Episode 1205 Scott Adams: I Tell You How Democrats Pulled off the Perfect (Alleged!) Crime, With Whiteboard
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Whiteboard: Perfect (Alleged!) Crime
Voting machine security versus effective security
Proprietary software vs election certification
Trained, organized bullying election crimes?
CNN believes their own fake news?
"It's different this time" and The Fourth Turning
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Every single time it's the best part of the day, especially when you're prepared.
What do you need? A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a sign, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Allow me to put my microphone on.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the...
What is it?
Simultaneous sip. That's right.
Go. So good.
So good. Well, I've been trying to come up with a name for something.
There's a category of thing happening.
It doesn't have a name. And it's always fun to be the person who could come up with the name of a thing that nobody has named yet.
And I'd like to come up with a name for the people on Twitter, probably social media in general, who come into a conversation after it looks like you know how it's going to go, and they couldn't hang with the actual debate Because they don't understand the law and thinking and logic and any of those useful things that you would need to be part of a debate.
But once they think it's settled, there's this group that comes in to add sarcasm.
And that's all they do.
They don't bring a debate, an argument, a point.
They don't bring information.
They bring just sarcasm.
And so I've decided to call them the sarcasm guppies.
Because they're not full-grown fish.
Because the full-grown fish can have an actual conversation with data and reasons and arguments and stuff.
But they're not them.
They're like the sarcasm guppies.
And they swim in afterwards.
And if somebody yesterday thought the sun would be out, but it turned out to be a cloudy day instead, the sarcasm guppies will come in and they'll say, finally, Finally something I'm qualified to interact with.
I couldn't hang with the logic, and I couldn't hang with the facts.
But now, they said it was going to be sunny, but it wasn't.
It wasn't. Watch this.
Hey, I thought you said today would be sunny, but...
Not wearing my sunglasses, am I? I guess I left my sunglasses home.
Zing, zing, zing.
Own, own.
So those are the sarcasm guppies.
You've seen a lot of them today.
Did you see the lawsuit?
I think this is a petition to the Supreme Court.
I might be using the wrong legal words here.
But Ted Cruz has apparently put together a...
An appeal in which he's challenging the Pennsylvania, part of the Pennsylvania result.
And here's the thing.
If you're waiting for a strong case, where you're thinking to yourself, gosh, I hope someday there's a stronger case for the Trump side.
Well, If you don't know this already, Ted Cruz has argued and won cases at the Supreme Court.
So Ted Cruz is a guy you don't want to mess with if you're going to be in a legal battle.
Imagine yourself, you get in a legal battle, and you're thinking to yourself, God, I hope the other side doesn't bring somebody good.
And then Ted Cruz shows up as the attorney for the other side, and you just say to yourself, damn it.
Damn it. It's Ted Cruz.
So here's the argument he's going to make.
I'm going to butcher this. And I'm drafting off of Jack Posobiec, who yesterday did a live stream on this.
So I'm basically going to tell you what Jack Posobiec said on his live stream, because I don't understand this field.
But he did a good job of breaking it down.
And it goes like this. So there was...
I don't know if I can get into the details, but the essence of it was that prior to the election there was no standing, meaning that nobody had been injured by anything until the election happened.
And the charge was that some changing in the rules that didn't go through the constitutional system created an unconstitutional thing which happened.
And the claim is that those votes that were part of this unconstitutional decision should be thrown out.
And the argument is really, really clever in a legal way, which is why I'm going to butcher it probably.
But the thing is that until the election happens, nobody has been harmed.
And apparently you can't bring an action to the court and say, hey, there's this thing that happened when it hasn't happened.
You're simply worried that a thing will happen.
So in the beginning you have no standing, so you don't have a legal remedy.
Then the election happens.
And then the court says, too late.
Because you knew about this thing a long time ago, but you waited until now.
And there's this thing called the doctrine of latches that I heard about one day ago.
And that says you waited too long to bring your case.
And that is a disadvantage to whoever you're bringing your case against.
So you can either be too early and have no standing, or you could be too late because it's too late.
And there's no room in between.
Now, Ted Cruz has said, you've done something that is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional.
And indeed, I don't even think Pennsylvania would argue the point.
I don't even know if there's an argument that says it was constitutional, because they very publicly did something non-constitutional right in front of everybody.
I don't think there's any question of fact that it was a non-constitutional means.
The problem is that in addition to doing something non-constitutional, on top of that, like that wasn't already enough reason to reverse it, on top of that, The courts created a situation where it couldn't be addressed in the courts because there was no time between the, you don't have any standing, and it's too late.
There was no time.
So let me ask you this.
If you're the Democrats and you hear that the, you know, the angel of death, Ted Cruz, has decided to put his name, keep in mind, Ted Cruz has a, you know, a track record, a reputation of success with the Supreme Court.
He's putting his name on this damn thing, right?
Do you think he'd put his name on it if it were not pretty solid?
I don't think so. Now, I'm no expert on law, and, you know, when you hear about stuff like the doctrine of latches, and you say to yourself, oh, I thought I kind of understood things, and Until I heard that, and I don't know what the hell that's all about.
So I don't like to think that I know too much about what will happen in a court case, but as a layperson, if you tell me this story, you know, the way that Ted Cruz has laid it out, you tell me that Ted Cruz put his name on it, he put his name on it.
I'd be a little bit worried about that if I were a Democrat.
So, what do you think are the odds that at least Pennsylvania will be reversed?
If you had to bet, now some of you haven't seen the legal documents, the claims, but if you had to bet, what are the odds that just that one state, we'll just talk about that in isolation, what are the odds that that would be reversed based on this?
Pretty good, right?
Pretty good.
I think it's closer to 100% than zero, but beyond that, you know, I would just be flailing.
So I'll have to see what the counter-arguments are.
It's always easy to be seduced by the initial argument, because lawyers are good at making the initial argument, no matter what it is, sound pretty good.
You have to wait for the other side or you don't know anything.
All right. Let's talk about how the Democrats may have allegedly, allegedly not proven in any court of law, pulled off the perfect alleged crime.
And it goes like this.
And I gotta tell you, if it sounds like I'm a little bit excited by this, you're right.
I absolutely love seeing a new business model.
I'm sort of a business model geek, but I would include a perfect crime.
If somebody pulls off a perfect crime, I don't like it, especially if I'm a victim of the crime, but I'm still impressed by a really good crime.
So, similar to the way that I could be totally amused and entertained by President Trump's You know, aggressive personality toward his critics.
I can simply appreciate things without losing sight of the fact that there's a downside to a lot of things, right?
So here's the perfect crime as I see it.
Alleged! Did you hear me say alleged?
Alright, so these circles represent the alleged instances of fraud in all the many places and the many different precincts and counting areas.
Now let's just limit these to the swing state cities, the ones that are under question.
And let's say, hypothetically, so this is not a claim of fact, this is a hypothetical, but it's looking like it's shaping up this way.
Hypothetically, suppose that these black circles represented real fraud, but they are all cleverly sized such that if somebody discovered one of these, what would the court say?
The court would say, yeah, it does look like that happened, but it's so small compared to the whole election, it's not going to reverse it.
So there's no point in even hearing it Because even if it's true, what's the difference?
Now, there might be a separate criminal case if there's a person who did something bad.
But in terms of reversing the election, the court is going to say, yeah, you've got a pretty strong case, but we don't care.
Because it's not big enough to reverse the election, which is the whole point.
So they packetized their crime so that if you found that somebody brought in, I'll just use some...
Hypothetical examples.
So these are not Scott claiming facts.
It's just an example.
So suppose one of these was somebody brought in a truck full of fake ballots and there were 20,000 of them.
And they catch that truck and they say, we're throwing out those 20,000 ballots.
Doesn't matter. Wasn't enough.
Wasn't enough. Then somebody else was putting in a USB stick into something and changing some votes, and somebody else was running the same votes through, and somebody else was changing the sensitivity on the signatures, somebody else was doing a little ballot harvesting in a state where you're not supposed to do some ballot harvesting, and on and on and on and on.
Now, the second part is these red circles represent disinformation.
Intentional disinformation.
And on top of the intentional disinformation, which you know exists, you can be pretty sure that the Democrats did hire disinformation professionals, actual people who don't do anything else.
Well, they do other things, but they're experts at disinformation.
I would say there's pretty much a guarantee that they were at work.
And they seeded this with a bunch of fake stuff, so that if the news found one of these fakes, and then two of these fakes, and then three of these fakes, and then four of these fakes, and then 25 of them, what is the public going to think?
Because the fake news says, well, yeah, they're making a lot of claims.
Fake claim, fake claim, fake claim, you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court, you lost in court.
What does the public think?
What would the public think, who is not following things at the detail that many of you are, what would they think?
Well, they would be quite...
You could forgive them for thinking that this was a completely clean election, and even the people in charge of the election told you it was clean.
So the experts told you it was a good election.
The news told you every time they made a claim, it got debunked.
Debunk, debunk, debunk.
What the hell are you going to think?
You're going to think the election was clean, the loser's a sore loser who's complaining.
But on top of this, you've got this excellent timing situation that I alluded to, that before the alleged improprieties happen, it's too soon to have a problem with it.
Because there's no standing in court because nobody's injured yet.
And then after it's done, the timer starts.
Because the Constitution requires you to certify and move to each step and to be done with it in a specific time.
How much time did, let's say, Durham take for his investigation?
Well, he's not done yet.
How much time did Mueller need for the Mueller report?
A long time.
So we know how long it takes to do a complicated investigation, especially with all this disinformation here.
Imagine if Mueller and John Durham had to spend 75% of all of their time chasing disinformation.
I'll bet they didn't, because I don't know that anybody was...
I don't know if there was any reason to do it, to inject disinformation into the Mueller report...
I mean, obviously the things he was investigating were disinformation, but I don't think on top of that people were injecting disinformation to make it harder.
So anybody who would want to find real fraud and prove it and get the level of evidence you would need would have the most compressed time frame to do it, and on top of a compressed time frame, Would have the entire media against them.
So they would have the timing problem and then they would have all the disinformation that they have to wade through, which would take them even longer.
So, it's the perfect crime.
It's the perfect crime.
Because I think that after this is all said and done, The history will record, okay, it took us a long time.
It might take you five years.
And five years later, you get a whistleblower that says, yeah, you know, I drove that truck.
And then maybe it's six years later and somebody comes out and says, I've got to admit, I did mess with those machines a little bit.
I've got to admit, I'm on my deathbed, I'm just going to tell you.
So you can imagine the history will piece it together eventually.
Now let's talk about the security on these machines.
So Dizzy Brad on Twitter, Twitter user, tweeted this, talking about the security of the voting machines, which have a USB drive.
And Dizzy Brad says, for our pipeline operations control system, now obviously it would be pretty important To have good control on a pipeline.
Because if the pipeline goes nuts, you've got lots of problems, right?
So the pipeline operations control system, they weld the USB port closed to prevent unauthorized access.
Need an update? Call instrumentation team plus the mech shop.
So you would have to actually call engineers to engineer a brand new USB port if you wanted to change their software.
Now that is computer security.
If you think computer security is, hey, don't put anything in that USB drive, that's not computer security.
If you take a torch and weld that USB hole shut, that's computer security.
Likewise... Likewise...
I'll add another point and then I'll get back to it.
Oh, here's an example of what a bank would do.
So this is also from a tweet.
Somebody said, I've sold integrated software to large banks three times now.
So this is banks buying software.
What do they do when they buy software?
He says, each time there was an extended and rigorous code review of Where every line of my code was looked at by their technical experts.
If I would have refused to cooperate, they would have refused to buy.
Basic security policy.
That's what computer security looks like.
So these are two examples of what you should look for.
Do our voting systems have this level of security?
Doesn't look like it.
Doesn't look like it. So here's something I learned today that is interesting.
Apparently all of our election devices, the voting machines, have to be certified by an accredited lab.
So anything that will be part of the federal election has to go through an accredited laboratory.
Wouldn't you like to hear from the employees of the voting machine accreditation laboratory?
Doesn't that feel like a gigantic thing that we should have been hearing about by now?
So I tweeted this at Tucker Carlson's account because I would love to see Tucker Carlson or somebody, somebody who's smart enough to ask the right questions, bring the lab on and say, hey, you've had these machines in here and you've accredited them.
What are your standards for accreditation?
Is it just that you looked at it and you ran some tests and it worked on the one machine you had access to?
Or do you check every machine?
Or do you check and determine that if the one of them is fine, that there's no way that the other ones could have been altered because the one you checked was okay?
What does it mean to...
What kind of standard do they use?
Wouldn't you like to know that? Now, I'm not sure that...
Tucker Carlson would be the right personality to ask these questions because ideally you'd want somebody who knew computer security and technology to ask those questions.
I don't know who would be the best person.
In the comments, yeah, somebody says no on Tucker because you don't trust him because he's being too honest.
The reason you're mad at Tucker is because he's being honest with you.
All right? I can find reasons to disagree with Tucker on various things, but if you're mad at him for being honest with you, that the evidence has not yet been proven in a way that he, as a legitimate voice on television talking about the news, could repeat without being embarrassed, don't be mad at Tucker for being honest.
Because that's all that's happening.
That is all that's happening.
Show me one thing that Tucker has said that's not true.
If you can do that, then I will have some sympathy for your argument that something happened to Tucker and he's gone bad.
But if you can't show me one thing he said on this election question that isn't true, I'd like to see it.
Maybe you can make your case, but I kind of doubt it.
So give me some suggestions of who would be the best person to interview a technical expert from a voting machine accreditation lab.
I mean, I can do it.
I can ask 80% of the right questions, probably.
But I feel like we could come up with somebody a lot better than me.
Tim Pool. I don't know what his technology background is.
Dr. Shiva might be too smart.
You know, there's sort of a middle ground here.
Because if you've got a technical expert, and then the person asking the question knows even more than the technical expert, you may have confusion on confusion.
So you need somebody who is capable of asking the right question.
And there aren't too many people who are in the news business who are also capable of doing that, right?
Somebody suggested John McAfee, but he's dying in a Spanish jail.
If there were a way to get John McAfee out of his Spanish jail to do this interview, he would be, in fact, the perfect person.
I hear you say...
I'm seeing Robert Barnes and Matt Brainerd being suggested, but we're looking for technical experts, not legal and or data experts.
Analysis experts.
Peter Thiel. Well, I'm looking for somebody who's actually a news person would be ideal.
All right. Anyway, I'll put that out there.
Maybe the news can settle that.
Let me talk about what are the strong arguments against the election being fair.
So strong argument number one is the Pennsylvania case.
Now, that's not an allegation of fraud per se, because everything that Pennsylvania did was public.
It's a weird kind of fraud because they did it right in front of you.
Here's our constitution and now watch us ignore it and just make up some laws.
So would you call that fraud?
If the government just says, hey guys, we have a bunch of laws.
Just want to let you know we're going to be ignoring the laws.
We think it's good for you.
We have an argument.
There's a reason we're doing it.
But we're doing it right in front of you.
And we think we're doing what's right.
In other words, they were allowing a kind of mail-in ballot that the Constitution did not allow, but they thought that mail-in ballots would be good.
So they did it right in front of the public.
Does that make it a fraud?
Technically, I'd say no.
I don't know. Sort of a legal question, right?
I don't want to just use the word and make an argument just based on a word, but if you do it right in front of people and you tell people while you're doing it, what's that called?
I mean, it might be unconstitutional, but is it a crime?
If your stated intention Is to do what's good for your people.
And I'm sure that they said it in those terms, right?
That was the whole point.
Hey, our people want to vote mail-in ballots.
There's a coronavirus. Why wouldn't we want to give this to our public?
You know, it's an emergency situation, so we're going to cut some corners on the whole legal thing.
But we're doing it for the benefit of the people.
What is that?
Is it a crime?
I actually don't know.
Because it's not a fraud because there's nothing hidden.
It's not a fraud if nothing's hidden, right?
And it's not exactly a crime.
It's just unconstitutional for a good purpose.
I think the Supreme Court still has to rule in favor of Ted Cruz's claims because I don't think the Constitution can say...
I'm sorry... I don't think there's a case where the Supreme Court wants to start a precedent that if you think the Constitution isn't what you want, you can ignore it?
Because that's what happened, right?
Pennsylvania's saying, alright, with all good intentions, we think our state Constitution is flawed for this situation.
So we're just going to ignore it.
I don't know that the Supreme Court can ever let that stand.
But... I will warn you that the Supreme Court, and I think Alan Dershowitz told somebody recently, I heard anyway, third-hand, that he agrees with the general notion that the Supreme Court will favor stability of the country over maybe the technicalities of the law and the Constitution.
So there is a very real possibility That the Supreme Court will say, yeah, you made your case, but that's worse than if you hadn't.
So we're going to just sort of act like you didn't and deny it.
So that's a possibility. All right, so the Pennsylvania case, I think, is strong argument number one.
Strong argument number two.
I would need a fact check on this, but the news has made this claim that the The Dominion software people have denied an audit of their system because of proprietary information.
Now, the first thing you have to say to yourself is, is that true?
Did they really just say, no, you can't look at our software?
Because it's the sort of thing where you look into it and there's probably a little nuance there.
So it might be something along the lines of they're just using that as a stalling motion or I don't know.
So there's probably more to the story.
But here's my claim.
If we can't audit our nation's vote counting software because the company claims it's proprietary information, I'm totally cool with that.
Because I think you can have proprietary information.
If there's an entity that wants to claim their technology as proprietary, I think they have every right, short of a court case, I suppose, but they would have a right to keep that secret, wouldn't you say?
Don't you think the people who make voting machines have every right to keep their technology proprietary?
I think they do. You say, no, but they have that right.
Oh, oh, I left down a part.
I'm not done with my point.
They have the right to not let us look at their machines.
We have the right to throw out the election because they wouldn't look at our machines.
So their right I'm okay with.
I feel like they can keep that right to not let us look at their proprietary information.
But they don't have any control over our rights.
Our right is that we can throw out their ship.
All of it. And I would say that that one fact should throw out all of the votes from the voting machines.
If I were benevolent Supreme Court ruler of the universe, I don't think you need to know anything else.
I think you just have to know that the system that counted our votes, we can't look at.
That's the end of the story.
Let me present my entire case to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court, there's a voting system that we used in a lot of swing places, and they have proprietary software and we're not allowed to look at it.
So we should throw out all those votes.
What's the Supreme Court say?
But Scott, that would be bad, because if we disenfranchise people, that would be bad for the system.
Well, they might vote against me, because they want to protect the system, but do you think they would disagree with this point?
That you don't really know who won, so long as you can't look at the code, right?
You wouldn't know who won.
We wouldn't be able to certify an election, meaning the elected officials who have to certify an election.
They can't really certify an election if they can't look at the most basic information that would tell them an election happened.
I would argue that because we can't audit the software, if it turns out that this is true, that we can't audit it, we don't know if an election actually happened.
Not only can we not certify that the election was fair, we actually can't certify that it occurred, right?
Because an election would be people vote, those votes are counted, and then something happens because of the vote.
We don't have evidence that is solid evidence that that actually happened.
We have evidence that people pushed buttons on machines, And we have evidence that we have a president-elect.
What we don't have is all that stuff in between, which is called the voting process.
It just doesn't exist.
So if I'm the Supreme Court, I say, uh, are you telling me you had a vote and you can't prove that you even had the vote?
I would think that the minimum requirement to say a vote occurred is that you can tell, right?
That you can identify it.
You can detect it.
It's not detectable.
You can't find the vote because you can't look at the software.
So there's this whole black hole.
You know your votes went into the black hole, but you don't know what happened after that.
So can you certify that a vote happened when you can't tell?
That's a pretty strong argument, isn't it?
I haven't heard anybody make that except me on Twitter, but that's the argument I'd make.
All right. So now you've got the Pennsylvania argument, looks pretty strong.
You've got that argument that looks pretty strong, that you can't audit it, you can't confirm it.
And I had one other argument.
Oh, the organized bullying.
If you heard any of the witnesses in Michigan, and I think Pennsylvania too, but the Michigan one was especially strong.
And if you want to go look at it on YouTube and see what I'm talking about, there was a blonde woman in Michigan.
I'm going to call her a Super Karen in a complimentary way.
So everything I say after this is a compliment, even though I started it with Super Karen.
This sounds like I'm going to go the other way.
So Super Karen, who was complaining about management, if you will, Complaining she was one of the witnesses for the election.
Now here's the interesting part.
I believe she was trained and or paid by Dominion.
So she was paid by the people who were in charge of having a good election, I believe.
Fact check me on that. I think she said that.
And she witnessed a whole bunch of stuff that if any of that stuff is true...
This was a very bad election.
But part of what we heard from the witnesses is the bullying.
Now, the bullying has sort of a special place in American hearts, wouldn't you say?
Let me ask you this.
There are two bad things that happened to you today, just hypothetically.
One of them is, you know, just some bad thing happened.
And the other thing is that you got bullied.
Which one takes over your brain?
The bullying one, right?
The other stuff is just bad news.
But when you get bullied, that's where all the controls come off of my brain.
In my world, bullies are the ultimate crime because they leave you damaged forever, but you've got nothing you can do about it because you're damaged mentally.
And so bullies, I hold as my greatest villains in life, you know, short of mass murderers, I suppose.
But bullies for me are just like the worst of the worst of the worst.
And it appears, according to these witnesses, that the bullying was, it looks like it was trained and organized.
In other words, that the bullying, the bullies were using actual techniques That they had been trained to use allegedly, this is the allegation, trained to use to bully the Republican witnesses out of the witness area.
And there are lots of reports that it worked.
They found tricks.
One of them was, hey, why don't you go get a snack?
And then they locked the door and don't let them back in.
One of them was complaining that somebody was playing with their mask too much, and so it was not healthy that they're in the same room.
So it looks like they have sort of a list of things.
Okay, if this doesn't work, try this.
If this doesn't work, try this.
But the bullying included physical intimidation, and it included words about your mother, sexual insults.
I mean, really bad, bad stuff.
So here's my take.
If it can be demonstrated that the bullying was widespread in the key swing cities only, if it can be demonstrated, and clearly there are multiple witnesses to it, I would say that any...
Any voting precinct in which they were counting votes under the pressure of bullying, they should all be thrown out.
Now, this is my strongest point, not legally, so I don't know the odds of getting any legal action for this are probably low, but in terms of just a person on this world, a citizen, a patriot, Somebody who just wants to get a good result.
So let's not talk about the legality of it, per se.
If you put me on the Supreme Court, and you parade several witnesses in front of me who are credible, and you tell me that those witnesses were physically intimidated during the process of an American election, I throw out every one of those fucking votes.
Every one. Because you know what my tolerance for bullies is?
Fucking zero.
Not 1%.
Not a little bit's okay.
Fucking zero.
Now, the big argument against picking out any one of these little bubbles and saying, hey, this little bubble looks like fraud, but it's too small.
I kind of agree with the court system Not throwing the country into a civil war if they can avoid it.
And that might mean shading their opinions a little bit to ignore the technicalities of the law, to just keep society together.
Let me tell you where my limit is.
I'm very much about agreeing that the Supreme Court especially, if their intention is to keep society together, I'm kind of okay with that, even if the case doesn't go my way.
But here's my exception.
Bullying. Bullying's my exception.
If you give me a choice of accepting that this election had bullying, and the bullying worked, and I have to live with that to avoid a civil war, fuck you, civil war.
Civil war first, bullying is after that, in terms of my preferences.
No, if you want a civil war, With actual violence, allow bullying to continue and prove it's true, and then allow it to continue.
If you allow this bullying to go untreated and uncured, it has to happen next time.
There isn't any chance it won't happen next time, and nobody thinks otherwise.
There's nobody in the world who would believe that the bullying happened and worked Who wouldn't also believe it'll happen next time.
That is worse than a civil war.
It's worse. Suppose you said, Scott, a civil war, a million people are gonna get killed.
Let's do it. You can't have a system that allows bullying as the main process of how elections happen.
The reason we fought a revolution It's because we had that kind of a system, right?
The bullies in England were bullying the people in America, and the people in America said, you know, I would rather have a civil war than to be treated this way.
Because if you think about it, the entire civil war was about how they were being treated.
It wasn't even about You know, it wasn't somebody trying to build an empire.
It wasn't religious-based, exactly.
It was people who didn't like bullies.
We are an entire country built on, don't fucking bully us.
We will leave your goddamn...
I'm sorry. I know you don't like when I swear that way.
We will leave your entire continent.
We will get on a little boat and go across the whole frickin' ocean...
Into uncharted territories to get away from people telling us how to live our lives.
No bullies.
Bullies are the limit.
No bullies in our system.
So, if this gets to the Supreme Court, and bullying can be demonstrated as not only something that happened in one of these key places, but it looked kind of similar in other places, that would establish at least the suggestion that it was organized.
Now imagine if you take these allegations that are in individual places, and you can establish that they used similar techniques, or worse, you can actually find the flow of communications in which they were trained to do it.
You're the Supreme Court, hypothetically, and you've seen witnesses and you are convinced that systemic bullying was a planned operation.
What do you do with those votes?
Well, if you're the Supreme Court, and you learn that the voting outcome is tainted by bullying, even if you don't know how much it changed the votes, if you don't throw out all of those votes, you're not doing your job.
Because that is far more important, even at the risk of civil war, even at the risk of civil war, real civil war, it's more important.
Bullying Cannot survive.
If you have to die to get rid of bullying, do it.
Because you're not going to live under bullies.
That's the limit.
There's no negotiating.
There's no compromise. There's no, let's put up with it a little bit.
Bullies, that's a yes-no.
Boom. There's no nuance for bullies.
Bullies got to lose.
Or you gotta leave. You either have to beat them or leave.
You don't live with them, right?
So beat them or you leave the country.
But don't live with bullies.
Just don't do it. Alright, so I'd like to compliment Super Karen, the Michigan witness.
And here's the compliment part.
She was really credible.
You ever listen to somebody who, there's just the way they talk It's not like they're trained persuaders, necessarily.
But the way she talked, if you heard her, carried some intelligence and credibility that you can't really fake.
If any of that wasn't real, I mean, she could be mistaken about observations, of course, but that looked pretty honest to me, and she looked super credible, and she wasn't the only credible person.
Some of them were less credible, but there were plenty of credible ones.
Where are the Dominion employees on television being interviewed and asked to address the many claims about security, etc.?
Well, apparently they've decided to go quiet for legal reasons, probably smart in a legal sense.
But how good do you feel about the fact that the people who really could tell us the counter-argument, the ones who could say, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know those USB ports are open, but...
Here's the reason it doesn't matter.
Wouldn't you like to hear that?
Or the ones who say, well, okay, we were actually networked to the internet.
We said we weren't, but yes, now that you mention it, we were.
But it doesn't matter.
And here's our reason why you're mistaken.
Don't you want to hear that?
Why is that missing?
Shouldn't Dominion be all over the news saying, ah, these are crazy claims.
Let me show you the machine.
Here, I'll hold it up.
You can see for yourself.
Look, there's no USB thing.
Look, there's no connection.
Or whatever. Should they not be trying to defend against these claims in public?
Obviously, they have a legal strategy.
But I feel like...
Maybe it's a good legal strategy, but it certainly makes the public have less trust, not more.
All right. So have you seen some of the Project Veritas?
They're starting to drop little audio tapes from...
Apparently they got the phone numbers to listen in on CNN executives do their planning call once a week or whenever it is.
And so...
James O'Keefe was personally listening in on all the CNN executive calls, which is hilarious by itself, and one of the things they caught answered a big question for me.
Don't you ever wonder if the CNN executives believe their own news?
Have you ever wondered that?
Because you look at it and you say to yourself, I'm not even sure they believe it.
Do they? Are they telling you something they want you to believe, but privately they don't believe it?
Because that was always a mystery to me.
How much did they really believe?
And on the call, you hear one of their executives saying that Fox has a white supremacy hour that is the Tucker Carlson show, and that it is, quote, naked racism.
Now, given that this was a phone call among people who knew each other and was not meant to be public, I take this as confirmation that they believe their own fake news.
And I'm thinking, I don't know if that's good or bad.
Like, on one hand, I guess I'm happy that they're not intentionally telling us one level of news while at the same time thinking it's not true.
But maybe it's just as bad that they believe it.
Because you can't spend too much time watching Tucker Carlson without hearing him say over and over again that race should never be part of any of our process or our country or our decisions.
Tucker Carlson, objectively speaking, is the most anti-racist person on television.
Because most people only go halfway.
They say, we don't want to be racist against this group of people.
Tucker Carlson completes the picture and says, I don't believe the Constitution...
I'm paraphrasing, of course.
I don't believe the Constitution says that only some people are special.
I believe the Constitution says very much the opposite, that the freedom from racism should apply to all people, not to some.
So he is indeed the least...
In terms of what he says on television, the most anti-racist person on television, period.
There's nobody even close.
Name anybody who is willing to call out racism on both sides.
Just him. He's the only one.
Everybody else just picks a side.
So, they actually believe they're fake news.
It was kind of interesting to know that.
Apparently a lot of people have now, I tweeted this so I know, a lot of people are agreeing with me, that the fraud will eventually be proven, and proven to the point where it would have changed the election, but probably won't matter.
Probably Biden will take the job anyway.
But here's what's interesting about this, and I'm going to say I think it's unprecedented, or unprecedented, which is, have you ever had A president who's leaving office after one term, who realistically might run again in four years.
Have we ever had that? Somebody who was in the job, got replaced, and then ran again in four years, or you thought they might.
I can't think of any other time that happened.
But here's the bad situation, or good, depending on your point of view, that that creates.
Trump is now going hard at the tech companies, so he's saying he's going to veto some national defense authorization bill unless they put into it getting rid of the Section 230 protections for the social media companies, which would make them subject to being sued for doing bad things.
Now, Trump, it looks like he's going to lay waste to all of his enemies who would be enemies when he runs again in four years.
This is a really kind of a dicey situation, isn't it?
Now, I'm clearly pro-Trump, but even I am uncomfortable Having a sitting president who's going to mow the lawn before he leaves.
And the lawn is going to be everybody who is on the other side and might give him problems in four years.
So the lawn includes the social media companies.
It looks like he's trying to take them out before he leaves office.
Now, I believe his case is solid.
In other words, I don't think he's just flailing around at his enemies.
The Section 230 thing is widely popular by lots of smart people who say, we just need to do this change.
So it's not some kind of a crazy, unfair attack.
You could argue it either direction, but it's not an unfair attack.
And I don't know how good this is that he has the power of the presidency and he can really change things to set the table for him in four years.
For example, He could take out the fake media, the social media companies.
He could do a lot of damage just setting himself up for 2024.
Now, if we only take this one example, that's a perfectly fair thing to do, but it would certainly help him in 2024 if he wins on that.
So, the other news, John Durham, apparently Barr, turned him into a special counsel Now that he's a special counsel, it's less likely that Biden will fire him, although Biden could, but it's less likely he would do it because of the political blowback.
So I don't have a comment on that.
It's just a thing that happened.
Here's a disturbing theory that I saw recently.
It was Ray Dalio, I think, was saying this.
That civilizations follow, or at least world powers, follow a predictive cycle of growth and then decline.
And I'm going to summarize it so it's a little less accurate.
So you have a society, let's say America, that becomes prosperous, but the prosperity turns into inequality.
And that turns into calls for solving the inequality, which turns into debt, because you've got to print money to give everybody enough money.
You're printing money, you're creating debt, and then basically you have civil war and decline.
So that's the cycle.
Prosperity, inequality, printing money, debt, civil war, decline.
Now, why is it that you think the United States is the biggest power in the world today?
It's because every other power declined, right?
100% of all the other powers before the United States became the dominant power, 100% of them who were once dominant powers declined.
None of them last.
At least hundreds of years, they don't last.
So is the United States trapped in this inevitable cycle of growth and then decline?
And are we on the back side of this, where we're into the printing money and revolution?
Somebody's calling that the fourth turning.
That might be related to this as well.
Well, here's what I think.
I feel as though history...
Doesn't work anymore.
Meaning that everything that used to work used to also be predictive.
If things always went this way before, that's a pretty good indication it's going to go that way again.
Because there's just something about it.
But you know, the world isn't the same place it ever has been.
We're connected by communication.
We have abilities to adjust in ways we couldn't do before.
Even gigantic problems we can handle and shrug off.
If you were a major power in the past and you had a gigantic problem, it probably took you out.
But today, a major power could have a gigantic problem and just handle it.
So I just don't know that the cycles that made complete sense in a pre-internet world still make sense.
For example, let's say economic upheavals that just destroy your economy.
In the old days, We didn't have good communication, and we didn't have good economists, and we didn't have good data.
We didn't have all of the mechanisms we've developed to address those shocks.
So the shock could just take out your civilization.
But today, same shock.
I think we would just get our experts together and we'd just sort of work it out.
So I would present to you that probably...
The most famous last words of everybody who thought they were smart but they weren't is that it's different this time.
How many times have people been wrong saying, well, it's different this time.
So that's sort of the biggest trap you have to watch out for.
But I do think that a world with internet is not the same as the world pre-internet And when you take those pre-internet patterns and imagine they will repeat post-internet, I think that has to be tested.
Has to be tested.
So I don't think we're in decline.
I think we're probably closer to the golden age than decline.
And that's my show for today.
I hope you enjoyed it.
And I will remind you again that if you'd like to see my extra stuff, I'm going to start putting more things in December.
On the Locals platform.
Locals.com.
Subscription platform where I put my life advice lessons.
Micro lessons. Little two minute lessons.
And other content. That's not the only thing.
On how to live your life better.
So, that's on Locals.
And I'll see you again tomorrow.
Right back here. All right, you YouTubers, you know I'm going to hang around after I turn off Periscope.
Oh good, somebody there saying you love locals.
Yeah, one of the things I didn't see coming about locals is that it attracted people who think like me, which is sort of why they wanted to be part of that community in the first place.
And so a lot of the content that the other people who are part of the community are bringing is really good stuff.
And I don't have all the trolls over there.
Trump martial law?
No, I don't think there will be any Trump martial law.
Odds of a re-vote?
Close to zero. Somebody saying something anti-Semitic.
Is the Supreme Court hostage to the threat of riots?
Yes. Yes, and they should be.
I don't think you want that to be different, necessarily.
I think they do need to look at the big picture, and you kind of want them to.
How does the bully issue get resolved?
I don't know. I feel as though the Supreme Court might be able to do something with it, but I don't know how you turn it into a Supreme Court case.
Because bullying isn't exactly a crime, right?
Or maybe it is.
Maybe it's assault. I don't know.
Is this the best time to be a political pundit?
Absolutely. The time of Trump is the best time to be a political pundit, just because all the energy is there.
But the number of people, like me, who have gone into this realm of podcasting is really interesting.
And I would argue that the balance of power is changing because of it.
The people who used to be the gatekeepers of truth were the news and your politicians and stuff.
But I would say the gatekeepers of truth, that's migrating over to the podcasters.
And the reason is that the podcasters typically, not all of them, but typically have more independence.
So the podcasters can say whatever they think is true, and that's their business model.
If you are a TV news company.
What can you say about pharmaceutical companies when they are your entire support?
Basically, most of the news networks are beholden to pharmaceutical companies because that's their advertisers.
I don't have that problem.
Who am I beholden to?
Anybody? I can't think of anybody.
So if you were to look at the podcasters, you know, the political pundits who are growing up in this new medium, you've got the ones who take advertising as their business model.
Joe Rogan would be an example of that.
Now, do you think that Joe Rogan has complete freedom in a way maybe he did in the beginning?
I would say no.
I don't know that it makes his product any worse.
Probably doesn't. Because he has more freedom than 99% of the world to say what he wants.
He's built a brand around that so he can get away with stuff you can't get away with, such as smoking a joint on TV. He can do that.
I can do that when I was on his show.
But not many people are in that position where it wouldn't hurt them to do that.
But I would argue that anybody who's taking advertisement...
Has a little less free speech.
Not in a technical sense, but certainly in a practical sense.
Because you just have this bias that says, I don't want to say something that costs me all my advertisers.
Reasonably, right? Now, how often would Joe Rogan even want to say anything that was so bad he would lose his advertisers?
Probably not often. I mean, it probably doesn't come up a lot, but it's this force.
You know, you can't say it's nothing.
And I think you would agree if you asked him, you know, do you feel the pressure of having advertisers?
Does that, you know, do you feel the pressure of Spotify?
And I would say he's doing an amazing job of pushing back against that pressure, especially when he had Alex Jones on his show.
The Spotify people rebelled against some of his content, including Alex Jones.
So what does Joe Rogan do when Spotify rebels against his content?
He picks the most provocative thing he can do and he puts it on.
Now that is exactly how, if you If you were a fan of MMA fighting and strategy, you would go at them.
You wouldn't say, oh, I'm sorry, let me take down all of my old content.
You would go right at them, because a good offense is a good defense.
So that's what Joe Rogan does.
I think he's going directly on offense at his critics, and that's a really good strategy.
So he'll have more free speech than most people, because Of his brand, of who he is, and the fact that he understands that offense makes more sense than defense in these situations.
But what about somebody who has a similar kind of a job and they don't take any advertising?
Well, I take advertising indirectly because on YouTube, you know, there's an advertising model.
But people can be subscribers to YouTube and never see ads.
And then I started Locals as a subscription service, specifically so I wouldn't be so beholden on YouTube.
So tomorrow if YouTube says, we've decided your content is all going to be banned, I'll just go over to Locals and just carry on.
It'll be fine. So I don't have to worry so much about the economics of advertisers.
