All Episodes
Dec. 3, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:03:02
Episode 1206 Scott Adams: Why Biden Will Start to Look Worse Every Day, The Republic Becomes a Bullyocracy, Coronavirus Lies

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Visualizing a Biden Presidency Everything we know about COVID origins was BS? Limited martial law and redo the election? Obvious massive election fraud is okay now? Senator Perdue's financial advisors 2,600 stock trades We've lost democracy, freedom...can we get it back? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I just saw the weirdest comment I've ever seen in my life.
But I'm sure you can top it.
Yeah, I know you can. Hey, Dale.
Dale joined us today.
If it's your first day, you've got some surprises, Dale.
But do enjoy yourself to the maximum extent.
And why would you settle for less, really, if you could have it all?
And you can. This morning, you can have it all.
You can have the simultaneous sip if you have a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel. What kind?
Any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And today, we're being nice to Dale.
Dale, if you don't know why people are greeting you, it's because I use your first name in a humorous fashion sometimes.
And now, join me.
Ah.
Well, let's look at the news.
Joe Biden has said that if we don't be more cautious with the coronavirus, that we could lose 250,000 more people before January.
That would be less than a month.
And he said in public that a quarter of a million people might die from coronavirus on top of the quarter million or whatever it is now that have already died.
Now, I would like to tie this to a larger point.
The larger point is this, that I believe Biden will start to look worse every day for a long time.
And the reason is because he's moving from a campaign scenario in which everything's hypothetical You know, hypothetically, Joe Biden would be great on these topics.
Hypothetically, he'll make all these changes that will make you all happy.
So when you're running for office, you're running against hypotheticals and imaginary scenarios.
And you can do great in people's imaginations.
You can kill it in imagination.
And he did. Some people say he even got the most votes.
So What's going to happen if we were to game this forward a little bit?
What are the obvious things that will happen if we just sit here and wait?
Well, number one obvious thing is that he's going to start to be compared to Trump because you can't avoid it.
Everything is contrast, right?
So the news is really reports of contrast.
It used to be peaceful, but now there's a war.
It used to be good weather, but now there's a hurricane.
So in a way, everything has to be contrasted to make sense to you.
And of course, Biden will be compared to Trump and all of his policies, because why wouldn't you?
It's obvious. But let's go down the list of things you're going to compare Biden to Trump in and see how you think you would predict it's going to go.
Take this first example.
I think he misspoke, but maybe he thinks it's true, that 250,000 people would die before January.
What's that do to the economy?
The economy is a psychology engine.
The economy works well if you tell everybody it's going to work well.
The economy is completely destroyed if you tell people things are going to go bad.
Trump, for all of his flaws, which his critics would be happy to point out, understood that the economy was not separate from healthcare.
They're all part of this big thing, and if you don't take care of all of it, you might lose all of it.
Biden is a little more, you know, pocketized.
It's like, well, there's healthcare, and then I'll just deal with this, but I don't have to think about the economy, because that's a separate question.
But it's not. If Biden scares the pants off you on the virus, even if he's right, right, I'm not talking about whether he's right or wrong, but if he scares you, what's it do to the economy?
Doesn't really help.
Doesn't help at all.
If Trump tells you the economy is great and getting better, even if it wasn't true when he said it, what's the outcome of that?
Well, apparently he's pretty convincing on the questions of the economy, and people invest, and they buy stock, and they spend money.
So if you're just taking the economy, I don't think Biden has even the slightest chance of, in the end, looking good compared to Trump on the economy.
Now, the reason is he doesn't get the psychology right, but he's also looking at raising taxes.
Now, even if you think taxes should be raised, Because you want to fight the deficit or because you think it's more fair, whatever.
Or you think it will fund valuable programs for the public.
So you might like that idea, but there's no way it's going to be good for the overall economy, right?
The economy doesn't like high taxes.
When Biden starts putting back some of those Controls in place, will that be good for the economy?
No. If he starts talking about Green New Deal and any kind of pressure on fracking, is that going to be good for the economy?
No. So I think on the economy, Trump will have a permanent advantage that will only look bigger over time.
Because if Trump is not out there doing new things to cause the...
The illegitimate press to say bad things about him.
You'll start to forget the bad things.
In other words, the most likely outcome of the Trump administration is that all of the bad stuff he did will start to reduce in your memory, because you won't be reminded of it every day after he's out of office.
But every time we talk about the economy, Pundits are going to say something like, you know, Trump would have played it this way, and that would have worked.
And then, you know, I think Trump would have done that a little differently.
He might have bullied a little more, and that might have worked, for example.
Let's look at a couple more categories.
How about immigration? If Joe Biden does anything like opening up immigration, and I don't think he will, by the way, I think he's moderate enough that he'll have some, you know, some controls on immigration, maybe not as much as you wanted.
But how is he going to look if big caravans start heading toward the border?
Could we predict that it is very likely that gigantic caravans will head toward the border during a Biden presidency?
Almost certainly, right?
Almost certainly. What will happen if Joe Biden either gets tough with the caravans, like Trump, or does the opposite?
What if he lets them in?
How does that look?
Basically, I don't think he's going to look good in the long run only because of the nature of the problem.
It has nothing to do with whether Biden would do a good or bad job.
It's just the nature of the problem.
Whoever has that job when this problem occurs is going to look not so good.
It's just the problem.
There's no right way to handle it.
There are just two bad ways to handle it.
How about North Korea?
Probably won't get better.
And people are going to say, why wouldn't you go meet a tyrant if it calms down the risk of war?
Why wouldn't you go shake hands with a dictator if it reduces your risk?
And Trump is going to look like a genius, at least in terms of that specific question, to know that it's a personal relationship that made the difference.
He avoided nuclear war, or at least the risk of nuclear war with North Korea, with a personal relationship.
The very thing that nobody would have said do.
In fact, everybody said don't do it.
What's Biden gonna do?
Is he gonna keep doing that?
Is Biden gonna meet Kim Jong-un and try to keep that going?
Again, it's gonna be hard to compete with what Trump did on a whole bunch of stuff.
So he's gonna be fighting that ghost the whole way.
How about trade deals? Do you think Biden's going to do a trade deal that's less good than what Trump was pushing for?
Well, if he does, he's going to look like he failed.
Because it's going to look like Trump was trying to get this.
Biden settled for much less.
Maybe Trump would have had to settle too.
You don't know. But it's going to look like Biden's a bad negotiator.
So you see just the way the things are naturally lining up.
Biden is going to start with his honeymoon phase, which is now.
But the only way this can go is bad for him, I think.
And it has nothing to do with whether he does a good job or not.
It just has to do with who he's compared to and the situation.
How about, I'll give him one positive, okay?
Try to keep it positive a little bit.
I know you're going to disagree with this.
But just work with me on this.
If you wanted to dismantle Antifa and Black Lives Matter and reduce the importance of the squad, was Trump the right person to do that?
No. No.
Trump was exactly the wrong president to get rid of Antifa because they picked him as their enemy.
He was the wrong person to get rid of Black Lives Matter because they had decided he was the symbol of what they're fighting against.
And, you know, the squad, of course, just uses Trump as their boogeyman.
So Trump would be the worst choice to minimize those three entities.
But Biden isn't.
Biden might be the best choice to minimize them.
Because Biden can't do his job unless he consolidates power.
And he's not going to want to be out there With Antifa and BLM destroying cities under his watch.
And the squad he's already going after.
So it's obvious he's trying to diminish the squad and trying to diminish the whole defund the police thing.
So if you wanted less of any of those entities...
I think you'll get less of it under Biden.
That would be the one thing I would say, yeah.
If that was your only problem in the world, I would pick Biden for that every time, if it was your only problem.
All right, Tucker was reporting yesterday and the news was reporting that apparently we've checked existing blood supplies from late 2019, and there was a whole bunch of coronavirus in there.
In late 2019 in the United States.
So here's the thing to make your head explode for today.
Everything you've been told about the origin of the coronavirus, and there might have been a bat, and it might have been a pangolin, and it might have been the Wuhan lab and all that, and it might have been, you know, a certain timeline.
Pretty much everything you've been told is false.
Now, I don't know what's true.
I don't know if the Wuhan lab had anything to do with it at this point.
But everything you thought about that is false.
Think about that. It's the biggest thing in the world, and everything you know about it was bullshit.
Just bullshit. Now, for most of us, those were just facts.
We treated all that stuff as just, well, that's history.
We know that this happened.
There was this lab, and it was about this time frame, and blah, blah.
None of it was true.
An entire most important thing in the world, and none of it was true.
Think about that when you say to yourself, is the next story true?
Think of that when you say to yourself, well, a story this big With so many people reporting that it is so, well, under those conditions, it's such a big story and so many people looking at it, they must have gotten close to the truth by now.
Nope. We don't live in that world.
We live in a world where even the biggest story in the world is just fake news.
And if that story can be fake news, what else can be fake news?
Everything. Everything.
It can all be fake news.
And probably is.
You know, that's the Gilman amnesia idea, that if you know about a story, you know it's bullshit.
But all the ones that you don't have any special expertise in, you say, well, that's probably true.
It's in the news. All these news people say it's true.
It's probably true. It might be false, but it's probably true.
Reverse that. In the real world, all of the news, all of the news, is probably not true.
Like if you were just going to put a bet down, there's a brand new story.
It doesn't matter what it is. It's just a brand new story.
It's a big story.
It's in the news. It's day one, and you have one bet.
The bet is, will this story still be true, let's say in five years, or will you know in five years it was never true?
Which one do you bet?
And I'm not even telling you what the story is about.
You don't even have to know the topic.
Anything. Could be domestic, could be international, could be about war and death, could be about science, could be about economics.
It's just a new story, and everybody agrees on the narrative.
You don't even have a disagreement.
The left believes it's true.
The right believes it's true.
It's just a new story. Now you have to put your bet down.
Bet against it.
Bet against it every time.
And you will be right, I don't know, 70% of the time.
You're not going to be right every time.
But a lot of stuff is just not true.
Alright. General Flynn retweeted somebody else's tweet suggesting that President Trump should do martial law to force a revote.
Now, CNN is having a panic attack because a retired general is suggesting martial law in the United States, and you could imagine it would lead to a change in expected government, if I can say it that way.
So that's a pretty big deal.
But I'm not entirely sure that CNN knows how Twitter works, because when you retweet things, does that mean you agree with them?
It doesn't. It means it's important.
It might mean it's something you should consider.
It might mean somebody's just telling you something's out there, and it's part of the story.
That's how I use Twitter.
I don't retweet things that I just agree with.
Do you? Don't you sometimes retweet things that are just a story?
You know, if a caravan of 10,000 immigrants crashed through our border, I might retweet that story, but I wouldn't be in favor of it.
So that's not how Twitter works.
But we could imagine, it's reasonable to assume that he wouldn't have retweeted it without having at least Some empathy for it.
That's really maybe as far as you could go.
You don't want to go into full mind reading.
But here's a question I have for you.
A question for the lawyers.
For some reason, I have a gigantic lawyer following.
I don't know if you do that, but there are probably more lawyers who follow me than just about anything, which makes sense because I talk about persuasion.
If you're an attorney and You probably want to pay attention to anybody who talks about the topic of persuasion, because that's your job.
But let me ask this lawyer a question.
Can there be a limited martial law?
Does it work that way?
Can you say, I'm going to declare martial law, but it's not like some general martial law.
It's just going to be this little narrow, one topic, just martial law about the election.
And the martial law will specifically say we'll redo it on some timeline.
Is that even possible?
I'm not recommending it.
Again, talking about the news is not endorsing the news.
I'm talking about the news.
But can somebody tell me, a lawyer, if you can limit this martial law idea to a single topic?
Is it even a thing?
Is that a thing? Well, you know, actually, let me answer my own question.
If you imagine that martial law was a generic order that just puts the president in firmer control without the, you know, the subsidiary government processes, I suppose the president could pick and choose Where he enforces it, so the government could say it's martial law in general, but you can ignore the in general part.
The only part I'm going to care about or do anything about is just the election.
I guess he could do that, right?
He doesn't have to use all martial law mechanisms.
He could declare it and then just use whatever part he wanted.
So I don't know how constitutional it is or how practical it is.
I'm just going to put it out there.
As a thing that's being discussed, I am not endorsing it at this point.
I don't know if any of you do, but I would not endorse martial law at this point.
There might be a place where that is more of something to consider, but I don't think we're there.
All right. So, Democrats keep trolling me on Twitter.
They're dropping into my Twitter feed and they're saying, Sarcastic things such as, oh, Scott, wasn't it about two weeks ago?
You said to us, wait two weeks, you're going to see some strong evidence for the accusations of election fraud.
It's been two weeks, Scott.
So, where's all the evidence, Scott?
You said it was coming. Where is it?
Where's all that evidence?
Come on. Come on, Scott.
Where's all that evidence? Where is it?
Show it to us. That's how they act.
That's my impression of every Democrat troll.
And here's my answer to the people who are saying, where's all that strong evidence you'd say?
So I tweeted an answer so it'd be in the record.
I said... Democrat trolls keep asking me, where's all that evidence of election fraud I said would be here by now?
I had to break it to them that they will never see it because Democrats don't get to see real news.
It's just not an option.
And when I made that prediction, I should have modified it by saying, well, Republicans will hear it.
Because Republicans hear the news on the left and the right, so Republicans will hear the good evidence, and have, if you're watching the live witness testimonies.
I don't know if you could need more evidence than that.
Now, whether or not those witnesses all collectively have enough of a story to change the outcome of the vote, I doubt it.
I didn't see enough happening That just their testimonies by itself would change any outcomes.
But can we say there's no strong evidence of fraud?
I would say at this point, with that many witnesses, I think you could say there's a 100% bounteous Plenty of evidence.
Some of it won't be true.
Some of it will be people who saw things and misinterpreted it.
Some might be lying.
Some might be, who knows, disinformation, whatever.
But you certainly can't say there's no evidence, and you can't say it isn't strong if it's eyewitnesses with the same stories and hundreds of them What exactly, you know, you can imagine that there would be like a murder on Fifth Avenue.
I'll just use Fifth Avenue to complicate things.
There's a murder on Fifth Avenue.
There are hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Hundreds. Hundreds of people, and they tell the same story.
Yeah, we saw this guy kill this person right here.
What would Democrats say about that?
Hundreds of eyewitnesses telling the same story of the same event.
I believe they would say, where's the proof?
Yeah, you got people saying that people can say anything.
Where's your proof?
Well, I'm pretty sure that hundreds of eyewitnesses to a murder would be enough to convict you.
I mean, I think that goes way beyond, you know, reasonable doubt.
You're going to get pretty convicted with that many witnesses.
So why is it different for the election fraud?
Well, the difference is That the Democrats packetized their crime.
So that you can see a lot of it with your own eyes.
You can just observe it.
But you can't know how much there was.
You can't know. You can only know what you're seeing.
You don't know how much other stuff you didn't see.
So that's the catch, is that the courts won't reverse an election unless you can make a case that the number of votes you can prove were fraudulent would do that, and that would be nearly impossible.
Did you see the interviews with the two postal contractors who had pretty specific stories that make it sound as if, at least the one of them I was listening to, he tells a story where it sounds like He drove a large truck across state borders with what are allegedly fake ballots to change the outcome in Pennsylvania.
Drove it all the way from New York to Pennsylvania.
And then he's got some kind of a story where he was told to park the truck somewhere different, and when he woke up in the morning, his truck was gone?
Or something? So let me give you my take on this story.
I don't doubt that we live in a world where elections can be stolen by somebody driving gigantic trucks of stolen ballots.
I don't think that's impossible.
That is within the realm of things that could happen.
Somebody's correcting me that the trailer was taken, not the truck that was pulling it, I guess.
So he says the trailer was gone.
So that's a correction.
The trailer was gone, not the trunk.
And he doesn't know where it went.
Now, would you believe that story?
Do you believe that story?
I've got a problem with that story.
And the problem is, what is my problem?
If you've been watching me for a while, you know exactly what I'm going to say, right?
Most of you are saying they're very credible.
But what is my complaint with their story?
Let's see if you know. Because if you don't know what I'm going to say, I'd be disappointed, because you should know by now exactly what I'm going to say.
Here's the problem. A little bit too on the nose, right?
A little bit too clean.
Yeah, I'm a whistleblower, and I drove this truck, and then it disappeared.
The trailer part disappeared.
It could be true.
Like I said, it's in the realm of possibility.
Cleanly in the realm of possibility.
But it's a little too clean, if you know what I mean.
A little too clean for my taste.
Now, I'd like to say, you know, back up to something I said from the very beginning of this whole mess, 95% of the evidence you see won't be true.
95%. So if somebody presents a new piece of evidence in this context, and you haven't even looked at the evidence yet, what odds do you put on this new piece of evidence?
95% chance it's not going to hold up.
But that doesn't mean anything about whether or not the election was stolen.
It just means that confirmation bias kicked in.
As you would expect, if there had been a real theft of the election, That there would be a whole bunch of confirmation bias, where people are sure the election was stolen, and so therefore they see it everywhere.
So the way a normal brain works is that if you're pretty sure it's true, you're gonna see the proof, even if it's not real.
So that's why the 95%, because you can predict, just easy to predict, that 95% of the evidence will be confirmation bias.
Always. That doesn't mean in any way that the 5% that could be real is tainted by the other 95%.
It shouldn't be. Like, they're just different things.
One is people having a mental, you know, basically an illusion, and the other is actual evidence.
They're just not the same thing.
So one should not pollute the other.
But in our minds, they do.
That's the persuasion of it, is that every time one of these gets debunked, The Democrats can say, well, there you go.
There's another one. See?
See? It was just confirmation bias.
So I'm still on the side that says it's obvious that the election was stolen, and it's obvious without evidence.
If you don't see that, you haven't been alive for the last several years.
It's obvious without Without evidence.
Now, when I say that, I don't mean I'm looking at the outcome.
I'm not looking at Joe Biden's 80 million votes and say, well, it's obvious.
It's obvious that couldn't have been happening.
I'm not saying that. I know some of you do say that's obvious, but I'd say it's possible it could have happened.
Again, it's not outside of the realm of possibility.
So it's possible.
Here's what I mean by it's obvious it was stolen.
The motivation was sky high, and the opportunity, which we know from the witnesses, the witnesses have at the very least established there were lots of ways to do it.
We don't have to wonder anymore, was it possible?
Oh yeah, it was possible.
It was more possible than anything you've ever seen in your life.
Now, I don't know if it was easy, but in terms of practical and possible, yeah.
Yeah. So you have sky-high motivation, you have complete opportunity, and you have, you know, a big payoff and low odds of being prosecuted because everybody's doing a packet.
So as long as your role in the alleged scheme was, you know, you just do this little part, even if you get caught...
Even if you get caught, it's not that big a deal, because you just did a little part.
So I would say there's a 100% chance there was an attempt to steal it.
You can't say what the size of it was, but you would really have to be an idiot to think it wasn't at least attempted to steal the election.
I mean, how dumb would you have to be to think Democrats didn't at least try?
Now, a week ago, I think you could be forgiven.
A week ago, you didn't really have yet the evidence of the witnesses telling you how many holes there are in the system.
And if, you know, my smart Democrat friend that I talk about all the time, his belief, and other smart people who have argued with me recently, their beliefs are that you could know the election was good because, number one, you don't have a court case that has proved it was bad, And number two, it couldn't be that easy to cheat at such a big scale.
You know, you wouldn't get away with it.
It's not really something that could be done.
But now we know that's not true.
At the very least, we've proven that our election system is completely vulnerable to all kinds of influences.
So it's opposite of what you started with, which is it's probably pretty secure.
And now I think we have a better understanding that it's not even close.
We're not even in the same conversation with security.
It's just a Swiss cheese.
That's all it is. So if we didn't get an attempt to steal an election in that context, I don't know anything about the world.
I don't know anything if they didn't try to steal that, whether I can ever prove it or not.
Now, what do you think are the odds that after this Georgia senatorial election, the runoff, what do you think are the odds that the two Republican candidates will win and then sometime late in the night a truck of misplaced ballots will show up to reverse the outcome?
If you had to put a bet on that, what's your bet for the late truck of ballots that changes the election?
Let me ask you this. If this plan changed the presidential election, why wouldn't they do it?
What would stop that?
Now, you might be saying to yourself, well, we're going to be watching for that.
Does that matter?
Does it matter that we'll be looking for exactly that thing?
It doesn't.
Because the entire election...
We had witnesses coming out of the wazoo.
But did any of those witnesses stop whatever was happening from happening?
No. So witnesses don't make any difference.
It doesn't matter if you expect it.
That's what the witnesses are there for.
They're expecting some mischief.
I guess expecting is too strong.
But why wouldn't they?
You think to yourself, uh, Scott, that would be a little bit too obvious...
But they know they can get away with being too obvious.
You would have said, maybe a few months ago, you would have said to yourself, well, you don't want to do a gigantic crime, like a gigantic crime, and also be obvious when you do it.
Wouldn't those be the two things you would never do at the same time?
Don't do a huge crime and make it obvious.
But I think we just watched that happen.
I think we're just watching a gigantic theft of an election.
It does feel obvious now that we know that there are so many holes in the system.
Of course. Of course they tried.
So I don't believe there is any disincentive for them not to try again under the assumption that it worked before and they knew it worked before and so why wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't they? Senator Perdue is one of the people running for the runoff.
So there's a story about his stock transactions that I've been laughing about all morning.
I shouldn't laugh about it, but I will.
So this is what they're saying about him.
That he's one of the most active stock traders, and of course the implication is that some of these trades had to do with things that his committee would know about, and therefore was there any kind of insider trading going on?
Here's his defense.
So his defense is that his financial advisors make every call So he's not making these trades by his own decisions.
His financial advisors, they make every call.
And they're, quote, outside independent financial advisors continue to be the only individuals making transactions.
So he's basically saying, you know, this isn't me.
I've delegated management of my portfolio to these independent financial advisors.
And those independent financial advisors...
Traded in the last six years since he's been in office, they've made 2,600 stock trades.
Now, everybody who has a background in investment and sort of understands this field, you're laughing, aren't you?
You're laughing right now.
Because here's the funny thing.
Should voters treat Senator Perdue harshly because of the suspicion that some of his transactions had some insider element to them?
Well, we don't have proof of that, right?
There's no proof. Nor have I seen anything that looked directly like it would be proof.
But what do you think about the fact that a sitting senator would delegate his portfolio to somebody who would make 2,600 trades in six years?
Let me give you some advice.
If your financial advisors...
are handling your portfolio and they either make on your behalf or they even recommend 2,600 stock trades in six years, you need to fire those advisors like really, really quick because this would be evidence of a crime.
If your financial advisors make 2,600 stock trades on your behalf and you didn't approve them all, like you weren't really involved, they just happened, this is evidence Of a gigantic financial fraud being perpetrated against a sitting senator who,
if he believes that 2,600 transactions is somehow good for him, as opposed to obviously the financial advisors are getting some benefit from the work they're doing from him, this is evidence of a major crime against the senator.
Because let me tell you how many stock trades there should have been in six years.
I'll just give you a range.
Maybe in six years, let's say it's a pretty big portfolio.
Maybe 30?
30? So the right number, if they had been doing real work and they were legitimate financial advisors and they really had the customer's You know, best interests in mind, the right number of trades in six years?
Maybe 30?
Could have been zero, right?
Do you know how many stock trades I've made in six years?
Because I have, you know, my portfolio is probably, you know, at least in terms of this conversation, comparable to the senators.
How many stock trades have I made?
I'll work off a memory, but...
Ten? Maybe ten?
In six years?
Because investing is buying and holding.
That's what investing is.
Do you know what it is if 2,600 trades are made in your name in six years?
Well, it's not investing.
I don't know what you'd call that.
You could call it speculation.
You could call it gambling.
But it's not even close to investing.
So the fact that he thinks he has financial advisors who are investing for him, he doesn't have that.
He has somebody who is ripping him off, and I don't know if he knows it.
So that's the strangest story of the morning.
Don't ever let anybody trade 2,600 times under your name.
Some German influencer came over to dunk on me today.
So, of course, the rest of the world is watching our election situation.
And this German woman who had some standing in Germany, I don't know, she's semi-famous over there, said that I'm basically tilting at windmills in this hopeless attempt to suggest that there's a way for Trump to remain in office.
And because it's basically impossible at this point, is her point.
And I had to point out that that is the most loser philosophy I've ever heard in my life.
So here's somebody in Germany who is observing me talking about the president, and specifically I was talking about the fact that the voting machines don't have an audit ability.
And I've said that if your vote is with machines that can't be audited, you have to throw out the vote.
To me, there's no room for compromise there.
If you tell me, yeah, we don't know if the voting machines worked or didn't, but let's keep the vote, well, that's just crazy.
That's crazy. You would never do that.
No reasonable person would do that.
You'd have to know you could audit them to even know if you had to vote.
So that was my point.
Strong point. And she said that I was fighting in something impossible.
But here's the irony. How does this woman in Germany know I exist?
Now, she referred to me as the Dilbert guy, but how does she know I exist?
The reason she knows I exist is that I have a track record of doing things that are really, really unlikely.
Becoming a cartoonist, a famous cartoonist, is very, very unlikely.
And then pivoting to what I'm doing now, to the point where somebody in Germany is talking about my political opinions.
That was very unlikely.
So, and then I'm talking about Trump, and what is Trump's history?
His history is doing the impossible.
Getting elected in the first place.
Project Warp Speed looked impossible.
By the way, that's another thing that is going to make Biden look like an idiot.
Do you believe that a President Biden would have made Warp Speed happen?
Or would he have listened to the experts Who said it's going to take four years.
And then Joe Biden, who really, really listens to the experts, would have said, well, I'm not going to overrule you, because you're the experts.
And you just, every one of you, 100% of you just said, you can't get this done in less than four years.
So I guess we wait four years.
Imagine that. What did President Trump do?
Experts said, that's going to take four years.
And he said, give it to me in six months.
And the expert said, can't be done.
I'll tell you one thing, there's no way to do that.
And then the president said some version of, I'm assuming, do it anyway.
You will do it.
Find a way. Do you need a few billion dollars?
Here's the check. Are you losers?
Are you telling me you can't save the country because you're not going to work hard enough?
You're not clever enough?
Make it fucking happen.
I think that's what Trump did.
I think Trump just said, you experts are full of shit.
Make it happen. And then they did.
Can you even imagine, in your wildest imagination, that Biden could have gotten that done?
No. And I think that's going to be increasingly obvious as time goes by.
You're going to look at the Middle East and you're going to say, could Joe Biden have gotten the Middle East where it's at now?
No. There isn't even the slightest chance because he would have been pro-Iran and none of it would work.
All right. So, both Trump and I have a long history of doing things that other people thought were not possible.
And this German influencer is mocking me for doing things that look hard to do, such as changing the result of the election.
Now, I'm not going to predict that it will change.
But I will tell you that if you're mocking either me or Trump for imagining that we can be involved in something that other people think is hard to do and unlikely or impossible, well, you're not really paying attention.
Because we've both done that enough that you should give us a benefit of a doubt.
Let me put it this way. Well, this will sound like I'm comparing myself to him.
So I'm not comparing myself to this next person.
I'm just using it as an example.
If Elon Musk...
Starts a company tomorrow, a new company, that everybody else said will never work, who are you going to bet on?
Are you going to bet on Elon Musk doing, yet again, something that everybody said wouldn't work, or are you going to bet on the experts?
If you're smart, you'll bet on Elon Musk doing what everybody said can't be done, because he's got a history.
I started using the word bully to refer to Our new system.
We used to have a republic, but that's been replaced with what I'll call a bullyocracy, meaning that the vote was largely controlled by people who used physical intimidation and bullying.
Now, physical intimidation and bullying, I consider violence, because even if you don't see a physical mark on the body, a person who experiences physical intimidation and bullying, even if it's psychological, is damaged.
It's permanent damage.
You just can't see it because it's a mental sort of damage.
So the first thing I'd say is that we did not have, if Biden continues on and becomes president, we will not have had a non-violent transition.
We will have experienced a violent transition, which is the only reason the transition happened.
If you took the violence out of the process, The violence being the bullying at the vote counting stations.
You probably wouldn't get the same result.
Now, I don't know if that would change the election entirely, but the vote would be different.
And I would say that we have actually lost the republic already.
And somebody in Ireland tweeted at me and said that they're watching the United States because if democracy is lost in the United States, Europe is toast.
So that's what he thought.
Now, there's something to be said for that view.
But here's the thing.
He was acting as if we might lose democracy in this country.
He's missed the point.
Democracy is gone.
We are living in a bullyocracy.
The result of the election wasn't based on democracy.
It wasn't based on, you know, the Republic.
It wasn't based on the Constitution.
So the guy who's worried that we will lose democracy in the United States, you need to catch up with the news.
We lost democracy, or, you know, the Republic.
We're trying to get it back.
I do think we can get it back, so it's not like the end of the world.
But we don't have it now.
It's lost. We're trying to get it back.
I think we will.
Do you want to live in a system?
Here's my weapons-grade persuasion.
And someone who's a good persuader, a trained persuader, pointed out that I guess I'd used the word bully once.
And... It kind of stood out as more punchy than other words.
So I'm going to use it again. And so I ask this question by tweet.
Do you want to live in a system in which bullies, literally physical bullies, decide who will be president?
You are living in that system.
Right now, according to hundreds of witnesses.
Now, if the hundreds of witnesses who allege there was this physical intimidation, if they're all wrong, then maybe we still live in a democracy.
But I don't think they're all wrong, even if some of them are.
So we're living in a bullyocracy, which is quite ironic.
All right. So now it sounds like the...
Representative from Alabama, Mo Brooks, is it?
Said he's going to challenge the vote in the House, but only if there's a senator that joins with him.
Now, I can think of two senators who might want to join in with Mo Brooks to challenge the outcome of the election.
And those two would be the Georgia Republican senators, Loeffler and Perdue, because you would sort of expect that they would like to make their election about Trump, because you're going to get a bigger turnout.
So in effect, they could make the Georgia election a presidential election.
So if either Loeffler or Perdue were to say, yeah, you know, I think we'll join in on On this and throw the outcome of the election into doubt, which could end up with President Trump back in office if it turns into turmoil in the House.
And so Mo Brooks just needs one senator to say yes.
Just one. How close are we to Trump being in office for a second term if you only need one Republican senator To say, yeah, I'll join you, Mo Brooks.
Just one. And then it becomes a house kerfuffle.
Now this is the part, I heard two different stories about this, but my understanding is that if it comes to a vote in the House, that they just get one vote per state.
Which would mean that Republicans win because there are more Republican states.
So correct me if I'm wrong, and I think I must be.
I must be wrong because I don't see this in the news.
But are we really just one senator, a Republican, away from saying yes, and that would put Trump back in office?
Are we actually that close to that outcome that literally...
Senator Cruz would just have to do this, just raise his hand, and Trump would be in office for a second term?
Because I feel like I'm not understanding something here.
Because if that were true, wouldn't that be the only thing in the news?
Would there be any headlines on anything else?
Why is this sort of getting the soft treatment?
Because I think I'm misunderstanding it, right?
Am I misunderstanding that Mo Brooks plus one senator could cause enough of a problem with the election result that it would go to the House and then it would be one vote per state?
I think that's the part I might be getting wrong.
Can somebody confirm that to me?
Because it can't be that...
To a President Trump for a second term without that being the only headline.
So I would think the obvious one, senators, if somebody's going to say yes, would be Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz would be the obvious one.
You know, he would be the most, I think, the one with the most weight, if he really wanted to make that happen.
But the Georgia senators, they've got a special interest, too.
Here's my bottom line on what people are thinking about this election.
I can totally understand if there are Democrats who feel that the election was not stolen.
That wouldn't be crazy.
I feel it would be uninformed, but it's not crazy.
There are also Democrats who would think, well, we'll never know how much fraud there was or wasn't, but we don't see evidence that it's so much it will change the election.
So let's just sort of get over it and move on with life.
That's kind of reasonable. I wouldn't agree with it, but it's reasonable.
Here's what's not reasonable.
If you don't think it was possible that the election was stolen, and you don't think that the motivation to do that thing that was very possible was sky high, You're a fucking idiot.
You are so dumb.
Now, that doesn't mean it happened, but if you think it's not possible, and you think the motivation wasn't there and people willing to do it, you're really dumb.
I mean, you're seriously dumb.
You're like rock dumb.
You're like not even human.
That's so dumb. That's dumb beyond any level of dumbness you could ever have.
But again, it doesn't mean that they're wrong if they think that the election actually went to Biden.
They could be right. All right.
The CDC director said it looks like the data says that opening schools, if you're careful, can still make sense.
And is that not Trump being right again?
So what's Biden going to do when the CDC and the experts all say, you know, Trump was really right about this opening up schools.
Does that make Biden look good again?
I don't know. Maybe if he says I'm listening to the experts, it all works out.
Blake Masters, who has the best name of any human being.
Imagine naming your kid, I guess the last name is automatic, but Imagine naming your kid Blake Masters.
Is that kid not automatically going to have a pretty good life?
I feel like if somebody came in for a job interview and I saw their name on the resume and it was Blake Masters, I'd be like, well, okay, I think we're done here.
I've got to hire that guy. I mean, his name is just so powerful.
It's just this perfect name, Blake Masters.
Anyway, he said, Arizona isn't Philly, but I guess he lives there, and he says, but we do use Dominion voting machines.
The Secretary of State has the BLM hashtag in her bio, and she calls Trump supporters neo-Nazis.
Seems bad.
So how much do you trust your election when they have Dominion voting machines, the Secretary of State Is a Black Lives Matter supporter and calls the other side neo-Nazis.
I would say that that does open up the possibility of a little fraud.
Possibility. Doesn't mean it happened.
Possibility. Alright, here's my last topic.
There's a cool thing happening in crime fighting right now.
Worthy of note.
That it's been sort of, what would you call it, privatized?
Because it turns out that there are some new technologies that would solve a bunch of crimes, but, you know, the local police forces, et cetera, are sort of slow to adopt new things.
And if there's a budget implication, then they could be really slow, right?
So there are now crime-fighting technologies, which if we could afford them and we, you know, the police departments incorporated them, They would solve a whole bunch of new crimes.
I mean, it would just immediately solve all kinds of stuff, if they could afford it.
So the interim solution is that this company, Authorum, which I've talked about, I've had guests on here, so they can look at the DNA from a crime scene, And they can find a family connection, which is the new part of the technology.
So these days there's enough DNA in the world, in databases, that they can find a family member.
And if you find a family member, you can pretty much always find the person after that.
So Othram would simply need the police departments to say, here's some money to fund your project, to do your little work there.
And so they started to do crowdfunding.
So right now, Othram will work with a local law enforcement, and the two of them will agree to start a little GoFundMe.
I think it's GoFundMe. And if you fund it, Othram will go solve the crime.
Did you see that coming?
Did any of you predict that we would have a GoFundMe to solve crimes and that it would work?
Here's the kicker.
How often will it work?
Well, with the authorum example, it's close to 100%.
So if you give money to one of these crime-solving things, it will actually solve the crime.
And, you know, there's an active one now I tweeted about.
You can see it in my Twitter feed from yesterday.
So I would think that if the GoFundMe concept proves that the technology solves crime, it would be only a matter of time before the local law enforcement would find a budget for it and include it.
Who controls the DNA machines?
The DNA machines?
Well, I don't think there are DNA machines.
Alright, did I listen to the Trump speech yesterday?
I did not. I did not listen to it.
I understand there were many accusations, which his critics say have been debunked, which is what I would have expected.
So I didn't feel I need to listen.
Oh, let me defend myself on one thing today.
So the witness testimonies yesterday included the blonde woman that I was complimenting yesterday.
Now, somebody who's an anti-Trumper tweeted a little clip of her talking in which we don't know the truth, so I'll talk about the perception.
So only talking about the perception.
The perception is she looked inebriated when she was talking in public about what she witnessed in terms of fraud at the election vote counting sites.
Now, I feel that that was worth retweeting.
Not because I want her to have less credibility.
I don't. And I don't think that if she had a drink at lunch, and I don't know if that's true, it could be just her normal personality, as some people were suggesting.
But the point is, to the untrained eye, somebody who doesn't know her personally, she looked inebriated.
And that's part of the story.
So if you're trying to judge how people received her, or whether she was being judged as credible, unfortunately that's part of the story now.
I don't want that to be true, and I don't want anything bad to happen or any reputational problem to happen to this woman who I consider a patriot.
And I also don't care if she had a couple of drinks at lunch, Because she's got a really stressful thing she's doing.
She's probably getting death threats and everything else.
So if she needed a couple of drinks for lunch to finish her story, I don't have any problem with that.
But it is part of the story.
Part of the story is that she left an impression, which is part of the credibility conversation.
So I apologize if anybody thinks I was dunking on her.
I have complete respect for her.
As a patriot, as somebody who's taking, you know, she's painting a target on her own back to do what she's doing.
So she's sacrificing for the country?
For the country. There's nothing in it for her.
It's all downside for her.
In fact, you know, could this be a better example of it's all downside for her?
It's all downside for her.
Pure patriot.
Sacrificing for the country.
I love that woman.
I love that woman.
So she's my hero, but she may have had a drink at lunch.
It's just part of the story.
There's no reason to ignore it.
And as I was telling people who were criticizing me for retweeting that, I'm not a CNN. CNN might ignore an uncomfortable part of a story, but I don't need to do that.
I can tell you the whole story.
I don't need to keep news away from you to protect you.
And there are a number of people who say that that's a misinterpretation and that that was just her personality.
Could be. I don't rule out the fact that she was just being her.
Dems will cut her brake lines, somebody says.
Well, I don't know about that.
All right. Enough for now.
All right. Periscope's gone.
You've got me for...
You've got my full attention for a moment here.
Somebody says, I did love her hair.
Angela says, I liked it too.
I liked her hair.
That's a weird thing to say, but I was having the same impression.
She was a very likable character, wouldn't you say?
She's sort of a lively, interesting person.
I'm always amused when random racists come into the comment thing and just say insanely racist stuff and act like maybe other people are going to say, yeah.
Yeah.
She doesn't seem credible to me, somebody says.
You know, I'm going to say it again, but I don't think you should take any individual story as the credible one.
I think you have to look at them as a group.
Were you surprised the Democrats didn't get better persuasion advice?
I was a little bit. Yeah.
It did seem to me that the Democrats did not have a professional persuader working for their team.
Unless they didn't do as good a job this time.
But it didn't look like they had the same kind of talent that Hillary had, persuasion-wise.
All right.
Export Selection