Episode 1204 Scott Adams: If You Can't Audit the Election Software, Did an Election Actually Happen? How Would You Know?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
No audit of Dominion software?
No Democrat worries of election fraud this time?
Is Dominion partly owned by Chinese government?
Teachers Unions make every problem worse
List of election anomalies
"Packets of Fraud" hypothesis of election fraud
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
What do you need? Well, you need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gels or a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except audits of election software.
It happens now. Go!
Oh, so good.
So good. Well, Rasmussen did a poll, I think you'll see it in a little bit later today, in which they determined that When citizens are asked who the biggest enemy is, each other, or China or Russia, turns out that we're more afraid of each other than other countries.
So, Democrats are more afraid of Trump supporters than they are of foreign adversaries and vice versa.
Now, what's that tell you?
Well, the first thing it tells you is that that kind of a survey isn't exactly apples and oranges, right?
So if China attacks you, you get destroyed in a giant fireball of nuclear fury.
If a Democrat or a Republican get mad at you, you might get cancelled.
So they're not quite equal, but it's very interesting just to see sort of the mood of the country.
We have been convinced to turn against each other.
Now, there's kind of a good news part of that, isn't there?
If the thing you're most worried about Is literally your neighbor?
And not China?
And not Russia?
Didn't President Trump do a good job?
Think about it.
Because the survey is not just telling us that we're worried about each other in the country.
It's also telling us that we're not as worried about risks of other countries.
Which is good news, because I would much rather be arguing about who's a racist and who's not and who won the election than I would be hiding in my bunker and waiting for the Chinese Air Force to go over.
So I don't know if that's bad or not, but it's interesting.
Here's my big point for the day.
So I'm going to make one big point.
And then we're going to talk about lots of little points, but none of the little points, if you added them all together, will equal this one point.
It doesn't even get close.
And here's the one point.
I don't mind that Dominion has said we can't audit their systems, because they say it's proprietary software, and therefore we can't look at them.
I don't mind. As long as you know that the alternative to auditing your election software, there's only one alternative, which is to throw out the entire election.
Now, that's what you would do if you were, let's say, a corporation.
Let's say you were a big corporation and you had found that some important process had run and you can't tell if the outcome was real or not real and there's no way to check.
If you were a corporate CEO and your system had produced you an outcome, it doesn't matter what the system is, it produces an outcome that you can't tell.
You know that people had a motive to fake it.
You know they had the opportunity to fake it.
And you can't check to see if they did fake it.
What would you do with that data?
Well, you wouldn't use it, right?
You wouldn't use that data.
No head of a corporation would use data that's probably faked, because there's the motive and the opportunity, and you can't check.
There's no way to check.
It's that simple.
Now, if you tell me, Scott, Scott, Scott, we've had this software for years, we can't throw out all our past elections.
I'm not saying that.
Our past elections are the past.
Can't change the past.
But 100% of people who are familiar with software will agree with me.
There are very few things that you could get 100% of people to agree with, but 100% of people who understand software will agree that if we can't audit the election system, wait for it, we don't even know if an election happened.
Because what is the definition of an election?
The definition of election is people vote, the votes are counted, and then whoever wins, there's some outcome from that, right?
I think you'd all agree that's the definition of what voting is.
The people do the process of voting, you count them, then you change whatever you're going to change because of the outcome.
Did that happen?
We don't know.
We don't know. We actually don't know.
We know people attempted to vote, so we definitely have that part.
And we know that something's going to change, so we've got that part.
But there's this whole middle part where we don't know if the thing that people did, the voting, had any correlation with the outcome.
Do you know? I mean, you have an opinion, and I have an opinion.
But we don't know. Now, I'm not talking about the kind of knowing, like a philosophical knowing.
It's like, can we know we are really alive?
No, I'm not talking about philosophically knowing.
I'm talking about the practical kind of knowing, the kind where you organize your life around things you're fairly sure of, but you don't know.
Like, I don't know that if I get in my car, it won't blow up, but I'm confident that it won't, so I'll get in my car anyway.
So the point is, if you're arguing about whether the election was fair or not fair, you're thinking past the sale.
Back up a little bit.
You don't know if an election happened.
Right? So if you're talking about whether the outcome is fair or not fair, you've already thought past the question.
Was there an election?
Because I'm not aware of one.
I'm aware of people voting.
I'm aware that there's a president-elect, at least, you know, in terms of the public opinion.
I'm not aware that there was any counting of votes In which the votes translated into the outcome.
I'm not aware of that. Are you?
Of course not.
Because the system that counted them says you can't audit them.
And somebody said that they don't even keep audit logs.
I don't know if that's true. But if somebody bought a system...
Let's back up a little and just appreciate the following statements.
So it's been said that in Georgia, the Republican governor and Secretary of State, is it?
Both Republicans, or were, and that they're the ones who brought this Dominion software in, which means that they being in charge, they didn't make the detailed decisions, but whoever did that for them decided to sign an election election System contract without the right to audit the software.
Do you know how big of a mistake that is?
I don't know even how to put that on a scale.
The size of that mistake, that's like legendary.
That's not guy in cubicle forgets to check a box.
Right? That's a mistake that's as big as the biggest mistake that's ever been made in the history of the world.
That's beyond the biggest mistake.
Now, I see some skeptics in the comments saying, well, maybe it wasn't a mistake.
How do you know it was a mistake?
Maybe they intentionally created a situation in which nothing could be found.
But remember, there were Republicans.
The Republicans definitely did not intentionally pick a system that would keep Republicans out of office.
They didn't intentionally do that.
They may have, you know, there are allegations that they took money or whatever.
I don't know anything about that.
But certainly I haven't seen evidence to back up any of those claims.
But we've got a really bad situation here.
Somebody says Trump lost.
That's so cute.
Here's something that's a head-scratcher.
Did Trump run the cleanest election of all time?
Because it's getting just weird that Democrats are not blaming either a foreign country or Republicans of also cheating on the election.
Really? Really?
This is the first election where there was no outside interference?
And by the way, as we learned in 2016, outside interference by the mighty Russian intelligence agencies means creating three bad memes and putting them on Facebook.
So we're talking about a very low bar to how hard it is to interfere with our election.
How hard would it be to create a meme And disguise its origin.
Well, that would be pretty easy.
Pretty darn easy.
So, we're not even talking about it.
It was the biggest problem in the world four years ago.
Nothing's changed.
Because there's nothing that changed that would prevent Russia from creating a meme.
We're talking about memes.
We're not talking about hacking.
What would stop them from creating a meme?
Nothing. They could obviously plant memes without showing the source.
There's obviously a way to do that.
So the fact that none of that is happening is just head-shaking.
And here's what I think. I think that even Democrats at this point realized the election was not credible.
Now, Because it wasn't credible, I don't know who won, or would have won if it had been fair.
But certainly, I feel as if, you know, the survey said 30% of Democrats think it was rigged, but I think it's closer to 100% think that there was at least attempted mischief.
Probably 70% have wishful thinking that there wasn't enough of it to change the outcome, because they don't want that to be true.
But I don't believe there are any Democrats who could have heard the Pennsylvania and then yesterday the Arizona hearings and just hear the accusations.
If you just hear the accusations, you don't even need to know if any of them are true.
Because what the accusations taught you is that whether or not there were real instances of fraud, there were plenty of opportunities.
Can we all agree that in the last week, We've moved from serious people saying, completely straight-faced, there wasn't any way to cheat that much.
It would have been obvious.
Nobody could cheat that much with them being so obvious that they'd get caught.
It's not really possible.
Do you think anybody believes that this week?
It's really possible.
In fact, I thought it was possible before, but I was sort of operating on the thought that Well, maybe I don't know how to cheat, but people who are really putting time and attention into it, they've probably figured it out by now.
Turns out, it's so easy to cheat in a million different ways, so long as you can control the witnessing and the auditing, which is the case.
The Democrats and Democrat-controlled cities did control the witnessing, And there's no audit of the software.
And there's probably no useful audit of the paper ballots because the envelopes were separated.
So was there an election?
I don't know. There's a report I saw just before I got on here that I'm really, really skeptical about.
But I'll just put it out there.
So this is an alleged story.
Don't put this in the same bucket as things you know to be true.
But allegedly, the SEC has filed something about Dominion voting systems, and there's an allegation that is partly owned by China.
Now, partly owned, meaning that there's an investment company that's owned by somebody who's owned by China, so that China would be the end of a chain of ownership or partial ownership for some of the Dominion machines.
Now, do you think that's possible, that Dominion got a $400 million investment From a bank in Switzerland that is 75% owned by a Chinese government?
By the Chinese government?
Do you think that's true?
Now, if it is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that you found some kind of a smoking gun.
Because you could have people investing in lots of stuff, and the investors may not have that much control over it.
But Certainly raises an eyebrow, doesn't it?
I mean, it has the look of an attempt to influence things, even if they couldn't.
I don't know if they could, just by investing in it, but it sure looks like an attempt.
If we can't find any direct evidence that the election was rigged, I think we will.
But let's say we can't audit it and We just can't get at the information.
Is there anything we can do, short of being able to audit it, that would tell us, at least for our own information, whether or not the thing was stolen?
And I propose an experiment.
So I think you could do an experiment that would tell you with a fairly high degree of certainty Whether or not the election was stolen.
Now, it wouldn't tell you who really won, you know, or what the amount was, but it would tell you if there was massive fraud.
So let's say not stolen, but let's say a test that would tell you if there were massive fraud or not in the election.
And here's the test. You find a remote desert area in Utah.
And then you build an obelisk, a really cool-looking metal obelisk.
But don't make it so big that a couple of big guys couldn't pick it up and put it on a truck.
You want to make it small enough that somebody could steal it if they were inclined to do it.
Now here's the second part.
You introduce this obelisk into the news, turning it from a simple metal object that looks kind of cool into a famous object.
Object. And when something is famous, let's say the Mona Lisa or the Liberty Bell or whatever, fame adds value, right?
Because if you had a famous painting, it would be worth a lot, even if it's not as good as less famous paintings.
So you'd have this obelisk In the desert, just hypothetically.
I'm not saying you'd do this.
But put it in the desert, and then just leave it unguarded after you've told the world that this valuable unguarded item is in the Utah desert.
And then you just wait.
Wait about a month and see if it's still there.
Now, if it's still there, what your test has shown you is that even when millions of humans...
Know about an unguarded, valuable object that they can go just get, then none of them did it.
Now, if that's your situation, where millions of people can know they can just go steal this thing of value and they don't, you've got yourself a good election.
Because the thing we've proven is that there are lots of ways you could have stolen the election.
It's just hard to know if it happened or not.
But if human nature can be Let's say studied to the degree that you know that in some situations humans will always act the same way.
Well, that's not enough for a court.
It's not enough for science.
That's enough for you.
So, I hope somebody does that experiment and puts a cool-looking obelisk in a Utah desert, and we'll see if it disappears.
We'll see. And then you'll know if your election was stolen, or at least attempted.
How impressed are you at the two-movie situation that we're having?
Do you remember when I first started talking about, oh, there's two movies running on one screen, and the Democrats and the Republicans are seeing different worlds?
And you said to yourself, yeah, that's like sort of, I can almost see what you're talking about there.
You know, kind of conceptually, a little bit, I can see we're seeing different stuff.
But did you ever think you would get to this point today, where the following two statements are both presented as 100% true?
Republicans say there is a ton of evidence that the election was stolen.
Right? Lots of Republicans say that.
At the same time, just go on Twitter...
You can see that tons of Democrats say there is zero evidence.
Not that the evidence has been debunked.
Well, they do say that.
But they're saying that there just isn't any.
And the Republicans are saying, I'm drowning in it.
So it's a little like what it feels like is that it's two people standing in the ocean up to their neck, And one looks at the other and says, there's no water here.
And the other looks over and says, you're up to your neck in water.
There's nothing but water.
We are completely in water.
And the other one up to the neck looks over and says, no, we're not.
That's the world we're in.
Now, if you think That this is like blowing your mind because you never thought this could be possible?
Then you've never been a hypnotist.
Because hypnotists know this is completely possible.
In fact, normal.
It would be weirder if we didn't get to this point.
It was completely predictable.
And so when I predicted that we would have two presidents, one who actually gets the job, and one that half the country says, yeah, that really was the one who got elected, was the other guy...
Did that seem real when I first said it before the election?
Remember, I said that before the election.
Did that seem like that was going to happen?
It happened. Here we are.
We do have two presidents in the minds of the public.
Alright. Project Veritas somehow got the phone number for a CNN some kind of a conference call in which Jeff Zucker was talking to his CNN staff about CNN. And apparently Project Veritas will be releasing these audio clips so that we can see what CNN says to each other When they don't think other people are listening.
And then James O'Keefe, who was on the call, he live-streamed himself on the call.
He asks a question.
And then when Zucker realizes that he's on a call with the Project Veritas, Later, he says, maybe we should end this call and find some different technology to talk on.
So wait for that.
Name any problem in this country that is not made worse by the teachers' unions.
There's a challenge for you.
Name any domestic problem that isn't worsened by the teachers' unions.
And it's one of those things when you first hear it, you think, Well, not everything.
I mean, there must be some problems that are not made worse by the teachers' unions.
But if you imagine that the teachers' unions are destroying education, then it ripples through everything.
Our science is bad, our understanding of logic and facts, our ability to get jobs, racism, income inequality, even the ability to pay back a student loan.
Just about everything can be traced back to the Teachers unions being the biggest enemy in the country.
A funny thing happened today.
The president retweeted an account from Cat Turd.
That became a big trending thing.
It had more to do with the fact that Cat Turd, spelled exactly like a cat turd, got retweeted by the president.
Aren't we going to miss that?
Could you ever imagine a President Joe Biden retweeting cat turd?
It doesn't matter what cat turd said.
Can you imagine a Joe Biden retweeting it?
No, you can't.
You just can't. So we're going to miss that.
I did a little Twitter unscientific survey, and I said, since the beginning of the pandemic, has your relationship with your spouse gotten better, worse, or the same?
And the results were interesting.
You know, of course, non-scientific.
But 40% said their relationships got better during the pandemic.
And I believe that.
Because I think if the spouses get along and they're forced to spend more time together, they can't, you know, drive to work, whatever, then it's just more of something they wanted.
They already liked spending time with each other and they got a little extra.
So 40% of them said it's better.
45% said it's about the same.
Good. And 15% said worse.
So those are the people who probably were doing well when they didn't spend much time with each other.
And when they had to spend time, it was not so good.
But this is actually better than I thought.
I thought it was going to be more gloomy than this.
Now, of course, people might be lying because there's, you know, who knows how honest they were.
Here's a new story that's foreshadowing more to come.
Apparently 10 local chapters of Black Lives Matter issued a statement that there's not enough financial disclosure from the national leadership.
They don't have accountability and transparency in the massive amount of money that they've collected.
So Black Lives Matter at the national level, especially with the George Floyd stuff, they collected massive amounts of money and the local chapters are saying, uh, could we see a statement about that?
And could you share a little bit with us?
And where's that money going?
Now, who knows if this is a little problem or a big one, but here's the main point.
What if Black Lives Matter loses its boogeyman?
Because don't you think Trump was the reason that Black Lives Matter could be so popular, despite doing so many things that you would imagine would make you unpopular, such as destroying businesses and whatnot?
So I feel as though when Trump, if you imagine that Trump does not have a second term, Black Lives Matter is probably going to turn on each other.
Because they would lose their external boogeyman to focus on.
I would also expect Black Lives Matter and Antifa to end up turning on each other.
Same reason. Because they lost their common enemy.
All right. So quite a few election claims have been debunked.
But I wanted to read you this list of Election anomalies.
Because a lot of this will turn on the anomaly part.
But here's the problem.
Anywhere you see a list of data anomalies, I guarantee you that some of these are not true.
Guaranteed. So what happens when you have a list of, I don't know, it looks like 17 or 20 different things that are data anomalies, And it's really easy for the critics to say, ah, here's three of them that aren't true.
Alright, I'm going to delete whoever said Scott is a sophist.
Because you're not even trying.
Put user in timeout.
Um... So it really hurts your argument if you put some fake stuff on a list with stuff that's not fake.
But let me run through these, and in the comments, do some fact-checking, okay?
So I'll read the claims, and then you can fact-check me.
So my claim is that these are not true.
You ready? So I'm going to read you things that my claim is are not true.
Meaning that the entire list isn't 100% true.
There are definitely some things on here, I think, that are true.
But don't believe them.
So there's nothing on the list that just by its nature you should say, oh, that's true.
So stay skeptical on this list.
Alright, here it is. For nearly 150 years, every president who has gained votes in a re-election campaign has also won the re-election.
Is that meaningful? That whenever a president has gained votes in a re-election, they also won re-election.
I would say that is not meaningful, because the population increased.
And because Trump never had a primary challenge, and it was such a polarizing kind of a thing, it was just high turnout, right?
So I think all that's saying is there was high turnout.
Does that tell you anything? Not really.
So the first one might be true, but it's not really telling you much because of this special case that people wanted to turn out.
It said Trump gained 11 million more votes than 2016, but Biden somehow overcame those odds.
Again, I don't know if it's true or not, the number, but let's say it's true.
Would that tell you anything about whether or not there was fraud?
Nope. Nope.
So the first two may or may not be true, but they certainly don't tell you there's fraud.
It just tells you that a lot of people voted.
So that's all you know so far.
Number three, Trump won the highest share of minority voters for a GOP candidate since 1960.
I believe that's true, and now we're starting to get into some better stuff here, right?
Because if he won a high share of minority voters, and yet...
The very reason he lost is because he got an unusually low share of minority voters in key cities.
That's kind of a red flag, isn't it?
It's a bit of a flag.
Doesn't mean it's not proof, but certainly makes you scratch your head.
Then, related to the same thing, this is just another point that Trump grew his Support among black voters by 50%.
Again, it's the same point, but just another way to look at it.
Biden's support among black voters fell below 90%, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.
So if you've got Biden getting fewer black votes than historically and Trump getting more black votes than historically, and by a significant amount, Trump doubled his support, Would you expect that he would lose with that?
You wouldn't expect it.
But again, it's not impossible.
It's just starting to get really unlikely.
All right, how about Biden shattered the popular vote record while winning a record low 17% of counties?
So that, again, doesn't prove anything, but you've got to ask yourself, why was he getting so many votes in general?
Now, the fact that he got lots of votes in general just means there were a lot of voters.
So the first part of this is meaningless.
There were lots of votes. But it probably does tell you something that he got a record low 17% of counties.
Now, of course, The whole point is that it's the big metro areas that want it for Biden, so I don't know that that's the strongest point.
Obama won 873 counties in 2008.
Well, Biden only got 524.
But somehow, despite getting far fewer counties, Biden got far more votes.
Every one of these that has Biden getting more votes in quantity is not really convincing.
Because the one thing we all agree on is that both Trump and Biden got more votes than you would expect in other years.
Biden's the first one to lose Ohio and Florida in 60 years and still win.
And he's the second president in 168 years to lose Ohio, Florida, and Iowa and still win.
Trump won 18 out of 19 bellwether counties.
They have a near-perfect record over 40 years of predicting who would win.
Now, that's when it starts to get strong.
Now, if you were going to ask me which of these do you find convincing, or at least persuasive, I would say this Bellwether County thing really stands out, doesn't it?
Because again, it's not impossible that these numbers happened this way naturally, but what are the odds of winning 18 out of 19 Bellwether counties?
When that is nearly impossible.
Here's one. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton except in four cities.
Now, I've seen this one debunked online, but I don't know if they're debunking the actual claim or something close to it to make it look like they debunked the actual claim.
And what I mean by close to it is, if they're counting the numbers but not the percentage of votes, they counted the wrong thing, all right?
So did Biden underperform Hillary Clinton in terms of raw votes everywhere except those four states?
Probably not, right?
I think Biden beat Hillary in raw votes in lots of places, am I right?
So do a fact check on me.
I'm kind of guessing on this next thing.
Because I think when it gets debunked, they're debunking the raw number of votes and saying, no, there were plenty of places where Biden got more raw number of votes than Hillary Clinton.
Fact check me on that.
But isn't the argument the percentage of how many went to Biden versus Trump?
I think that's the argument, not the raw number.
Republicans won across the country, but Biden somehow beat Trump.
So here are the two points that are kind of connected.
Republicans won 27 and a 27 of the toss-up contests.
Here's maybe the hardest one to believe.
Do you believe that people decided to vote against Trump?
Because that's how they were talking.
We're voting against Trump.
But while they were voting against Trump, They were not voting against the people who support Trump on the same ballot?
The people who would be in Congress?
Would you do that?
How many people are just going to check the president box and not do the other ones?
Maybe. So I would say it's still possible.
It's possible that lots and lots of people We checked only the presidential box and just didn't even vote on the other stuff, which would give you the possibility that Republicans sweep the undercards and the president just gets voted against in big numbers on the top.
It's possible. Anything's possible.
No incumbent who has received 75% of the primary vote has ever lost re-election.
I would consider that one worthless.
I know it's predicted in the past.
But this time we just had a candidate who was running unchallenged, right?
So that doesn't mean anything.
I don't think that one's important.
Trump won 94% of the primary vote.
I think all of the primary stuff is not predictive.
I feel like all of the, well, who won the primary before, I don't feel like that's predictive.
I realize there's a correlation, but I don't know if it's predictive.
Trump set a record for most primary votes.
Yeah, so everything that's quantity-related is unpersuasive.
So there you are.
There are definitely some head-scratchers there, but some of them are debunked and some of them are no big deal.
And let's see if I've talked about everything.
Oh, there's... There's a study out that says that people who got the measles, mumps, rubella vaccination recover from COVID or practically have no symptoms.
Now, it's one study, but it shows that the difference whether you had that shot or didn't have that shot is gigantic.
So we're not talking about, oh, we teased out this statistical difference.
We're talking about if you had this shot, you did great.
If you didn't have that shot, you were in the percentage of people who had a bad outcome.
So I'd like to see that one proven or disproven.
It could be the thing that explains everything.
Because, as I've told you, you can't look at the management decisions or the leadership decisions in different countries and tease out why some people got better results than others.
There is still some gigantic variable in this whole pandemic that we haven't isolated.
It might be this. It could be this vaccination thing.
You do realize that the emerging hypothesis about the election is that if it were rigged, it were rigged in what I'll call a packetized way.
In other words, little packets of fraud, each of them designed so that they're individually not so big that if any individual packet of fraud got discovered, and let's say those votes were tossed down, that it wouldn't be enough to change the election.
Because you're not going to find them all And they cheated in lots of different ways, allegedly, in different places and, you know, different parts of the process.
So if you're thinking about the election in terms of finding that big package of fraud, I don't think you're going to find that.
Because I think that what it looks like is there won't be the single big package of fraud unless you count rule changes.
So you could say, well, they shouldn't have made this decision which allowed these votes to be counted, but I don't know if that's fraud fraud.
That's more like politicians trying to get away with whatever they can get away with.
That's more like a rule trickery.
But I think the actual fraud fraud is going to be in packets by design.
Now, as Rudy Giuliani pointed out in the Arizona hearings, That there is at least a tell or at least some kind of a signal for coordination.
Now that has not been demonstrated or proven.
But Rudy Giuliani is, I would say, an expert in sniffing out coordinated plots like the mafia.
So he knows something that's a coordinated plot versus something that's just lots of people acting independently.
And it sounds like he's sniffing out some coordination here.
Now, if it turns out that the fraud exists and it's packetized by design and it's organized, isn't that a pretty big legal case?
The organized part takes it up to RICO, right?
I think. So, Dr.
Scott Atlas resigned.
From the coronavirus advising job at the White House.
That's good news for me, so that I don't keep getting confused with Dr.
Scott Atlas. But I feel as though that was probably a smart move, because he said everything he wanted to say, everybody heard it, and then after that he was just becoming a source of criticism.
So I think he was smart to move on.
It was time.
Let's see.
So, I'm just deciding what to talk about here.
Um...
What?
Ch-ch-ch-ch.
I think that's all I wanted to talk about.
I'm going to go back to my first point when I got on here.
We talked about lots of different Allegations.
And we talked about lots of different data anomalies.
Beyond this list of data anomalies I read, there's much more convincing bits of evidence.
So there's tons of evidence of fraud, which the Democrats call no evidence at all.
I haven't seen anything.
But I think it comes down to this.
If we have an election system which can't be audited because there's proprietary information in it, that's all you need to know.
There's nothing else you have to ask to know what is the right thing to do.
The right thing to do is either throw out the result and redo it.
You'd have to redo it.
You couldn't just throw out the result and put Trump in power.
But you can redo it.
The other thing you can do is say, we're going to have to scrap the system totally, but for the benefit of the country, we're going to let Biden take over and we'll work it out as we go.
That's probably what's going to happen.
Probably you're going to get a President Biden who will take the job.
And we will have to figure out how to redo our system for next time.
Because we're definitely not going to go into another...
Let me make you a promise.
I promise you, you're not going to be voting in 2024 on machines that don't have an audit capability.
Does anybody want to take the opposite side of that bet?
I will bet you That we're done with unauditable election systems.
We're definitely done.
Does anybody doubt that?
Because if we have another election with unauditable software, that's a revolution.
Because doing it once and then sort of the country has learned about it, now we know that there's a problem there.
Even if the election wasn't rigged, That non-auditable software thing, that's not something you can live with.
And so let me say this as clearly as possible.
If we're still living with it in 2024, we don't have a country anymore.
And then we have to stage a revolution.
So in 2024, the revolution is on.
If we still have unauditable software for our elections.
There's no alternative to that.
Because if we still have this situation in 2024, you can know the election is stolen.
I'm pretty sure this one was fraudulent.
But I also think, well, you know, it's possible people were at least trying to make it honest.
But if it's the same situation in 2024, You can say with complete certainty that the people in charge were not attempting, not even trying, to give you a real election.
Not even trying. Would you agree?
That that would be not even trying.
And if we have a country that's not even trying to have real elections, revolution.
That's what I say. And the revolution could be simple.
Just destroy the election machines.
Let me give you a preview of 2024.
Let's say 2024 happens.
We still have unauditable election machines.
There will be a Tea Party.
There will be a Tea Party.
Meaning that Republicans, and I mean this literally, not figuratively, will We'll take control of the facilities where those machines are.
They will put them on pickup trucks, probably pickup trucks, with American flags on them.
And they will drive them to the fucking bay.
And they will throw those machines into the fucking ocean.
And if you try to vote with them again and you bring them back, those same pickup trucks will appear at your same fucking facilities.
They will load up those trucks with your fucking unauditable machines and they will dump them in the fucking ocean again.
This time, we might have to live with the outcome because we don't want to You don't want to destroy your own country.
You're trying to save it, right?
So we might just have to do the best we can with what we have.
But in 2024, there will not be an election with unauditable technology.
We will throw that shit in the fucking ocean.
That's it. We will throw it in the fucking ocean.
You know I'm right, right?
You know I'm right.
Those machines will be physically removed and thrown in the fucking ocean.
Are you with me?
Who's with me? I'll drive the truck.
I will drive the fucking truck, right?
Because that's revolution.
If we do this again, We're not fucking around anymore, right?
That's a bright line.
So I give people plenty of flexibility to fix things, to make mistakes.
I'm really big on letting people make their mistakes and not kill them for it, right?
But it wouldn't be a mistake if we let it happen again.
I would be willing to say if you're a governor of a state and your political people are buying a software system, maybe you're not good at it.
It's entirely possible that as a politician you're just not good at procuring things and you didn't know you needed that audit right, etc.
But now you know.
Now you know. So there are no excuses for 2024.
Your shit's going in the ocean.
If you try this again, your shit's going in the ocean.
That's it. We're done.
We are done here.
Let me tell you a management trick for your life.
There are times when you say, I probably will do this, or I might do this, or you should worry that I'll do this, or there's some chance I'll do this.
And there's a good reason to say, there's a chance, I might do it, I might do it.
And then there are other times when you just say, it's a decision.
So let me put this not in a prediction form.
Let me put it in decision form, because this is different.
It's one thing to predict.
It's a decision that I will personally help you throw those fucking machines in the ocean if this happens again.
Like, that's a promise.
It's a commitment.
I will help you throw them in the ocean.
That's it. So, to my government, you don't have to wonder if it's going to happen.
You don't have to wonder.
It's a decision.
We have decided that we won't put up with it.
That's very different.
Very different. Somebody says, weak talk...
Big talk from a weak-old man.
Goodbye, Frank. It was nice removing you.
All right, that's all for now.
And I will talk to you later.
All right, YouTubers. Periscope is off.
Somebody says now is the only option.
Well, you know, I've heard the arguments that If the Democrats get control, they'll consolidate control and add states and all that.
But I think we have to wait for the Georgia election.
If the Georgia election looks reasonable, you know, and as predicted, you get two more Republicans and the Senate is held, I don't think that's revolution time.
I think that's fix-your-problem time.
But there is a time when you have to treat it differently in the future, but I don't think we're there.
What would you do about the fraudulent mail-in votes?
Well, we're going to try to audit them, but I think audit will be impossible.
Do I think I could ever write another thought experiment book similar to God's Debris?
Well, God's Debris has a sequel.
I don't know if you know that. It's called The Religion War.
But it's a very different kind of a book.
So the answer is, I'm not thinking about that.
Because God's Debris was sort of a lifetime of thoughts compressed into a tiny book.
But you almost have to live a second lifetime to get that many thoughts that can be put into a book.
Why don't the math anomalies count?
They don't count because in many cases there's just an obvious explanation for them.
There are some that don't have an explanation and they do count.
So you can't say the anomalies count or don't count, but you can say that most of them have some other explanation.
Some of them are pretty strong.
So the anomalies I would worry about are in the mail-in votes.
Those are the ones that will be the big ones.
If the election was stolen, the whole world loses.
