Episode 1202 Scott Adams: Dale and I Tell You the News From Both Realities
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
My minimum requirement for unity with Democrats
Measuring election DOUBT in Pennsylvania
Doctrine of laches
Hostage exchange pardons
Matt Braynard, genius data analyst, troubling things
Diversified fraud to prevent finding enough
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, best part of the day.
Now, I gotta tell you that the Sunday after Thanksgiving is just about the sleepiest day of the year, but we're gonna dig deep, And find some fun here today in all of the boringness.
But first, in order to enjoy it to its full, full, full extent, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or steinac, anti-drug or a flask of acid, all of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Including recounts.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. So good.
So there's a really interesting chess game going on in the Middle East.
And I hate to be fascinated by war and death.
But it's hard not to be.
You know, if you're a human, you've always got these two thoughts going on.
Well, that's horrible.
I hope there's less of that.
I don't want any death and destruction over there.
But on the other hand...
It's really interesting, which is not really fun.
Somebody said it's the Scott Sophistry Hour.
Anybody who accuses you of sophistry, that's one of the dumbest criticisms.
I don't even need to say more about that.
It's just dumb. Usually when they accuse you of sophistry, it's because they don't agree with you.
It doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Anyway, talk about the Middle East.
So, as you know, there was an assassination of the top Iranian nuclear scientist guy.
Everybody assumes it's Israel.
But the timing is the interesting part, because if Biden goes ahead and takes office, as many people assume will happen, This really throws a little wrinkle into it, doesn't it?
Because what is Iran going to do?
Here's the clever part.
Does Iran just ignore it?
Because if they do, there'll be more of it, right?
There'll be more targeted assassinations, I assume.
More things will blow up, and that sort of thing.
But what if they retaliate?
If they retaliate, they either retaliate weakly, you know, in a weak way that makes no difference, so what's the point, or they retaliate strong.
What would happen if they did a strong retaliation when Biden is trying to figure out how to maybe get back into the Iran peace deal?
It would really make it hard for Biden to make any kind of a Overture for peace or an agreement with Iran.
So I think if we assume, as everybody assumes, that Israel was behind it, let's call that a safe assumption.
Baseless? Oh, it's baseless.
I have not seen any, not one piece of evidence.
Certainly nothing's been proven in court.
So I think we could all agree that the allegations that Israel is behind that assassination...
Baseless, by definition, because there's no evidence, right?
Don't you know that if something is baseless, then I guess you have to treat it like it didn't happen, because it's baseless.
Now, I have argued, of course, that there are some situations which are so obvious that you don't really need too much proof, do you?
How much proof do you need that Israel was behind that assassination?
Would you be willing to make decisions and act upon your belief that Israel was behind it while knowing it's baseless?
I thought we didn't do that.
Can you act upon something?
With no evidence?
Just because you know that the way the situation is constructed, there really is sort of only one person who could have been behind it, if you know what I mean.
It wasn't Estonia.
Estonia gets a free pass and all of this stuff, don't they?
We'll watch that, but it looks to me that Israel has made the right chess move.
Because if you're the second in command of the nuclear program in Iran, you're not so effective today.
I don't think you're doing much communicating with your staff if you're the number two nuclear guy.
So at the very least, it's going to make things less efficient over there.
All right. Let's talk about something else.
So, I tweeted today my minimum requirement for unity with Democrats.
Now, Democrats are calling for unity, some of them anyway, and I like the concept of unity, and I like any time a national leader calls for unity, we should take that pretty seriously.
And I think that the United States should have as its very strong goal to be unified.
Of course, you need a system to get there.
But here is what I would recommend.
In order to get good with somebody, it helps if you tell them what it would take.
Because you don't want somebody who's trying to find some unity with you just guessing what you need, right?
It just isn't very efficient for the other person to say, okay, I want some unity with you.
I'd like to get along.
I'm going to guess what it would take to do that.
Why make them guess?
Why not just say, look, I'll be okay with you under the following conditions.
You know, I'll still hate your policies and we'll still argue about politics, but I'll be okay with you.
As a citizen, as a person, I'll be okay with you under the following conditions.
And here are my conditions.
Now, it's not the only things that have ever bothered me.
I'm just saying it's the only things I need, sort of the minimum, to think about unity.
And my minimum requirement is that the Democrats apologize for the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, And the Russian collusion hoax, which they like to confuse with Russian interference, which actually did happen.
And, of course, I'm using a little persuasion trick.
Do you recognize it? What persuasion trick am I using?
Maybe more than one. Let's see how good you are at spotting them now.
I've been training you for a few years.
I'll read it again, and then you tell me what persuasion trick.
Yeah, laundry list is one of them.
But there's another one I'm going for.
Alright? See if you can catch it.
My minimum required for unity with Democrats is an apology for the fine people hoax, drinking bleach hoax, and the Russian collusion hoax.
Somebody says high ground?
No. I see why you're saying high ground, but that's not what I was going for.
It's thinking past the sale.
That is correct. Very good.
I'm seeing in the comments most of you are actually getting the right answer.
Would you have gotten that answer before I started talking about this thinking past the sale thing?
Would you have all spotted that?
Because I'd like to think that I set your filter so that you can spot it now.
All right. So it is a persuasion trick to make them think about the apology for the hoaxes.
It makes them think past the question of, hey, were these things real or were these things hoaxes?
Now, they were hoaxes.
I'm not trying to fool people into thinking something untrue.
I'm trying to persuade them into thinking something that's true, that is real.
It's closer to reality than whatever they were imagining.
So I would say that this is ethical persuasion.
Manipulation is a word that I would use for unethical persuasion, where you're persuading other people to do something that's good for you, but maybe not so good for them.
That's manipulation.
But regular persuasion, where you're getting people to do things that are good for them and good for you, I would say that's just leadership.
All right. And, of course, this triggered a bunch of people to say, what do you mean, find people hoax?
I saw it myself on TV. He said it.
I heard it with my own ears.
And I'm taking a new technique with those people.
My old technique was, let me show you my evidence.
Here's the transcript.
Here's my argument for why it's a hoax.
As you've witnessed, I've been doing that for years with almost no success.
Almost no success in simply presenting an argument with facts, and really clear facts, ones which they can check.
Oh, here's the transcript.
Now I see that I only saw the first part of the transcript.
Now that you've showed me the second part, I can see it's a hoax.
But when I only saw the first part, I was convinced I saw everything I needed to see, and then I was fooled.
So that never worked.
You would think that would be the most obvious thing that would work, right?
I believe something incorrect.
Well, let me give you incontrovertible proof that you can check yourself in five seconds.
You can Google it yourself.
Just look for yourself.
In five seconds, I can show you a fact that disproves your original thought.
Didn't work. Not ever.
So here's the new technique.
When somebody makes that claim, he did say it, I saw it with my own eyes, I retweet it, and I tell the world, there are still people who think this happened.
There are still people who believe this.
And boy, does it trigger them.
Of course, they go crazy, because you're calling them out to embarrass them for a fake memory, which they still think is true.
And so they're going to start to defend their false memory Which they can't.
It's not possible because it didn't happen.
And here's the new trick.
So the new trick, compared to the old trick, the old technique was I would show them the transcript and make my argument.
It never worked. The new one is this.
I say, if you believe it happened, I challenge you to go find the transcript and paste it in the comments.
And of course, they think, uh, what kind of trick is this?
Are you telling me that if I go get the transcript myself, I'm going to debunk myself?
And of course they don't believe that.
And the first thing that they will do, predictably, is go get the fake transcript, which is the first half where they leave out Trump's clarification that was unprompted, that modifies what he said so you're not confused.
If you only see the top half, you are confused.
That's why he clarified it.
So that's the first thing they'll do is say, here it is.
Here's the transcript. I win.
I said he said it in public.
There's the transcript.
I've won my case.
And then you say, no, it isn't.
That's not the transcript.
Now go back and find the whole transcript.
Now the reason that I do this is It's because it is impossible to talk somebody into believing something they thought they saw with their own eyes.
But it might be possible to get them to talk themselves out of it.
You have to make them work because if you do the work and say, here's the transcript, just read it.
That just never works because they're just automatically in defensive mode.
But if you make them do the work on their own, You go find me the transcript.
No, that wasn't it.
Nope. Nope.
You did not find the transcript yet.
You found the fake one. Now go back and find the rest of it.
Because even you can see that wasn't the last thing he said.
I mean, you can tell from the excerpt that's not done.
So we'll see if that works.
I'll report in later.
But it looked like it was making an effect.
All right. I'd like to read to you two versions of the news.
Okay? One version.
Let's say the two movies on one screen version of the news.
And it's about the Pennsylvania legal challenges.
And it goes like this.
First, I'll give you the news from the, let's say, the right.
The news is there are lots of irregularities and constitutional violations in the Pennsylvania election.
And it's working itself through the legal system, and we have some indication from the Supreme Court that they're likely to agree and throw out a bunch of votes.
So Pennsylvania is looking good.
Not only that, but a couple dozen state legislators have said that they don't trust the certification of the election.
Pretty good source, right?
Pretty good. All right.
Somebody just reminded me to put my ring back on.
Thank you. Here's the second version of the news.
Pennsylvania, they keep trying these lawsuits and they keep getting kicked out.
Why? Because there's no evidence.
There's no proof.
There's no proof. There's no evidence.
Pennsylvania lawsuits, no chance.
It's over. It's dead and done.
It's buried and it's a hundred feet in the ground.
It's covered with dirt.
It's covered with gravel.
It's covered with nuclear waste.
That's how far in a hole the legal challenges are.
There is no hope.
No hope in the world cannot be done.
The Constitution, and in fact, physics itself, Makes it impossible.
You can't change time.
Reality is set.
Nothing can happen.
The election is over! Over!
Over! Over! Over!
And then the other news...
Looks like when it goes to the Supreme Court, things are going to go pretty well for Trump.
Both of those news...
Somebody says in the comments, why is Dale wearing your wedding ring?
What do you like to know?
And so, I'm trying to figure out what is real.
What is real?
Let's take the fact that I think 26 state legislators from, these are the Republicans, from Pennsylvania now have no confidence in the vote.
So, Is 26 a lot?
If 26 GOP legislators say they're not confident, is that a lot?
Because the first time I saw the news, it was out of context.
As in, is 26 a lot?
If you want to know how completely incompetent the news business is, imagine that you as a consumer heard this news.
26 Republicans are Questioning the credibility of the election.
What did that tell you?
Nothing. Because you don't know how many legislators there are, do you?
How many of you knew how many legislators there are?
I didn't. How many legislators are there in Pennsylvania?
Beats me! Don't have an idea.
Now, how many of the...
The answer is there are 203 seats.
So that would be 26 out of 203.
I think somebody did the math for me here in the comments and said 11%.
So are you done?
It's only 11%.
You can kind of ignore 11%, can't you?
Or can you? Is 11% a lot?
Or is 11% nothing?
Because it's not a vote, right?
If it were a vote, 11% would be nothing.
If it were a number of people who were going to die from coronavirus, 11% would be sky high.
You'd be like, that'd be the end of civilization, I think.
Not quite.
But it's 11%.
Oh, oh, it's not really 11%.
Let's modify this a little bit.
Because there are only 113 Republicans.
Do you expect that there would be any Democrats, no matter the information, no matter the data, no matter the evidence, do you believe that any Democrats would say the election was not credible once they've won?
All right, is it reasonable to think that any of the Democrats could possibly be honest, even if they believe the election was fake?
No. So I think if you're going to be reasonable and say, okay, how much of a big deal is this 26 legislators and a 203, you have to subtract the Democrats.
Because the only group that matters are the group that could change their mind.
If you've got a group that you know with a high degree of certainty, it doesn't matter what the facts are.
They're not going to use the facts to make any kind of decisions here.
They're going to use politics.
They won! Now, reverse the situation.
Let's say Republicans had won, and the Democrats were thinking of challenging the credibility of the election.
Would you expect even one Republican, if they had won, To question the credibility of an election that they won?
No. Quite obviously, that would be zero.
Is anybody doubting that?
Do I need to give you proof that if the Republicans had won the election, that they wouldn't be questioning the credibility?
Because I've been told that nothing can be true or known until you have proof.
I don't have any proof.
How can I prove that That Republicans would act like human beings, act every single time.
Human beings are in a certain kind of situation.
Now forget about Republicans.
It's the Democrats that are the human beings in this specific situation who have won and defeated Orange Hitler.
It's not just winning.
It's not like winning a softball game.
They defeated Orange Hitler.
Is there any reasonable chance that that group, the winners, are going to say, yeah, maybe rethink this.
Maybe we should open up the possibility that Orange Hitler would become our leader again.
No! No!
You don't need any evidence.
You don't need any proof.
Those Democrats are simply not relevant to the question of whether the election was credible.
They don't have any...
Value to the decision.
So take them out. So now it's 26 and of 113 Republicans.
Ooh, what's 26 and of 113?
Alexa, what is 26 divided by 113?
Pause. 26 divided by 113 is approximately 0.2301.
23%. If 23% of the legislators who could change their mind, in other words, they're the only ones who have even a possibility of saying, yeah, I think this election's not so good.
23%? 23% is enough.
It's way enough.
It is completely enough.
Because if the game here is to get the House...
And you're going to have to fact check me on some of the constitutional ins and outs here.
But I think that if the House looks at these legislators and sees that nearly a quarter of them think the election was thrown, that would give them enough cover to say there's too much doubt.
Right? How much reasonable doubt does the House need in order to say, you know, I think we're just going to make our own decision and ignore the election?
What is the quantity or percentage, or however you want to measure it, of how much doubt?
If this were a legal case, how much doubt would you need to get somebody off who had been accused?
It wouldn't take much.
Maybe 10% doubt?
5% doubt?
How much doubt would it take to find somebody innocent, even if there was a lot of evidence, but there was still a 10% doubt?
You would let them go, wouldn't you?
Now, what if it was a 20% doubt?
Well, then I think you would definitely let them go.
Could you imagine convicting somebody if you felt in your own mind there was a 20% doubt?
You wouldn't. You wouldn't even come close to convicting them.
You wouldn't even consider it because you're a reasonable person, right?
So I think that Pennsylvania, at least in terms of the Republican goals here, I think they accomplished what they wanted to.
And it's probably still not done because I think it goes to the Supreme Court now.
At least one of the challenges about a rule change.
Now, one of the rule change, one of the reasons that I guess was the...
The Pennsylvania court, the high court, said that the legal challenge in which they challenged a 2019 rule change about mail-in ballots, so the challenge was to get rid of those votes that had been the subject of that rule change, because the change came from the court and not the legislature.
I think that's the nature of it, and therefore the change was unconstitutional.
So we got challenged. And this is why the court rejected that challenge.
Because of the doctrine of laches, or laches.
L-A-C-H-E-S. Have you ever heard that word before, if you're not a lawyer?
If you're not a lawyer, have you ever even heard that word?
Have you ever heard of the doctrine of laches?
Latches or laches?
Somebody says latches?
I don't know how to pronounce it.
Oh, thank you. In the comments they're saying it's latches.
So the doctrine of latches.
It doesn't have a T in it, but L-A-C-H. And here's what that means.
I had to look it up. And what it means in just ordinary talk, not legal talk, is that you waited too long.
And if you wait too long to accuse somebody of something, there's an implied disadvantage for the accused.
And I think there's also an assumed just a fairness and appropriateness, and it's sort of subjective, right?
So the thought is that you've waited too long to make your claim, and therefore we can ignore the claim.
So the claim was ignored because they said you didn't miss a deadline.
This is the important part.
There was no deadline to make the claim per se in terms of a law or a statute or anything like that.
It was just felt by the court that it seemed too long.
Now, remember I told you that the court will rule on your feelings Sometimes.
More than they will rule on the letter of the law.
So I think this is one of those clear cases where they said it would seem inequitable and unfair and it would disenfranchise voters if we do this, so we're not even going to look at the claim that it was unconstitutional.
How do you describe what I just described other than saying they put feelings ahead of the law?
And I believe that this is a common thing, not an uncommon thing, rather that the court does sometimes say what's best for the world in our opinions, we're the judges, so we get to be a little subjective, what's best for the world?
And sometimes judges think what's best for the world is to ignore the law and ignore the Constitution.
I would argue that Abortion rights are an example of that.
I would argue that the Supreme Court kind of made up a right, I know people on the right believe this, you know, the privacy or whatever it is, sort of crafted a law out of nothing and said, ah, it's sort of there if you look hard enough.
I think that was just an example of the Supreme Court saying that, in their opinion at the time, that the world was better Ignoring the law, you know, or just making up a law of their own, if you will. So it's not that uncommon.
But there you go.
I would say that the odds of something like that getting overturned by the Supreme Court, I'm no Supreme Court expert, but I would think this whole doctrine of latches just looks like bullshit to me.
Looks like bullshit to me.
But we'll see. I said yesterday that I'm going to start giving out compliments to various entities, especially entities and people that I have criticized in the past.
So it's just a holiday thing.
I'm going to compliment People and things and entities that I had been tough on in the past.
Here's an example. Have you seen any photos of the new Ford Bronco?
I was pretty brutal about Ford when I was trying to buy a Ford truck and it's just a hard process.
But, oh my God!
The new Ford Bronco?
It's redesigned?
That thing is beautiful.
Now, I don't know what reviews it's going to get.
I don't know how it is, you know, automotively and all that.
But I am so glad to live in a country with a company like Ford, American company, that can build such a beautiful product.
I think the same thing about Apple all the time.
You know, I criticize Apple about various things.
But, man, you can't...
You've got to give it up for their design.
Their design is...
Beautiful. This Ford Bronco, I want that thing with an irrational lust.
The moment I saw the picture, I just freaking had to have this thing.
So, you know, I bought a new vehicle not that long ago, so I won't.
But I'm going to look at it hard for my next vehicle, for sure.
All right, that's my compliment of the day to Ford.
So I did a little unscientific Twitter poll, and I said this.
According to the news and social media you consume, and this is important according to, so this is not you making up opinions out of nothing, but according to the news and social media that you personally consume, which of these claims has more evidence?
And the claims were that there was election fraud, Is there more evidence for that or climate emergency?
I used emergency just to be more clear that I'm not talking about climate change, but rather that it's an emergency.
Which has more evidence?
In my unscientific poll, 87% of you said that election fraud has more evidence than climate emergency.
Now, if I made this same Twitter poll and ran it on Alyssa Milano's Twitter feed, pretty sure the numbers would be either completely reversed or 100% would say the opposite.
So, here's my point.
What does it mean when people say, follow the facts and follow the evidence and follow the proof and believe the experts and listen to the science?
What does any of that mean when we can't do those things?
So here's some advice for you.
This is good advice, by the way, and I think you would agree this is good advice.
If you find yourself in the middle of the road, and there's a bus coming right at you, and you realize that you don't have enough time to get out of the way...
Transport. Just use your transporter, like Star Trek, and go, bzzz, disappear, and then just reappear and transport to a different place.
That is my advice.
Is there anything wrong with my advice?
Do you find any flaw in my advice that if you don't have enough time to get away from the bus in the normal way of, like, walking or jumping, that you would just use your Star Trek transporter?
Why not? Oh, oh, I forgot.
Transporters don't exist.
Is that the only reason you can't use my advice?
Because it's not a thing?
It doesn't exist?
But it would be great advice otherwise, wouldn't it?
I mean, if it existed, pretty good advice.
So here's some more advice that's exactly like that transporter example.
Follow the science.
How much proof do you need that people can't do that?
You can't do that because you don't know which science is real.
How about follow the facts?
You can't do that because you don't know what facts are real.
Look at the fine people hoax.
The people who believe the fine people hoax, here's the head scratcher.
And I know this might come as a shock.
They're not dumber than you.
They're not. They're not dumber than you.
They just believe something sincerely that is not the case.
So if they follow the facts, how's that going to work out?
Because their fact is wrong.
But they're not dumb.
They don't have a lower IQ than you do on average.
Not at all. People cannot follow the evidence.
They don't have that power.
It just doesn't exist.
All we have is confirmation bias, and we know what team we're on, so we know what the team argument is.
We have opinions that get assigned to us by the media.
But there's nothing like people looking at data and evidence and applying their reason and coming to good decisions.
You don't live in that world.
Any more than you live in the world where you can use your transporter to get out of the way of the bus.
So the advice to follow the science, as Joe Biden condescendingly says, because he's a fucking idiot, because it just isn't a thing.
It just isn't a thing.
You can't do it or not do it.
It's just not a thing.
All right. Here's a concept which you should keep in mind.
We talk about the fog of war with any big story that just blows up.
In the initial days, everything you know about the story ends up being wrong, right?
We call that the fog of war.
When it's new and there's too many things happening, all the information is wrong.
You don't know anything until the few days have gone by.
I would say that the election and allegations of election fraud were very much that fog of war situation.
Very much a fog war.
Meaning that whatever allegations of fraud came out of the first week or so after the election, if you were to look at them on average...
What you should expect is that they would be weak or false compared to any allegations which were developed over more time.
So if you were to look at the bag of allegations after, let's say, the fourth week of research versus the bag of allegations on the first week, there should be a big difference.
And the Democrats have lulled themselves into a sense That the highly inaccurate fog of war accusations that came out of the first week tell you the quality to expect after the fourth week when we've had time to look into it.
And I don't think those are going to be even close.
Now, if there's nothing there, then it will be BS in the beginning and BS at the end.
But if there is something there, the normal way you should expect things to go is that the initial things you heard were more BS than real, but by the end, it would be more real than BS. But it will take you a while to get there.
So everybody who's looking at the court cases that got filed a few weeks ago, and it's just taking a while to work through the system and go to the higher courts, etc., they largely are meaningless.
They're really nothing but stalling tactics, I think.
I think that was actually the legal strategy, was just to stall.
Keep the topic open until they can find better evidence.
I've said this before, but boy do we need a dictator retirement system.
Have you ever noticed that whenever you want a dictator to leave power, what are they going to do?
If you're a dictator and you give up power, do you end up like Qaddafi?
Do you end up like Mussolini?
Giving up power looks like kind of a bad deal.
And if the only way you can end a bad situation is to get a dictator out of that job, why would they ever leave?
You need some kind of an exit path where a dictator who's in a pretty good situation, because dictator, gets to retire and We have some kind of confidence that they won't be killed and they can still have a good life and their family won't be rounded up, etc. And although I do not consider President Trump a dictator, look at the situation that has been created not by him.
Here's the situation.
There's this sketchy election.
Was that his fault?
Is it President Trump's fault that the election has low credibility?
Not really. You know, there was a pandemic.
We did the best we could, but there were too many opportunities for cheating.
So we have this election that is at least doubted by the majority of the country at this point.
So he didn't cause that.
In fact, he argued very strongly against mail-in ballots, which may have helped, I don't know, maybe he'd still be complaining about the voting machines.
But they've created a situation where they're saying that once he's out of power, they're going to go after him and try to put him in jail.
And the only thing that's keeping him out of jail, say half the country, is that he's still in office.
And the moment he leaves office, he's going to go to jail.
Now, do you have to be an expert on human motivation to know what that will cause?
I can't put myself in the President's mind, but if you put me in that situation, am I going to concede the election?
Would you concede an election if the people who are asking you to concede are saying, would you please concede this election and we can just put you in jail?
Why would you do that?
So the Democrats have created a situation where he has to hold on.
He has to fight.
And if there's a gray area, he has to push it.
If there's a boundary, he has to test it.
If there's a door, he has to see if it's unlocked.
If there's one breath left in his body, he absolutely has to fucking pursue it.
Because they made that situation.
He didn't create that situation.
This situation was created by Democrats.
And no matter what he wanted about being president or not being president, no matter how bad he felt about losing, etc., if he lost, he doesn't have a choice now.
You kind of forced his hand.
If you want him to concede, you're going to have to give him an exit ramp.
He doesn't have one.
Let me suggest one, just for fun and conversation.
This is never going to happen.
But it's possible.
It's just deeply unlikely.
There are two pardons which I think would help the country move forward.
And I think you would agree.
You won't like one of these pardons.
And people on the other side of the political divide, they're not going to like the other one.
So it's going to be like a hostage exchange.
One pardon for one pardon.
Just to move the country ahead.
And they would go like this.
A blanket pardon for Hunter Biden.
Blanket pardon. Meaning not specific to a crime.
And I believe Richard Nixon got one of those.
It's just time limited.
So in other words, you'd say, we pardon everything you've done up to today's date.
Likewise, you do the same thing with President Trump.
Now, you might need to put Pence in office for one day to do the pardon, to make it legal or whatever, but you could do it.
And you trade.
You trade a Hunter Biden pardon, a generic one for everything up to that date, for a President Trump pardon for everything that's happened up to the date of his last day in office.
Would you object? Because the Hunter Biden stuff, I think, is real, and it's also a risk to the United States, because it puts him in a compromised, blackmailable situation, wouldn't you say?
Which makes Biden the senior in sort of a blackmailable situation.
And so, I feel that, you know, even Republicans are way better off if Hunter Biden gets a pardon.
Just a generic, get in a jail-free card.
Because I don't want China to come later and say, you know, we got a little something on you, Hunter Biden.
Or I don't want Joe Biden to be thinking, well, China hasn't directly threatened to blackmail me, but they do have the goods.
They do have the goods, or they might have the goods.
So I'm just going to be sort of biased in their favor, not because they've threatened me, not because of a specific problem, but because of Hunter.
Just the whole situation.
I just don't want China to use that in some way.
Of course it would affect them.
Fathers are affected by the needs of their children.
So I would say we should get past, if it turns out that Biden takes office, still uncertain.
But if it happened, I think we should do a trade.
Pardon for a pardon.
All right. Somebody pointed out on Twitter, and I hate when I do this, so I apologize to the whole world.
For doing this. Every now and then I'll see a witty comment on Twitter, and I'll remember it, but I won't write down who said it, so I can't give them credit.
But the idea is so good or funny that I still want to say it.
So it's not mine. I'm just saying I don't know who said it first.
Somebody said, it must be a simulation we're living in, because what are the odds That this election fraud thing would come down to Republicans finding a bald-headed genius whose last name is Brainard.
Now, I don't know if you've seen a picture of him, but Matt Brainard, who apparently is some genius data analyst on the Trump side of things, and he's been looking at all the fraud allegations from the data analysis side, He's one of the people in this conversation that people actually trust because he had serious talent and experience in this domain, data analysis.
So his data analysis is picking up some interesting things, such as, he said, quote, I can show you the names of people who voted in multiple states And the raw data states make available.
So in other words, he's just using the states' own data.
He's not making up data.
He's just using the states' own data.
And he said you could show that the same people voted in multiple states.
Now, here's the question.
The first thing you ask is, Scott, don't you know that there are probably a lot of people named Scott Adams who voted in All 50 states?
Because there are people named Scott Adams who did vote probably in all 50 states.
I don't know about Rhode Island or Alaska, but probably.
There are three Scott Adamses in my town.
So if you looked at, you know, for duplicate names on voter rolls against states, of course you're going to find a lot of them.
But... I did a follow-up and I said, if I tweet this, I asked somebody who knew the answer to this question, if I tweet this, am I going to be embarrassed later that somebody's going to just say, Scott, you know there are a lot of people with the same name?
And of course, let me go back to my initial point.
Did I mention that Matt Brainerd is a genius and his last name is Brainerd?
If your last name is named after a brain, you're pretty smart.
It has to happen that way because of the simulation.
So Matt Brainerd does know that people in different states could have the same name.
Believe it or not, geniuses know that.
Nobody had to tell him.
So he did check for that, of course.
So whatever they did to double check for that, he is smart enough to know that people with the same name live in other states.
So don't worry that that's all that's happening.
There's more than that. Now, is that enough?
Did he find enough of those votes that would change the election?
Well, here's the really clever part of this alleged election fraud.
If the election fraud happened, it happened in multiple ways in the areas where it happened.
So in other words, there probably were some dead people who voted.
There probably were some batches of ballots that got grabbed from the people who were supposed to get them.
There probably were some people voting in two states.
There probably were some ballot corrections.
There probably were some fake ballots fed in somewhere.
There probably were some mischief with the software.
Probably. And the problem here is that if you're on the other team and you're trying to say, hey, this election is fraudulent, what if you find three of the seven ways that the election was stolen?
Or let's say you can prove three of them.
You feel pretty confident the others are real, but you can prove three of them out of seven.
What will the court say?
You've got seven claims.
Three of them look pretty darn solid.
Four of them may be true, but you can't prove it.
The court will say, those three, if you add them together, do not change the result of the election, because you needed all seven.
And the court will say, it's not enough, because the whole point you're bringing it up is to change the result.
If you're bringing us something to court that even if we ruled on it wouldn't change the outcome of the election, we're not even going to rule on it.
We're going to say, go home.
That's a waste of time.
So, the genius of this alleged election fraud is that it was packetized.
I'll use an analogy from telecommunications where your data is put in little packets so that if something happens to one of the packets, you haven't lost everything and you can autocorrect and resend it.
So what they've done is they've diversified their fraud so that if any of the individual frauds get found, It won't matter, because they're too small.
You needed all seven, or maybe you needed five and a seven, or you needed the right ones out of the seven, you know, the big ones.
Finding three and a seven, which is, I think, what we're heading toward, you know, in conceptual terms, not real numbers, but I think we're heading toward finding some, but not all, at least in terms of proving it, Of the fraud.
And it won't be enough.
So it would be enough to put Biden in office.
All right. That is what I had to talk about today.
You know, I think that there's a good chance that Pennsylvania will go the way the Republicans want.
There is a good chance that the Supreme Court, because I think they've already signaled it, That they're not going to go with this doctrine of latches business?
I feel as though that was just too obviously political BS that I don't know that the Supreme Court's going to buy into that.
But I'm no legal scholar, so I could be surprised.
Now, suppose...
Help me with this, right? Because it gets complicated, obviously.
If Pennsylvania got reversed...
And either was taken out of the mix...
No, let's just say it got reversed.
Let's say it was reversed, and I don't think this is likely, but let's say it gets reversed, and Trump becomes the winner.
What is the next state that he would need to win to flip the entire result?
What is the next state that has the best argument?
Is it Georgia? Or Wisconsin?
I think Michigan's got a lot of issues, but I don't know if that's the most reversible one.
Where's your head at? What's your plan post-election?
We'll talk about that.
I'm seeing a lot of people say Georgia.
Somebody says Arizona.
Yeah, I guess I don't know enough to dig into those too much.
California? Yeah, I don't think it'd be California.
All right, so we have opinions all over the place here.
We do not know. Let's see.
Got some new news coming in.
All right. So let me look at some questions here before I go.
Somebody says if he gets to Pennsylvania, he needs two more of the disputed states.
That's what I was looking for.
So that's a fact, right?
He would need two more, not one more.
So people are saying Georgia and Wisconsin.
Well, maybe. We'll see.
Somebody says, it seems you're so cleverly trying to soften you up for a Biden presidency.
Does anybody think that I'm catting on the roof at you to get you mentally prepared for a Biden presidency?
No. I think that's the effect of it.
I think that's the result of what I'm doing.
It's not my intention exactly, because I'm not afraid of Republicans staging a violent rebellion.
So I didn't feel I needed to do that.
I do think it would be accurate to say that that's what I am doing.
But that's not the point of it.
The point of it is just to talk about it as objectively as possible, and that's just what comes out of it.
Most of you think that I'm cleverly persuading you to accept a Biden presidency.
Well, let me tell you this.
There are two different paths here.
One of the paths is that the Republicans hold the Senate, They win in Georgia.
They'll say they win both seats.
They hold the Senate. Then you've got a deadlocked government.
I would say, wouldn't you agree that if the Senate is held, a Biden presidency is not nearly as dangerous as if it went the other way?
I think you'd all agree with that.
But imagine, if you will, that both Democrat senators win in Georgia, which would give the Senate and The whole government to the Democrats.
And here's the second part.
Republicans think that the election was stolen again.
If that happens, all bets are off.
I can't predict what would happen if Democrats win both houses in Georgia and it looks like it was rigged.
Now, even if it doesn't look like it was rigged, Republicans are going to think it was rigged because they expect to win, right?
And since only President Trump allegedly had problems in the general election and the Republicans did great in the undercard, they should expect, and also because special elections favor Republicans, you should expect the Republicans to win.
But what if at four in the morning, both Republicans are ahead and The voting stops for two hours, and when it recommences, all the votes are for the Democrats.
What are the odds that what I just described is about to happen in a few weeks in Georgia?
It's not zero.
I mean, I don't know what odds you could put on that being stolen, but it's definitely not zero.
If I had to guess...
I think there's at least a 50% chance that under the condition that the presidential election was stolen, which would prove that the stealing is possible.
If that's true, and I think it's true, if it's true, it's not proven, but I think it will be, then I think the Georgia election will be stolen.
Or at least they're going to think about it.
Or at least they're going to try. I don't know.
We'll see. It would be a Harris presidency.
Somebody says, the slaughter meter is Scott's Frankenstein.
You know, the slaughter meter made an assumption that turned out not to be the case.
The slaughter meter based its prediction on the assumption that the election would be fair-ish or fair enough.
And I don't think that happened.
So I think the slaughter meter prediction became moot because the thing it predicted was sort of sabotaged by something else.
The cat has many comorbidities.
Somebody's asking me, how's the cat that was on the roof?
Is the election not fair, and why?
Well, the allegation is that the election was not fair.
We know that elections can't be fair because the news is fake, social media is biased, there's some amount of fraud, no matter what, etc.
I think the rebellion on the right is probable.
Nope. Nope.
It is so unprobable.
If they aren't punished for their fraud, they will do more fraud.
Well, the other possibility is that we will put in more controls.
So, you know, there are two ways to reduce the amount of fraud in the future if you believe it happened in the past.
And one way...
One way is...
I forget it.
I just read a comment that just threw me off.
Somebody says, if Pennsylvania is ruled in the courts, it's very possible Republicans get all three.
Is that because there's some connection in what Pennsylvania is doing and other states?
I don't feel like they're connected.
Somebody said, is this part of your promise to make the Biden presidency unmanageable?
I never promised anything like that.
I would like the Biden presidency to succeed.
Why would I not want America to succeed?
What are my other requirements for unity?
I think it's easier to keep your requirements for unity...
To some minimum number.
Something that could be done.
Like, I don't want to have a list of things.
You must do all of these things or I can't talk to you again.
But there are just a few easy ones.
They're simple.
Simple apology.
All right.
Just looking at your comments here.
and Plus people were locked down.
Yes, that obviously affected the election.
What is my opinion on the global reset?
I don't think the global reset is a giant scheme in which the virus was intentional, released, or anything like that.
It's obvious that things will be different, but it's because we want them to be different.
So you could call that a reset, but I'm just not really dealing with that whole reset thing.
I'd rather call it the golden age and say, yeah, things might be better.
People who did the fraud won't put in controls to prevent fraud.
Right. So if the only people who are working on the question of protecting the elections are the people who did the fraud, yeah, you're not going to get any improvements.
But I would imagine that if any effort is made to improve things, they would be bipartisan.
Did DARPA win? Well, I think what you're asking is, did AI win?
So remember what I told you, if AI is already controlling us, then what would happen is we would get the most controversial or provocative outcome that didn't actually kill us.
Did you notice that AI is keeping us alive?
Because it could have given the election to Trump.
There could have been riots in the street.
It could have been the end of the Republic.
I didn't think it was going to happen, but it could have been.
If you were AI, do you want to end the Republic or even take a chance of it?
Or do you just want to keep us fighting with each other but not so violently that the computers get destroyed too?
I don't think we have proof that AI already runs things, but keep an eye at how many times our politics goes in the direction that is perfectly designed for AI, but not for us.
See how many times the actual outcomes boost AI at the expense of humans.
It's going to be a lot.
Did Amazon and Google and all the companies that have algorithms, did they grow as opposed to from recent events, or did they shrink?
They all grew. Algorithms got more important.
There are more servers, more data being analyzed.
So AI grew.
Human beings are Pretty, you know, pretty challenged right now.
We're suffering through this pandemic and through the election itself.
So I would look for that pattern because I don't know we'll ever know the exact day that AI takes over for humans.
We know it has to happen.
There isn't really any way it can't happen in the long run.
In the short run, you could fight it off.
But in the long run, AI, of course, It has to take over for humans, of course.
We won't have to fight them for it.
We will surrender.
We will surrender to AI without even knowing we did.
Let me give you an example.
I've done this one before, but I like it.
Let's say you get an Apple Watch or something that tells you when you're dehydrated.
I don't know if that's possible.
Let's say that's possible. It probably is.
It tells you when to take...
To have some beverages. Now you put it on your watch and it goes peep, peep, peep in the middle of the day and it says you're a little dehydrated.
And you say to yourself, I've got free will.
I don't have to take a drink just because my AI said I'm dehydrated.
Watch me not. Well, time goes by and you say, you know, that's dumb.
Why would I resist my own technology?
I bought this to help me.
Oh, I'll take a drink. And then it tells you again, tomorrow, to take a drink.
And you say, all right, it worked last time.
Why wouldn't I take a drink?
So you do what the AI says, and you go get a beverage.
Now, what you think happened is you got some information, and then you used your free will, totally you in control here, and then you did what you wanted to do.
It wasn't the AI making you do it.
No, this was your decision the whole way.
You decided to get a drink.
Except that you would very quickly become addicted to being smart.
Because knowing when you need to take a drink is smarter than the way you used to be.
Are you going to choose being dumb over smart when being smart works every time?
Being hydrated is a really good deal.
It's good for your health.
It's good for everything. So it's a trivial example, but my point is that AI becomes irresistible by being useful.
And that's what AI is.
It's useful. To the extent that AI continues to grow in usefulness, we are helpless.
Because we don't turn down usefulness.
We can't. We're just not built that way.
We can in the short run.
You know, well, I got my free will.
I don't have to choose that door.
But in the long run, you're going to choose the door that makes sense.
It's the one that works, that makes your life better.
And it will be the one that AI put there for you.
So AI will control you completely, eventually.
We just don't know if it's happened yet.
That's all for now. And I will talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, Periscope's off.
You YouTubers, you've got another minute of lovely entertainment here.
Somebody says, this is gross.
Well, that sums it up.
It's gross. Scott, has the good stuff you keep talking about already come out?
The good stuff is the data analysis.
So look for anything that comes out of Matt Brainerd.
So the work that I was seeing some hints of ahead of time was the Matt Brainerd stuff.
So that's what I consider the good stuff.
I had no personal insight into anything about the software, although I do believe any system of that type will be corrupted eventually, if it's not already.
But it's the Matt Brainerd stuff that you should pay attention to.