this is our out.
Maybe they'll say this whole war thing wasn't working, the supporting terrorism wasn't working, and we just need an exit ramp.
Could Trump ever be that exit ramp?
Now, he was the perfect exit ramp for Kim Jong-un, wouldn't you say?
I think Trump is actually the perfect exit ramp for that.
I think Trump is the perfect exit ramp for Saudi Arabia to improve relations with Israel.
Because the president, you know, he backed Saudi Arabia even when it was hard.
Right? So Trump backed Saudi Arabia when that was really hard to do.
They owe him a favor.
They owe him a favor.
Period. They owe him a favor.
So he would be maybe perfect for that.
But it looks like that might happen.
So could it be?
I'm just trying to find the positivity here.
You don't mind, do you?
We'll be a little bit positive today.
Because it's Thanksgiving.
Why not? So one possibility is that President Trump will have started all of the necessary elements toward peace.
But it could be, it could be, you need a finisher.
Could Biden be the finisher?
It's possible.
It's not impossible.
And if any of you are saying, Scott, don't be such a naive, gullible fool.
As long as the leadership of Iran is in place, they will only lie to you.
They will never make peace.
Maybe. Could be.
But they're also in a nearly impossible situation, so that could make you flexible.
Who knows? So I'm not going to predict that will happen, but I'll just put it out there as maybe.
Anything's possible. Biden sent out a Thanksgiving tweet reminding us that we are not enemies with each other, we Americans, but we are all enemies with the virus.
Sounds good. But you called half the country a racist, basically, because the way you handled the whole fine people thing.
I'm not over that.
And I'm not going to get over that.
I'm certainly willing to work with whatever administration is in office.
I'm certainly willing to be a You know, friendly to everybody that I meet in person.
But no, I'm not really over that.
And I've got a feeling I'm not ever going to be over that.
Because there are some lines which, when crossed, you can't go back.
That was a one-way trip.
The whole find people hoax thing.
That was a one-way trip.
You don't get to come back from that.
So you can be president, perhaps.
You can even get my support.
But Joe Biden, I hate your fucking guts for that, and that's not going to change.
Here's another best-case scenario.
Are you ready? Imagine the things that could have happened that didn't.
One thing that could have happened was that Trump won the election narrowly.
Riots, right? Riots, you know, four more years of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, ruling the streets.
It could have been bad. Could have been bad.
Maybe not. You know, maybe it had died down.
But I'm not sure that would have been the best path for the coherence of the country.
And really, there's a mental health question.
I think the country is suffering from mental health problems.
Like, literally not joking, not making a political point.
Like, in an actual mental health way, the COVID stuff is really kicking our brain's ass.
And then you add on top of that any division that comes out of politics, and your brain is getting quite a workout here in terms of mental health.
So, would a second term of Trump, if it had sparked Even greater violence and unrest been the best thing for the country.
Maybe. But let's just walk through the other options, okay?
The other options were that Biden wins clean.
And by clean, I mean in such a way that even the people who thought there was massive cheating would be willing to say, ah, okay, but there's no such thing as that much cheating.
So maybe there was some cheating, but he still won because he won by 60 million votes, you know, hypothetically.
So I don't think...
I don't think that was possible.
And we didn't get that, right?
So it wasn't possible for Biden to win so cleanly that nobody doubted the process.
And if Trump had won narrowly, or even by a lot, I think there would have been riots.
So what would have been, if you could have drawn this out on paper, what would have been the best outcome?
I'm going to propose That we might be experiencing it.
It just doesn't feel like it, right?
If I said to you, hey, hey guys, are you having the best case scenario right now?
You would look at me like I'm crazy.
It's like, are you kidding? The election process is in question.
You know, the process has been a mess.
How is this the best case scenario?
Well, let me make my case.
And it goes like this.
Did we avoid the riots in the street?
So far? So far?
Would you say that your assumption about what kind of unrest there would be immediately after the election, were you not wrong?
Everybody who said there would be massive unrest...
After the election, I think you'd have to say they were wrong.
That didn't happen.
So that's good.
So, so far, anything that gets us to not rioting in the streets, that's better than it was, right?
So let's bank that thought, but let's continue.
Suppose what comes out of this is a national understanding that our election system is not Is not secure.
Now, whether or not there was massive cheating that changed the outcome, separately but connected to that question, is are our elections secure?
Because you always have to worry about the future as well, right?
Suppose the only thing that came out of this was that we learned how to fix our elections and make them secure in the future.
That would be amazing!
That would be a really, really, really good outcome.
You could even argue it would be the first time that the United States had a true democracy.
Democracy, republic, you know what I'm talking about.
Don't be pedantic. We could be heading toward the second American Revolution.
It just happens with software.
And with our election process, we might be learning that for the first time ever, We might have the opportunity to let the people pick our politicians.
I don't know if that's good, but you do fight revolutions to get that, so people obviously want it.
So if that was the only outcome, we move to, let's say, maybe a blockchain system, I would guess that in four years we'll probably have a parallel system.
Here's the way I would do it.
I would build a blockchain-based app, and I would run one election with parallel systems.
And I would say, for some of you who volunteer, do us a favor.
Vote on the app, and then separately vote the normal way with a ballot or going in person.
And we won't count the app Votes the first time we do it.
We're just going to run parallel systems and see if we learn anything, see if anything breaks.
Then if it works, you fix whatever problems and maybe put it into action.
But I would run them parallel and just do it as an experiment.
If that's all we got out of this, it would be amazing.
Amazing. It might even signal the coming of the Golden Age.
Now suppose... That President Trump decides to go George Washington on this.
Let's say he pursues the court cases and Rudy makes his case.
Now, he might not win in court in the sense that the election is reversed and Trump is put in office.
I don't think that's going to happen.
Because I just don't think the courts will look at the facts.
I think they'll look at the big picture, you know, what's going to keep civilization together.
And so I think that they might go for whatever gives you the most stable situation as opposed to technically what the law would indicate.
So that's what I think.
Now, suppose the president says, I'm going to take my opportunity.
I'm going to go George Washington, and I'm going to say, you know, According to this process and according to the voters, I have convinced you, you the voters, you are convinced that the election was stolen.
I could fight and get power back, but I'm going to go George Washington and I'm going to say, let's keep the system intact.
It would look kind of a strong play.
And then he starts maybe another career as a media, news mogul.
It's a big success. It's a lot of fun.
Could be good. Suppose the Republicans do hold the Senate, which I have a lot of doubts about.
Because if the election was rigged at the presidential level, why wouldn't it be rigged at the state level when they do this Senate runoff thing?
What would possibly stop them At the local level from rigging it again, if they rigged it the first time.
So if you imagine it's true that they rigged it the first time at a national level, which means rigging it at the necessary state levels, why wouldn't they do it again?
What possible thing would stop them if it worked?
So I don't know that we'll get a Republican Senate, but let's say we do.
That means that maybe Biden doesn't overtax me, and maybe we get a little relief from the social unrest.
Maybe Trump's voice is just as strong, but it's external to government.
It could be just as strong.
It might not be bad.
Stock market's up, right?
I feel like we'll survive this, one way or the other.
Alright. I also think that if you're a Republican, the current situation of, let's say, Biden takes office and he does a reasonably moderate job without too many super lefty things because the Congress won't let him get away with it, what happens in 2022?
We're on a path that almost guarantees Republican control of Congress by 2022.
And then what happens in 2024?
Well, Biden won't be running, so you don't have an incumbent.
And if you don't have an incumbent, and the last election looks like it was stolen, I like the Republicans' chances, whoever that is, whether it's Trump or somebody else.
So don't assume that bad news has happened.
Let's talk about the churches.
I guess the Supreme Court...
He backed some church in New York.
The local government, Cuomo, wanted the churches to close, I guess.
I don't know all the details. But the Supreme Court, five to four, said, you are treating the churches unfairly.
Compared to other groups and businesses and organizations, so they reversed it.
Now, I'm not a believer or religious, so I've been kind of staying out of this topic.
But I want to just throw this notion into the mix.
What would Jesus do?
Let's say Jesus came back and he just became the pastor of your local church.
And, you know, you got lucky.
So you go to your local church, and there's actually Jesus who came back to life.
What would Jesus do in the pandemic?
Okay, don't be a wise guy.
I know he would just heal his people.
That's too clever. Yes, he would just go out and he would touch the people who had COVID and heal them.
That's not what I'm talking about.
What would he do in terms of keeping the church open?
Would he... Would he say, hey, let's just wait.
Wait it out and we'll be fine.
Or would he say, no, the religious impulse is too important, too important to your souls.
And even taking one year off is unacceptable because you have rights, you have a constitutional right, plus God wants you to worship, right?
But what would Jesus do?
Literally, literally Jesus.
What would he do? Would Jesus say, yeah, some of you are going to die, but it's very important that you worship in the same building at the same time.
Does that sound like Jesus?
Did that sound like something Jesus would say?
Yeah, some of you will die, but it's very important that you don't worship alone for this one year where we have this medical problem, but rather you should do it in person.
I don't feel like he would say that.
But again, I'm not religious, and my opinion on this is completely irrelevant.
Let me tell you what I would do if I were the church who had won this court case.
I would say, we have won our court case, now we're going to close the church.
That's what I'd do. If I were Jesus, I would fight the government trying to close my church, because I would say, hey, I think this is unfair.
I might fight the case because of the unfairness of it, the way it's being implemented.
But once I won, and it was no longer the government's choice whether this church is open or not, and now it's more of a Jesus question, right?
What would Jesus do?
I feel like Jesus would win the court case because he's Jesus.
How does Jesus lose a court case?
I think he'd be pretty good defending his side.
But I think he might say, let me give you a parable.
Suppose your local church had a termite problem and your pastor said, we're going to miss a week of church.
Because we've got to tent it, and we're going to do a termite eradication thing, so you're just going to lose one week, can't use the building, just one week, because it wouldn't be healthy.
Would you be okay with that, or would you take it to the Supreme Court?
I think you'd be okay with it.
So it's really sort of a timing thing, right?
The reason you'd be okay with the termite tent is that it's not permanent.
Things that aren't permanent...
Aren't really problems.
That's sort of my philosophy.
There's two parts of the philosophy.
If you can solve it with money, I've taken this from my friend Jason.
If you can solve a problem with money, it's not that big a problem because there's usually a way to find money.
You know, there are ways to make money.
Somebody says, come on, man.
Somebody says, Jesus defeated death.
You're wrong, Scott.
I don't know what that means.
Souls are more important than virus.
Would your soul be damaged if your church is tented for termites?
Would your soul be damaged, or would you just say, I think I'll pray at home today and hit the church next week when it's safe?
I don't know. So again, nothing about my opinion on this should be important.
I'm not part of the question.
But there you go.
Let's talk about the Flynn pardon.
Everybody saw that coming.
I think you all expected that, right?
You all expected Flynn to get pardoned?
I did. And here's the funny part.
I was listening to MSNBC and flipping back and forth to Fox, and it is really shocking.
I don't know how many times you've had the experience yourself, so this is not a new thought.
But listening to MSNBC talk about the same news you're watching on another network is a really freaky experience.
According to them, a case in which the prosecutor himself...
Wants to drop the charges.
They act like they're watching a murder.
That this pardon was so over the line that the president has now destroyed all our norms and what?
Did I tell you that the prosecutor himself doesn't want to prosecute the case because there's not enough of a case there?
The prosecutor wants to drop the charges.
If the prosecutor wants to drop the charges, that's not really watching a murder happen.
That's more like nothing happening here, right?
So it's really freaky watching the MSNBC people think that it's just the worst problem in the world.
So what about Snowden?
So Snowden's name came up.
I think the president said he doesn't know a whole bunch about the case, but he will be looking into it, so he was neither a yes nor a no on that.
I feel as though every time the president noodles about a pardon, it ends up happening.
Is there any exception to that?
Have we seen yet any case where the president has talked in public, like, well, you know, I'm thinking about that or I'm looking into it, Where it didn't happen?
Because I feel as if he wouldn't say that unless he knew he was going to do it, right?
I mean, he could always change his mind.
But I've got a feeling his preliminary thinking, and here I'm doing a little mind reading, so don't take this too seriously.
I feel as if he doesn't bring it up unless he's favorably disposed already.
I feel that way. Now, of course, he was responding to a question, But if he were not favorably disposed, I feel he would have said, well, that's a tough one.
You know, that was a very serious crime.
You know, I think that would be a tough pardon.
I think if he said that, then I'd expect maybe it wouldn't happen.
But if he just says, well, I haven't looked into it, that feels like he's already decided.
But we'll see. Apparently Barr is violently opposed to it, and a lot of well-meaning, patriotic people are also opposed to it.
I'm not also real steeped in the details.
I understand that the accusation is that he hurt our national security and may have even gotten people killed.
That's the allegation, right?
But here's my take on this.
So I just watched an interview with him, a fresh interview, in which Snowden was saying That his only condition for returning to the U.S., and I guess this has been consistent from the start, is that he wants a guarantee that he can tell his story at trial.
Did you know that's all he's asking for?
That Snowden would come back and go to trial?
He's not saying, I need a pardon to return.
He's not even asking for that.
Apparently not once.
He's asked for a fair trial in which he gets to tell his story.
And apparently that's not guaranteed.
Now I don't know what it means to guarantee it.
I suppose you could put that in writing.
I don't know what kind of guarantees the Justice Department can make that are legal.
But isn't that not asking for much?
So here's my take on it.
If it's true that the U.S. will not guarantee him A fair trial, meaning he's not even asking for a fair trial.
He's only asking to be able to tell his story.
If we can't guarantee that, he has to be pardoned.
He has to be.
Because let me put it into a visual argument.
Let's say you are very opposed to the Snowden pardon.
And let's say you took all of your concerns and you translated them into a physical weight.
And let's say it weighed a ton.
That's a lot. That's how much you don't want Snowden to be pardoned.
One ton. Now let's do the same measurement on this question of how do you deal with somebody who can't get a fair trial?
Well, if I were to take the fact that this person, a whistleblower, can't get a guarantee even to tell his story in public at a trial, What weight would you put on that compared to the ton of weight you'd put on Snowden did something bad in your opinion and should not be pardoned?
That's a ton. What weight would you put on protecting the court system in the United States?
That most minimal guarantee that you can get a free trial.
Well, if don't pardon him weighs a ton, My personal subjective thing is that the other thing weighs 100 tons.
Because whatever happens to one individual pales in comparison to the integrity of the system.
And if we can't guarantee an American citizen, a whistleblower, specifically, a fair trial, and not even a fair trial.
He's not even asking for a fair trial.
He's asking just to tell his story.
And we can't give him that?
That's 100 tons.
And it's not even close to a decision about whether he should or should not be pardoned.
Under this situation, yeah, he should be pardoned 100%.
And I don't care what he did.
Tell me he killed somebody.
Okay. Still should be pardoned.
Tell me he hurt American security.
Okay. Still should be pardoned.
Tell me that everybody in the world and the The legal system hates him and thinks he should die.
I don't care. This reason is way bigger than all of those reasons.
They're not even close. All right.
There's a question of whether the president could pardon himself or, let's say, cleverly with stepping down and having Pence pardon him.
And the question is, can you pardon somebody before there's a crime?
There's a trial and a crime.
Is it possible and legal to pardon somebody generically?
Well, Emily Campeno said on The Five that it's not.
That's not a thing.
You have to have a crime, and then you can pardon it.
But if you have a, well, there might have been a crime, we might find one later, you can't pardon it because there's nothing to pardon.
Thank you. You're getting ahead of me in the comments.
But, is that true?
Wasn't true for Nixon.
Nixon did get a generic pardon.
Now, there is a question whether that would have withstood a Supreme Court challenge.
But it wasn't challenged.
And so it stood.
Now, if Trump also got a generic pardon, and apparently generic still has to have boundaries...
So in the case of Nixon, there was a time-limited pardon, meaning that he couldn't murder somebody tomorrow and get away with it.
He's only pardoned for a limited period of time, maybe the presidency, I think.
And they could do the same thing with Trump, say, well, this is the period of time we're talking about, maybe including before the presidency if you want to go that way, and say you could be generically pardoned without any specific crimes.
It's just you're pardoned in advance.
So I think it's possible, but in the case of Trump, it might go to the Supreme Court, but he's got the Supreme Court kind of leading his way at the moment.
So I'm going to say that it is possible, but not guaranteed, meaning the pardon could work, but it could get overturned.
Alright, let's talk about Sidney Powell, who has filed two big lawsuits late last night.
And people are poring over the many, many pages of it, the lawsuit.
But one of the things that stands out is in one of the titles, there are some really obvious misspellings.
And people are saying, uh, what's going on here?
Because that's the one thing you don't expect your high-end lawyers to do wrong.
We misspell things in the title.
Like, I think there were two words that looked like typos, not misspellings.
And so a lot of people are saying, uh, what's going on?
Now, if I had to guess, they were in a hurry.
Something got, I don't know, maybe there was some OCR thing has been suggested.
Might have been an OCR problem where nobody reread it.
So it could have been just they ran out of time and Didn't do as complete a job as they would normally, trying to meet a deadline.
So I don't think that's important in any way.
But everybody's talking about it.
I don't have an opinion about how strong that evidence is.
But let's talk about Rudy's and Jenna Ellis and etc.
We're at the Pennsylvania hearing yesterday.
How many of you watched any part of that hearing?
It was hard to find. The networks were not covering it.
And it was long.
Here's my take on it.
The basic setup is that Republicans in Pennsylvania held a hearing.
Rudy Giuliani and other attorneys gave their evidence of what they have seen.
But here is the brilliant part about it.
So I give Rudy an A-plus and his team.
I give them an A-plus for that hearing.
Here's why. It wasn't a court of law, and therefore, obviously, nothing binding is going to happen there.
But, if you're watching it on television, it looks pretty official, doesn't it?
Now, it was the opposite of any kind of a, let's say, a process you could trust, because it was all just Republicans showing one side of the story.
There were nobody on the other side, no Democrats were arguing the points, no lawyers were challenging.
It was just Republicans talking to Republicans and making their case.
But if you turned it on and you're just a low-information voter and you happen to see it, it kind of looked pretty official looking.
And all you heard was all this evidence from Rudy of allegations of fraud.
Lots of them. Apparently there are hundreds of affidavits.
Lots of the observations and the affidavits are backed up by multiple witnesses.
So it's not even like one person saw a UFO. It's like one person says they saw a UFO. And there are 75 people who say the same thing.
So that just changes your perceived credibility because you've got lots of witnesses.
It's not just one person.
So in terms of the PR battle, which is a big part of this, you have to convince the public before you could have any chance of getting legislators to To do something outside of the normal process, meaning to decertify or to overturn the result or to have the House pick the president.
So if you imagine that what Rudy was doing was providing court-like proof, well, that didn't happen.
He did not present anything that if you were in court, you would say, oh, yeah, I saw a proof because he showed it to us.
No, that didn't happen. We're still into allegations and evidence and affidavits.
We're moving toward that, but we're not there.
And I thought the whole thing was brilliantly planned and executed because it was like a mock trial with only one point of view presented, which is as good as you can get in engineering a political theater.
Now, the people who criticized it said, ah...
It was just political theater.
It was.
It was political theater by design, and it was really, really good.
So calling something political theater isn't really an insult if what you designed was political theater.
And you designed your political theater to change public opinion and, you know, in a related way, change political...
People who have been elected changed their opinions too.
It really worked.
I'm going to tell you that you could not have watched that as an objective citizen and walked away from that thinking there was no massive fraud.
If you saw that, it wasn't proof, and what I saw at least wouldn't hold up in court, but man, it was persuasive.
It was really persuasive.
Now, will that translate to court?
Unknown. We will find out.
Here was one of Rudy's best arguments that really, really threw me, because I didn't see this one coming.
And maybe you did.
You're smarter than me. And it goes like this.
We know that the courts don't like to disenfranchise voters.
So one of the claims is that there were, I don't know, 600, 700,000 votes That were counted without witnesses being allowed to monitor it.
Now, normally, let's say you took that to the court and said there were hundreds of thousands of votes which were not monitored.
But we don't have proof that they're fake.
It just wasn't monitored in the way we wish it had been monitored.
That's all we know for sure.
Would the court then throw out those votes?
No, probably not.
Because the court would say, yeah, technically you made your case.
You know, they're supposed to be watched.
They were not watched. Technically, that's a violation.
But it's better to keep the system stable.
It's better not to disenfranchise those people who thought they were voting.
What about all the people who voted?
Don't they have rights to have their vote counted?
How do you throw away a citizen's vote?
So you can imagine that the court would just say, yeah, you made your case.
And we're still going to rule against you because it's just better for the world.
And then Rudy adds this little part, which is really good.
If you don't punish them, they'll do it again.
And I thought to myself, that's a pretty good argument.
Because if your concern as the court is the well-being of the whole, so you're not going to obsess about the technical infraction...
If you want to keep the whole healthy?
Doesn't it keep the whole healthiest if you punish anybody who tries to cheat in a way that could be corrupted?
We don't know that the non-observed votes were corrupt.
We just know that if next time they don't have to worry about observers, it's going to be corrupt, right?
So Rudy makes the point that if you don't reverse the actual outcome of the election and put Trump in office, you will have rewarded cheaters in a way that guarantees we'll never have another fair election.
That's a really strong argument.
I don't know if that argument will win, but don't you feel that's pretty darn strong?
I had not really thought of the deterrent argument.
I'd been obsessed with Well, I think the court's going to go for whatever keeps the stability, even if it means allowing a little bit of fraud.
That's a strong argument.
All right. We watched the whole country learning, because of that Pennsylvania hearing, that apparently you can bully and chase away Republican observers with no penalty.
That's what we all learned.
And if we haven't learned it by watching that, you'll probably learn it pretty soon.
So what happens when the entire country learns that Democrats can bully Republicans out of the room where they count the votes?
Because if the election is not reversed, if it's not actually reversed, you just taught the country to cheat in the next election, guaranteed.
No way around it.
Guaranteed the next election is garbage if you don't reverse the result of this one.
Strong argument.
It's a strong argument.
I didn't see it coming, really.
So here's how the mainstream narrative is starting to crack.
I'd say the narrative is, dare I say, crackin'.
And you can see it in the language and the choice of words.
Let me run you through this.
Do you remember immediately after the election, the most common phrase you would hear is, there is no evidence of fraud.
No evidence of fraud.
And then lots of affidavits, you know, were surfaced.
And now it went from there's no evidence of fraud to there's no proof of fraud.
Because evidence doesn't turn into proof until it's presented in court and judged to be true.
But did that happen?
Well, I don't know that, again, once you get to the legal stuff, I get a little bit lost in that.
But my understanding is that the court cases that have been lost so far never judged the facts of the allegation.
Can somebody fact check me on that?
That the lawsuits so far have been dismissed for a variety of technical reasons and standing and technical stuff.
But when the Democrats say that nothing has been proven in court, and indeed also, as a separate point, The Trump people or Trump-leaning people have lost, I don't know, 26 out of 27 cases?
Your mind connects those, right?
Hasn't been proven in court, and they've lost 26 out of 27 cases.
Doesn't your mind automatically say, well, that's got to be the same thing?
The reason that they lost all the cases, logically, duh, is because they couldn't prove the facts.
Doesn't your brain do that automatically?
Apparently nothing like that happened.
Apparently they never have looked at the facts, and therefore there was never ever any opportunity for them to say they were true or false.
But the narrative gets to use language cleverly to make you think that that's why the case is lost, a lack of proof.
Apparently that's not the case.
So then it became baseless claims.
They changed no proof into baseless.
Is no proof in court the same as baseless?
No. Those words don't mean the same thing.
But the narrative wants you to nudge you from no proof, when in fact there has been no process to decide if proof exists or not.
We're too early for that.
That turns into baseless, which of course makes you think that no proof could come, which is different.
Then of course they inject the word widespread.
They all tried this trick, right?
There's no widespread fraud.
It's not widespread.
And of course, the claim was never widespread.
The claim was always focused in these key cities.
But now there's so much evidence from Rudy that even if you imagine that each of the individual pieces of allegations, even if they don't add up to something...
It still looks kind of widespread, doesn't it?
Even if you just say it's in those swing state cities, Rudy has so many examples in different ways, different techniques, that it's kind of widespread now.
I didn't see that coming, because I think of widespread in terms of geography.
But if you think of it in terms of these targeted cities, it's widespread in terms of thoroughly Infiltrating those places.
That's pretty widespread.
And so that's now changed to...
And this is how Twitter put it in one of their headline bullets where they summarize a hashtag.
They use this sentence.
Judges have found no evidence of fraud.
Judges have found no evidence of fraud.
So now you're back to the trick of thinking...
Well, they must have looked at the evidence and then they found there was no fraud.
But apparently that didn't happen.
There was no process by which anybody looked at any evidence.
So if you haven't done the process...
Let me give you an example.
I'll use my tenting your house for termites example.
Tenting doesn't work Because my house still has termites.
And then the termite eradicator guy says, well, we haven't put the tent on your house yet.
You understand that there are termites in your house until...
You put the termite tent on, and then you fumigate, and then if we do it right, it's only afterwards that your house could have no termites.
You understand that, right?
That we're now with termites, then in the future there's the tenting, and then possibly, if you do it right, you get to a no termite situation.
And then I say, nice try.
My house is full of termites.
Okay, what are you not understanding?
About the fact that the process hasn't even begun.
And I say, look, my house has probably had termites for what, six months at least?
Maybe a year? Are you telling me that in six months to a year, your company can't put up a tent and get rid of the termites in my house?
And the termite guy goes, I don't know what's happening here.
You only called me yesterday.
How could I have put up a tent Six months ago when I didn't even know you existed.
You called me yesterday.
And I'll say, nice try, but my house is full of termites, you grifter.
What's happening?
The tenting is tomorrow.
It hasn't already happened.
What's happening?
And I say, yeah, six months and you couldn't put up a tent on my house.
Pathetic. All right.
So that's happening.
I would say that Rudy destroyed three narratives from the other team yesterday.
Now, when I say he destroyed their narratives, what I'm not saying is proved his case.
All right? So can we be all smart enough to know That when I'm saying he destroyed several narratives, that's not in any way saying he proved his case.
All he did was subtract a few attacks against him.
That's all. But he did it really well.
Okay? Really well.
Here are the three things that you might have believed a few weeks ago.
But now maybe you don't.
Number one, the claim that there were not enough fraud charges...
That even if they were fraud, and even if it were proven, it could change the outcome of the race.
That's now destroyed.
Because Rudy has given us the numbers, and we don't know if the case will go his way, but the numbers are absolutely, unambiguously, allegedly, and that's all we're dealing with is the allegation, big enough.
So can we stop saying forever That if Rudy prevails in his case, it would not change the election.
Because clearly it would.
He has now made the case that it's big enough.
Doesn't mean he wins, but it's big enough.
Okay? So can we get rid of that narrative forever?
Probably not, but we should.
Number two. A lot of smart people told me that there's no real opportunity For anybody to cheat on a scale big enough that it could change the election.
Well, if you listen to that three-hour hearing, you heard nothing but opportunity for cheating.
Apparently, it's not only possible to cheat in an election, but the number of ways to do it are so many that you don't have enough time to hear them all.
Now, did Rudy make the case That there were so many allegations that at the very least, it was possible.
Meaning that even if each of these individual allegations, you know, we found out nobody used those loopholes, nobody used those opportunities, he still proved the opportunities were there.
For example, he might be able to prove that observers were kept out of the room with the ballots.
Probably very provable with witnesses, etc.
If he proves that people were kept out of that room, it doesn't mean there was fraud inside the room.
It just means he's proven that.
I think I had some other point, but I already forgot it.
Oh, the point is that He would have proven there was opportunity to cheat behind that closed door.
But he would not have proven that the cheating actually happened, hypothetically.
So the argument that there wasn't an opportunity, I think he slayed.
There is nothing left of that argument.
And that is why I say this might be one of the best things that's ever happened to the country.
Because I think Rudy will, at the very least, be the agent that causes our election system to be Improved and hardened.
If that's all that comes out of it, it would be great.
Number three. The thought that if there was so much cheating, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott.
If there was that much cheating, there would be witnesses.
You know? Because you would need probably multiple people to be in on it.
You're going to have lots of witnesses, so where are all your witnesses, Scott?
Well, I think that question's been asked and answered.
Turns out there are hundreds of them, and there are only hundreds of them, because if you had another thousand of them, they would be saying the same observations.
In other words, there were multiple witnesses to each alleged fraud or imperfection.
And So now you can never say that again, if you're being honest.
You can never say that if there was that much cheating, you'd have tons of witnesses.
Because there are tons of witnesses.
That's now a fact, I think.
I mean, he says he has these sworn statements.
If he doesn't show them to us, I'd be pretty disappointed.
But we assume that that's probably not something he's lying about, right?
That they exist. So that doesn't mean he's proven his case, but I don't want to hear anybody say the allegations are not large enough to change the result.
I don't want anybody to say there's no opportunity to cheat in our elections.
There are tons of them.
And I don't want to hear anybody say that there are no witnesses.
And of course, if there was that much cheating, there'd be witnesses.
There are tons of them. All right.
Here's how CNN confused me about the Pennsylvania situation.
I'm going to read their exact statement.
And see if you can figure out what the hell this means.
On Wednesday, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking further action in certifying the 2020 election pending hearing on mail-in ballots scheduled Friday.
So that sentence I interpret as the courts ordered a temporary injunction Prohibiting state officials from taking actions to certify the election.
So I think this told me that it's not certified because the court prevented them from taking further actions to certify.
Okay, so the first part of this says it's not certified yet, and they're pausing it.
And then the second part of the same paragraph says Pennsylvania state officials filed an appeal, blah, blah, blah, And said that the injunction will not impact the certification process.
But wasn't it already certified?
So I'm a little bit...
I'm completely confused about the certifying situation.
So I don't know if Pennsylvania's in play or not.
We'll see. So Twitter suspended Pennsylvania senator and colonel Doug Mastriano, because he was leading the Pennsylvania Senate hearings, I don't know what he tweeted, but he got suspended for 12 hours or something.
He's back now. And I would just add this to that story.
If Twitter suspends you, they owe you a reason, don't you think?
Don't you think they owe you a reason?
Because you would like to know.
I mean, it's not a law.
There's no constitutional right that Twitter will tell you why they're suspending you.
But it seems good form.
They should say, oh, you promoted violence or you said something that wasn't true too many times.
Something like that. But on top of that, if an elected official gets suspended from Twitter...
Twitter's obligation, again, not legal, not constitutional obligation, but I think an obligation of members of society.
Let's say a social obligation, a civilization obligation.
If a senator gets suspended for something he said on Twitter, Twitter needs to explain that to us.
Right? That's not just between Twitter and that one senator or other elected official.
It's not just between them.
Like, we're part of this fight, right?
Like, if you suspend somebody I voted for, you're fucking with me.
Right? You owe me an explanation.
I didn't see one.
So, this would be my recommendation to Jack and to Twitter, is that You know, I don't think that there are no reasons to suspend people.
And I feel that they're experimenting their way to maybe a better situation.
So as long as they're A-B testing, I'm not going to be too hard on Twitter.
They're testing stuff, they're seeing what the response is, they're seeing what works.
So some of that's fine.
But you need to explain to the public, if you're banning somebody we voted for, that's on us, right?
That's personal. I'm not even a citizen of Pennsylvania.
I didn't vote for this senator.
But it's still personal.
Because this is a senator that one of my country's states elected.
They elected him to speak for them.
And Twitter decided that he couldn't.
Why does Twitter decide that a legally elected senator, at least in this one limited way, can't speak for us?
Can't speak for the people.
Alright, enough on that.
The Daily Wire and Hank Berrien did a story about...
Apparently there was a study to find out how much Biden supporters know about the news.
It went just about the way you think it would go.
Turns out that a survey of 1,750 Biden supporters in seven swing states...
So they were looking at the swing states, so it mattered...
Found that the news media's suppression of stories, now that part is opinion.
I know you agree with the opinion, as do I, but that's opinion.
Have hurt former Vice President Joe Biden's electoral chances.
So they go on to talk about the stories that Democrats didn't hear.
I'm not talking about they disagree with the stories.
They didn't hear them.
Complete blackout.
So listen to this.
82% of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of the following issues.
The Tara Reade sexual assault allegations, 35% were unaware.
So think about that.
35% of the people who voted for Biden...
Probably thought they didn't want to support the guy who was an accused sexual molester, so they voted for Biden instead.
But 35% of them had never heard that he's an accused rapist.
I feel sorry for the Democrats.
And 8.9% said they would have voted for Trump if they had known about that.
These numbers are so big, they would completely change the election if the news and social media had allowed people to know about these stories.
The Hunter Biden scandal.
45% of Biden voters were unaware.
45% of Biden voters Had never heard the Hunter Biden scandal.
That is so bad, it's just funny.
I really feel sorry for these people.
And 9.4% said they would have switched their vote.
All right. 25% didn't know Kamala Harris is really, really left.
Come on, how do you not know that?
Now, some of it is just people don't watch the news, but probably a lot of them are people who did watch the news and still didn't know the news.
Let's see. How many knew there was a huge jump in economic growth?
So how many people knew that we're coming out of the pandemic, at least the economic part, really strongly?
49% of Democrats didn't know about that.
They didn't know. How do you not know about the economy?
I mean, how do you not pay attention to that?
And 5.6% said they would have changed their vote maybe if they knew about that.
How about the historic peace agreements with Israel and their Arab neighbors?
Now, you can't miss that, right?
It's like probably one of the biggest stories of the year is that the Middle East is finding peace and that Trump is a big part of that with Jared Kushner.
And how many people in the Democrats, how many do you think hadn't heard about that?
Let's see. Let's see.
I've lost that number. It's a big number.
All right. So they hadn't heard that.
Oh, 43%.
Almost 44%.
Had never heard about any of the Middle East peace deals.
44%. Oh my God.
Poor Democrats. How about the number of Democrats who were aware the president was behind Operation Warp Speed and that it's a huge success?
How many didn't know that who voted for Biden?
36%. 36%.
Alright. Now, of course, some of these people might not have necessarily voted for Trump, but they might have not voted.
You know, if you could have gotten 6% of them to not vote, that would have been a pretty big deal.
Now, here's the kick around this.
Because we're spending all our attention talking about fraud or no fraud, the social media and the news is getting a pass.
There's nothing like The will of the people or democracy that happened.
So this vote wasn't even close to a democratic process within the context of a republic.
Not even close. The only thing that happened, and you can see it really clearly in this survey, what happened is the public was brainwashed by social media and the news.
That's it. Every other part of the story Is way less important.
Is the fraud important?
Well, it's important for fixing the elections in the future, perhaps.
But even the fraud is smaller than what the social media and the fake news did for the past year.
Way smaller. So, because the fraud is the fun, glowing object, and it's the thing we're watching, and we're sort of bored about talking about media bias, they got a total pass.
For all practical purposes, this was the year we formed a Chinese form of government.
You know, the Chinese form of government is you've got your supreme leader, your President Xi, but really he has to be backed by the Communist Party top officials.
If President Xi lost the support, hypothetically, of all of the top officials in the Communist Party, he probably would lose power.
So the president, even though he's sort of dictator-like, he's not really, because he kind of has to have that lower level agreeing with him.
Similar to Iran.
Iran has a process where there's a supreme leader, but he's a supreme leader, but he needs his religious council to support him, or he probably couldn't stay in power.
What we have just created accidentally...
is a process by which the social media CEOs, given that they control what happens in their companies, that they have become effectively like the Communist Party of China.
Now, this is an analogy, all right?
So don't get too hung up in, hey, they're not exact.
There's a slight difference.
They're not exact, right?
I'm just making the point that our government is now clearly I mean, this survey shows it as clearly as possible, that the decision of who is president has been taken out of the hands of the public.
That statement is very strong.
Let me say it again. The social media companies and the heads of the big networks have taken out of the hands of the public the decision of who their government will be.
That happened. There's no story that's bigger than that.
Do you know why that's not a story?
Because we're a communist country now.
And the Communist Party...
And again, I'm taking the analogy too far.
But the heads of the social media platforms and the heads of the news networks, they get to decide who's president.
If you don't think that's true, well, I've got a survey to show you.
Because it was just shown pretty conclusively.
If the news can simply disappear stories...
And you can see that very clearly they did.
They get to decide who's president.
It's not you. It's not you at all.
You're not even a little bit involved in picking the president.
Not even... You are simply being assigned an opinion, and then like a good little hypnotized zombie, you go, I have my opinion.
I'm using my good judgment, my free will.
I will go vote now, according to my smart thinking and free will.
And none of that happened.
The public is assigned their opinions.
And then that's it. That's the process.
You wait for the oligarchs to tell you what your opinion will be.
They assign it.
It doesn't affect everybody.
Granted, maybe you are invulnerable.
Maybe their brainwashing doesn't work on you.
But it works enough on enough people that your vote is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if it works on you.
So... People still believe that they look at the information and form relevant opinions.
That is one of the big reality-bending things that you're going to learn, that you don't look at data and form opinions.
It doesn't happen.
It is purely an illusion.
You look at the data that the oligarchs show you, And you don't see anything else.
And then you form the opinion that they wanted you to form, which they created by deciding what information you see.
You are not part of the decision-making process, even for your own brain.
That is now gone.
Again, there are exceptions, right?
They don't necessarily brainwash every person the same way and just as effectively.
But that's what's happening.
That's the world you live in now.
There was another study that showed that the tone of the COVID-related news articles in the United States, 91% of them were negative.
Now you say to yourself, doesn't that make sense?
It's a pandemic.
Shouldn't 91% of the coverage, if not 100%, be leaning a little negative?
We're sort of in the middle of a pandemic.
Except that if you look at how media outside the United States treats it, 54% give it a negative coverage.
So I suppose you could argue that maybe we got hit worse in the United States.
Maybe that's part of it. But it feels as though that was a Trump-related problem a little bit, right?
That our oligarchs decided that COVID was going to be the story and it was bad for Trump and And there you have it.
All right. But part of that study said that it didn't matter if things were trending worse or better with the pandemic.
It didn't affect the coverage being 91% negative.
So the allegation in this study...
Was that the news creates a narrative that is invulnerable to any change in facts.
Chad says, you're wrong, Scotty.
I'm going to take that as parody.
All right.
How did you enjoy today's special Thanksgiving episode of Coffee with Scott Adams?
I feel like I was angrier than I wanted to be.
Have I ever spoken with Martin Geddes?
I have not. Not even sure who that is.
Release your mind and you release the Kraken, somebody says.
Thanks for doing a Thanksgiving episode.
You know, somebody asked me if I was going to do this on Thanksgiving, to which I say two things.
Number one, if you sleep in on weekends and holidays, you're probably not doing yourself a favor.
It's a good habit to get into that you keep your sleep schedule similar no matter what's going on, because sleep's pretty important.
Even though I hate sleep and try to get as little as possible, I do try to keep the same, you know, approximate schedule.
So I'm always going to get up early no matter what.
I enjoy it. And then the second thing is, why wouldn't I come here?
I enjoy it. I enjoy it.
So on a holiday, I want to do things I enjoy.
Somebody asked me about the Great Reset, which I still call bullshit.
I believe the Great Reset is all about people confusing the words.
It feels like word thinking, because there's this idea that there's, you know, the...
The global elites want to cause this great reset to consolidate power, and it's all part of a grand scheme, which I don't believe any of.
And then there's Justin Trudeau, who used the phrase, you know, we have a reset because of the pandemic, a completely different use of the word in a whole different context.
But because people are people, they said, hey, you use that word reset in a completely different context.
Therefore, this completely other different story that uses the word reset must be true.
No. The only thing that's in common is that word.
Now, is it true that there will be a reset?
Of course. The pandemic makes us rethink everything, have to change how we're doing.
Of course it's a reset.
How could it be anything else?
Of course. But it's not that...
You know, weird conspiracy thing where the elites are having a meeting in Davos or whatever the hell George Soros is behind.
It's none of that. Or at least there's no evidence of it that I have seen.
Let me be clear and not say what my critics say.
I'll just say that I am not personally aware of any evidence that would make me think that the Great Reset is anything but ridiculous cue talk.
Doesn't mean it's not true.
Just means I'm not personally aware of any evidence.
Am I aware of Vox Dei?
I'm aware there is somebody with that name.
That's about what I'm aware of.
Yes, Justin Trudeau said, great reset, but words can be used in different contexts.
And that was a different context.
That's all it was. If you think that you discovered a secret world plot because Justin Trudeau said it directly on television, you really need to check your thinking.
Because if it was really this great, clever, secret plot, I'm pretty sure Justin Trudeau would not have revealed it in his speech.
How do we get rid of propaganda and back to truth?
I would argue that we've never been at truth.
We just didn't know it.
So when I talked about Trump changing the nature of reality, what people thought they are seeing is that he changed the reality.
Now, he did change the reality.
But on top of that, he also changed how we see the reality that was already there.
Before Trump, you probably thought your elections were pretty secure.
You probably thought your social media was a little biased, but how big a deal is that?
Maybe you thought that your news was real.
Trump taught you that your observation of reality is deeply subjective and you're probably getting brainwashed.
That wasn't new.
It was only new to you.
It wasn't something that I didn't know.
In 2015, when I said that Trump would change your understanding of reality, it was this.
This is the part I was telling you was coming.
I could see it as clearly as I could see my hand in front of my face.
You could tell that he was going to mess up What you thought of your own ability to understand your reality in a way that could never be put back in the bottle.
And the biggest way he did it was by departing from the fact-checking all the time.
Because he realized that the facts are not persuasive, and we don't live in a world where facts matter, at least matter for persuasion.
They matter for reality, but not persuasion.
I think the president, when people are trying to understand why does he keep saying things That aren't true when he must have figured out by now they're not true.
Somebody has told him it's not true.
And I would say that the big reality mind effort that some of you are already at and some of you are almost there is this.
He might know that it doesn't matter.
And indeed he was right.
He became president Without paying any attention to the specificity of the fact checking.
None. He treated it like it literally didn't matter at all.
And what happened?
He was right.
He was 100% right.
None of the fact checking mattered.
None of it. What did matter is how the networks covered it and social media handled it, etc.
But it didn't matter if it was true.
And it didn't matter if it wasn't true.
So long as it was well intended to move the country in a good direction.
That's what mattered. Okay.
That's all for now. I will talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
And you YouTubers, still here for a minute, but I'm going to sign off in a second.
All right.
Can President Trump prove election fraud?
Do a George Washington and then come back?
That's my prediction. That's my prediction.
My prediction is that he will do a George Washington, meaning that he will say, yeah, I won, but I'm also going to peacefully transfer.
Whether he runs again in 2024, I think that's a wait and see.
It does make sense that maybe he would say he's going to.
Maybe he thinks he'd like to.
But I think age is just too big of a variable, and I'd give it a couple years before you take it seriously.
I'm grateful for you as well, so thank you.
And I'm grateful to all of you, and I mean that Quite sincerely.
This is usually one of the highlights of my day, except for the time I spend with Christina.
