All Episodes
Dec. 5, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:26:25
Episode 1208 Scott Adams: Ballots Under Tables, Thumb Drive Handoffs, Grading the Experts Vs Trump. What is Real?

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Election allegations and debunking 5 Chinese propaganda programs terminated in US Whiteboard: Experts Vs President Trump ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
Hey everybody, come on in.
It's time. And you found the right place.
So far, I'd say your day is going pretty well, wouldn't you?
Yeah. I don't know what happened before this, but you just hit the perfect moment.
It's that moment just before the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, it's that good.
It's like that fresh dew on the morning grass.
And all you need to take it to the next level is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen drug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except, apparently, coronavirus.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go! Well, speaking of the coronavirus, it's raging.
Now, the only advantage we have this winter compared to the spring is that we're a little bit used to it, aren't we?
At least intellectually or emotionally and psychologically.
Even though this winter is going to be pretty brutal.
Pretty darn brutal.
Are we ready for it?
Yes, we are.
Now, we're fatigued.
We're tired. We're tired of war with the pandemic.
Well, let me ask you this.
Are we going to win?
Yes. Yes, we will.
Team humanity will beat team virus.
Guaranteed. I can promise you that.
But if things start getting uglier and uglier, and we're at the beginning of the ugly phase right now, I'll start doing A second periscope, if anybody needs it.
We'll see how things go, but I'll keep that option open.
All right. There's a study that says, some Oxford study, says that we might be alone in the universe.
What? So, some smart people did some math, and they said, if you calculate the odds of this evolving into that, and the odds of this...
Being just right, and the odds of how long it takes for something like a human being to evolve, and you crunch it all up, and it turns out that even if the universe is as vast as we think, chances are, really, really high, there's nobody else there.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Well, I think that that is more evidence that we are a simulation.
A simulation. Because if we were simulated, there probably would be one society per universe.
Because that's the one you would make.
I doubt you would make a universe and then create two societies that never met or never needed to meet.
Why would you do that?
So, that's not proof of the simulation, but it's consistent.
I would be less inclined to think that we were a simulation if...
The complexity of the universe were such that there were all kinds of civilizations like in Star Trek.
That would be so massively complicated that it would be harder to believe a simulation could actually calculate it.
So, that doesn't mean that future computers won't be stronger, but it all gets us toward maybe we're a simulation.
Here's the funniest story of the day.
Matt Gaetz, Congressman Matt Gaetz, It's banned from New Jersey.
The governor of New Jersey told Congressman Matt Gaetz that he's not welcome in their state anymore.
That'll teach you.
Now, I'm going to start using—and by the way, the reason was that I guess Matt Gaetz attended some young Republican event In New Jersey, and New Jersey doesn't want big events, so they're mad at Matt Gaetz.
And the governor lashed out at him.
And I thought, I'm going to start using that as my threat.
I'm going to say to people, anybody who doesn't make me happy, I'm going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You better hold back there, bud.
You go one more inch with that kind of attitude, and I'm going to ban you from New Jersey.
That's right. You can go anywhere else in the world, nay, anywhere else in the universe that you can get to.
But let me tell you, my friend, your bad behavior has banned you permanently from New Jersey.
You're not getting any New Jersey goodness.
You might be sitting down there in Florida, that hellhole of Florida, and thinking to yourself, with all the resorts and the good weather and stuff, and thinking to yourself, damn, you know what I need?
A little bit more New Jersey.
But can you get it?
No, not if you're banned.
Not if you're banned.
You'll be sitting there in that hellscape of Florida with your good weather and your good economy and your nice people thinking, if only the mistake I made that will ban me from New Jersey.
How am I going to get past that?
Well, we'll see.
We're seeing a humorous thing developing in terms of how the press treats Joe Biden.
The Jake Tapper interview with Biden was sort of laughably soft, if you will.
And of course, all of us who have watched CNN beating up on President Trump for four years say to ourselves, that's not fair.
Damn it. You're not treating Biden as harshly as you treat Trump.
But I would like to add a little bit, and of course that's true, there's nobody who's going to doubt that CNN will give Biden a softer treatment than Trump.
So nobody's doubting that.
There's nobody on the left who doubts it, nobody on the right, nobody doubts it.
But there is something that you must calculate into your worldview, and that is that You, meaning you, any person, have a lot of control over how people treat you.
And sometimes that's invisible.
Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the way anybody treats us, and let's take this out of the realm of politics, but just the way your friends treat you, your co-workers treat you, your family, your spouse, the way you get treated is in very large part Based on how you act.
Now, Biden has presented to the world this milquetoast, I'm a nice guy.
I wouldn't cause a ripple.
You might be my worst enemy, but I think we could probably work on a deal.
And if you'd like to push me a little, well, that's okay.
I don't mind a little bit of pushing.
We could work something out.
Now, that's Biden's personality.
That's what he's selling.
He's selling that. It's not a mistake.
It's a feature.
But if you sell that, the press will treat you nicer.
And it's because, in part, it's not just a Democrat versus Republican, left versus right.
It is that, too. So no matter what, even if Biden acted exactly like Trump, He'd still get a little bit better treatment from CNN. I think we all agree on that.
There's bias. You can't take it out of the system.
But there is an element that Biden is getting back what he's putting into the universe.
Now, the cost of that, I think, is his effectiveness.
I think that's the trade-off.
The trade-off is that if you put a milquetoast leader into a job that sometimes takes a little bit of bullying...
To do it right. You don't really have the right mix of skills.
So Trump is a complete package in the same way that Biden is.
Biden is a complete package of soft power, let's say.
Trump is a complete package of, let's say, more aggressive power.
But you don't get the aggressive guy who doesn't cause more pushback.
The aggressive person is always going to get the pushback.
The milquetoast person is always going to get the softer treatment.
So just factor that in.
Biden does get back from the press what he puts out, but the trade-off is I think he would be less effective as president.
There's a really interesting video by Brian Romale, R-O-E-M-M-E-L-E, if you want to Google his account.
He's a really good follow because he does a lot of science-y stuff.
It's just an interesting person to follow.
And he's at Brian, B-R-I-A-N, R-O-E-M-M-E-L-E. And he tweeted today a little test that you can do yourself where there's Pictures on two sides, so it's a split screen, and a bunch of famous people's pictures are flashed by, and you're asked to look in the middle so that you're not looking at either picture directly.
So as the pictures of the left flash by, but you're staring between them, so you only see them with your side vision, they start to distort, and they become like monsters.
And you're watching it in real time, and you're saying to yourself, I don't think those are pictures of monsters.
I think they're pictures of actually familiar celebrities.
And you look at them, if you look at them directly, they are familiar celebrities, very clearly.
They're not distorted in the least.
But if you look in the middle again, and the two of them go by, the theory is that your brain can only handle so much processing.
And that this test is designed to overwhelm your ability to process reality.
It just gives you too much too fast.
Because faces are really sticky.
Like your brain really, really, really wants to understand a face.
So you put two of them and they're snapping by like that.
I just saw the word snap, so I put that into my sentence.
That's how you influenced me.
So they're snapping by, and your brain just gets overloaded.
Now what happens when your brain gets overloaded?
It can't process the images anymore, and they start becoming monsters.
And what you realize, or the thing that you should get from this, is that your brain is not processing reality.
Your brain is creating a movie for you, and if your brain is overwhelmed, it gives you a bad movie, a distorted version of what's out there.
And if your brain is working well and you're looking at a thing, Maybe you're seeing something closer to real, and maybe not, right?
You just know that you see it more clearly.
You don't know if it's real.
So the test is just one of those ways to nudge you into understanding that your impression of what you see and experience is really, really subjective.
You know, I think we walk through life, I've said this before, if you're a non-hypnotist, a normal person, You think, well, 90% of the time I'm seeing things about the way they are, but maybe 10% of the time I could get confused or misled.
That's how most of us go through life, something like that.
It's really reversed.
It's more like maybe 10% of the time you can see something true or true enough, if that's even true, but 90% of the time you're actually in a movie of your own making, and you could be standing right next to someone who's in just a different movie.
Completely different movie.
And there's no conflict with that.
They can enjoy their completely different movie.
They live, they procreate, they eat.
It doesn't affect you.
You can have different realities, and we see it all the time.
All right. Speaking of different realities, you might want to be talking about some of these election allegations.
That's why you're here, isn't it?
But I had to prime you a little bit.
Here's a question for you.
I haven't seen the answer yet.
I tweeted this. Is anybody keeping the definitive list of all of the election allegations, along with the official explanation of why somebody thinks it's not actually fraud, followed by, and this is also important, somebody responding to the official allegation?
So you want to see, they did this, the government says, no, no, no, that wasn't what you thought it was, But you need at least one more iteration of somebody to say, no, it really was that.
Here's the evidence, here's the link, whatever.
Does anybody have that? Is there such a definitive list?
Because if there were, I don't think it would go the way you'd want it to.
Because I think you'd find most of the things on the list have been debunked.
Now, if anybody's new here, let me give you just very quickly my opinion.
The election had to be stolen.
Because it's a situation that guarantees it.
There was not witnessing in all the steps, and there was a high motivation.
There was a reason to steal.
Anybody would have a reason to do it if they thought Orange Hill was going to come into power.
That's a pretty good reason. So they had reason and opportunity, and plenty of opportunity.
We can tell that now.
So how often does an election get stolen when you have motivation through the roof, And plenty of unobserved opportunity.
Well, it should happen every time.
So you don't need evidence to know that it happened.
It would be great, and you would need that in a court of law, but if you're just being a human and you're trying to understand, all right, I'm just a human, I'm not a court of law, I'm not the government, it's just me, and I'm just trying to understand, was the race stolen?
The answer is yes. Yes, of course it was.
Now, when I say stolen, I mean that there was massive fraud that was big enough to steal it.
Probably not that different from every other election.
That's sort of the red pill that we all have to eat, is that if we can believe there was massive fraud this time, it would be ridiculous.
To imagine it's the first time it ever happened.
That would just be ridiculous.
So the red pill is that we probably have not been under a system that had fair and free elections, maybe ever, but we're finding it out now.
I think that's the shocker.
But when we look at these individual claims, as I told you from the very beginning, before the first claims were coming out, I told you 95% of them are going to be confirmation bias.
Even if 5% of them are true, and that 5% tells the whole story, like if in the 5%, hypothetically, any of the big claims like the software claim or the big trucks of ballots or whatever, if any of those were true, Well, that's the whole story.
You don't need the other 95% of them to be true if the few big ones are true.
Now, we don't know if that's the case yet, but the normal situation is 95% of the claims should be, in a normal world, even if the election is completely fraudulent, still 95% of the claims should be complete bullshit.
You get that, right?
Somebody's saying sellout.
Whoever's saying sellout, are you just fucking stupid?
I don't even know where that comment comes from.
I mean, I don't even think that's an opinion, is it?
Isn't that just somebody saying, I think I'd like to prove how stupid I am, and a good way to do that would be in public.
So I think I'll make this comment that you're a sellout if you believe the election was definitely fraudulent.
You're a sellout? Is that what you're saying?
I don't even understand that.
Alright, but let's talk about some of the evidence.
Would you say that the blonde witness we've talked about, who has the big blonde hair, and some people said she acted like she was inebriated, other people said, no, that's just her personality.
But aside from that, has anybody seen her claims being debunked?
In the comments, tell me this.
Now, you don't have to say if you believe the debunk, right?
So in this context, when I say something has been debunked, let's translate that in your head to someone has offered an alternate explanation.
It doesn't mean that's true.
It just means an alternate explanation has been offered.
So in the comments, how many of you have seen her testimony debunked?
How many of you have seen it?
Again, it doesn't mean it's true, just have you seen the other story?
I'm looking at your comments.
No, no, no.
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
I'm seeing no's.
No, no, nope, nope, nope.
So, and then a yes.
So, what do you make of the fact that almost all of you said no, but yet there's one person here who said yes.
They've actually seen at least the explanation.
It doesn't mean it's true.
Do you know what the debunk is?
There's something called a poll book, which apparently is where the official numbers are that have to match something else.
Her claim is that if her story is correct, in other words, if her version of what she saw is correct, the poll book should be off, I guess, compared to what, the counting machine or something?
But there's a way to check.
She's made a very specific claim that if you pick up something called a poll book, That everybody knows what it is and where it is.
There's an actual thing, and you can hold that thing in your hand, and then you can look at the numbers on it.
And you won't be confused, because they're right there.
They're right in the poll book. And her claim is that if you look in the poll book, there will be a number that is wildly different from whatever the number is that it's supposed to match to.
Simple, right? You could check her claim in 30 seconds.
It's a gigantic claim, and you can just hold the proof in your hand and look at it and say, is it true or not?
And it's been done.
Did you see it? Yeah, because unfortunately, I'm in a position where I'm going to have to red pill quite a few of you.
I've said this before, but until you start seeing it happen yourself, you're not going to believe this.
All right? Here's something I'll say a bunch of times, Because until you feel it yourself, it just isn't going to sound true.
We are moving from a situation where CNN was, you know, 80% of all the fake news was coming from the left.
We're moving to a position where that's going to reverse.
Most of the fake news now will be from the right if Biden continues on and takes office.
It has to happen. The party end of office makes up the stories.
That's the way it works. So when you say to yourself, and this should be the place that you catch yourself, if you think that the blonde woman's testimony has not been completely debunked already, and you're not aware of it, what does that make you feel like?
Well, it should make you feel like a CNN viewer one year ago.
Just picking a random time during the Trump administration.
During the... People are signing off because they can't handle...
The red pill hurts.
Bye. I'm sorry you couldn't hang with us.
But if you look in the poll book, you can see that the blonde woman's testimony is completely false, according to CNN. Now, if I'm wrong, and I made the mistake of believing CNN, which is always dicey, Wouldn't that be easy to demonstrate?
You could say, Scott, you said the poll book had been verified to be okay.
The blonde woman said it wasn't.
Look for yourself.
Here it is. Here's a copy of the page.
Where's that? Where's that?
The reason you don't see that is because the poll book apparently matches.
So while I do believe there was massive fraud in the election, because there had to be, not because of the allegations, but But because the situation was such that there had to be.
So I would say that the blonde woman's testimony, I'd say, is completely debunked at this point.
Probably completely.
Because if that part of it was debunked as thoroughly as I'm claiming, in a way that you could check, because the poll book has been looked at, right?
You know, is there a story on Fox News?
Ask yourself this. Is there a story on Fox News, or even OAN, wherever you think is on your side, if that's your side, is there a story there that says, oh, she said the poll book was off.
We checked the poll book.
Yup, the poll book was off.
Have you seen that? Where's that story?
Because that's the most obvious story, right?
If the election was thrown...
She gave you a specific thing to look at.
There would be no ambiguity.
You could hold it in your hand.
There's only one of them. You could just look at it.
Is that number matching or is it not?
It would be on Fox News if it didn't match.
Right? Somebody says, do you believe CNN? No.
No. If what you're hearing is that I believe CNN, you're missing the whole point.
The point is, it's not even on Fox News.
It's not even on OAN. It's not in the Gateway Pundit.
It's not on Breitbart.
Show me any source that you trust, any source, that looks at that poll book and that one claim that the blonde woman made.
It's the biggest claim.
Find anybody in the news business who confirmed what she said.
Because it'd be easy to confirm.
It's just in the book.
Right? Just find it and send it to me.
That's all. If you can't find it, that's your red pill.
Right? It doesn't exist.
That's why you can't find it.
Now, will the news that's friendly to your position, if you happen to lean right, is the news going to tell you, yeah, you know, the reason we don't report on that poll book thing is that we didn't find any problem there?
It's just sort of silent, isn't it?
Isn't it? I haven't seen any story on it.
It's just sort of, well, there's a claim out there.
We're not going to check.
So you can start to feel that your news sources are turning on you, because that's what's happening.
It really is. They're turning on you.
So you'll see more and more of that.
Well, what about the other evidence?
It's not all about that one blonde woman.
Not at all. What about those suitcases under the tables?
Now, when I talked about it yesterday, I said, there are just things stored under tables, which is exactly where you store things in a room with lots of tables.
That's exactly where you store them, under the table.
If you've ever done catering, somebody said this example.
Now, I've done catering.
I've been an employee working where there's an event and I'm in charge of moving food around and making sure people get beverages and stuff.
So I've been in those circumstances with all those temporary tables and you always store things under tables.
That's the place you store things.
It's like the main place you put things.
So there's nothing about them being under the table per se.
But my critic said, Scott, obviously you did not watch the whole video.
Scott, Scott, Scott, you have been fooled by people who have shown you a selective clip.
Yeah, maybe that selective clip wasn't as convincing as, you know, the most convincing thing in the world.
But if you saw a little bit more of it...
You'd see that they sent people away.
You'd see the whole story developing.
You'd see that it's obvious that the witnesses were sent away, and as soon as they were all really gone and everybody was sure that there were no witnesses, these four individuals took these things out from under the table and started counting like crazy for hours and hours.
Now that's the story that you've seen, right?
So that's the full video.
So today, because people said, Scott, you could be misled unless you watch the full video, I watched the full video as it was presented and described by Rudy Giuliani's people.
Now, another person who watched the full video, the same one I did, was the guy who was in charge of election systems in Georgia.
And he did it with an investigative reporter.
And the investigative reporter stood there with the Georgia official, watched the entire video from beginning to end, and the Georgia officials said, yeah, looks fine to me.
I didn't see a problem.
And indeed, One of the stories is that the ballots that were below the table, if you had watched even more than Giuliani showed...
So you think, okay, that little clip doesn't tell you much.
You've got to watch a bigger clip, Scott.
You've got to see the whole thing.
So I watched that.
That's probably what you watched, too.
That's the whole thing.
Except it's not the whole thing.
There's a larger whole thing.
And the claim is, and I haven't seen it myself, but the claim is that if you go even larger, you can see where those ballots came from, the ones that are under the table.
Do you know where the ballots came from that are under the table, according to the official account?
The ballots that were under the table came from, and I know this is shocking, the top of the table.
That's right. There were ballots that had been on top of the table, That somebody put below the table.
And it's there on video.
Now, does that change your mind?
Now, the first time I saw the video, I was fooled the same way the Covington Kids video fooled me.
First impression is that these roller bags look like actual consumer luggage.
If you had told me that actual consumer luggage...
If there was consumer luggage filled with ballots, I would just say that's the end of the story.
All right, there isn't any scenario in which consumer luggage should be in that room Filled with ballots under a table with other ones, right?
So had it been consumer luggage, I wouldn't even need to hear any more evidence.
I would just shut down.
I'd say, I don't need to hear anything else.
I don't want to hear that you ran out of containers.
I don't want to hear it.
There's no way I'm going to believe anything about this story if those ballots were in that room in consumer luggage.
But they weren't. They were just in regular ballot carriers.
Some of them have wheelies. It's just the official way that they keep ballots.
It's the actual container.
Now, if you take that away, you take away a lot of my bias that I brought to the first viewing of the video.
Because people said it was luggage and then my brain translated it into luggage and then I saw it even though it wasn't there.
I saw something that wasn't there because people had primed me to see it.
Just like most of you.
Now, Here's the official account.
Let me ask you, how many of you who believe that that video shows an obvious fraud, how many of you have heard the official explanation?
In the comments, tell me how many of you have heard the alleged debunk.
I won't even say the debunk is true, because I don't know, but just have you even heard it?
Because remember, the knock against CNN It's not always just that they're wrong, but they don't tell the news.
They just ignore the news.
Is there a gigantic piece of news, which is the official explanation of this video of these containers, have you not heard it?
Because pretty much everybody on this Periscope is a consumer of news.
The people who are going to watch this Are not the people who are just casual consumers of political news.
You're mostly people who really watch this stuff.
And I'll bet you, you've never seen the official story.
Ask yourself if that's okay with you.
Because you shouldn't be.
Because you're being CNN. It's just, it's by your side now.
Alright? Here's the official story for those of you who have not seen it.
I'm not claiming I agree with it.
I'm not telling you it's true.
I'm just going to tell you, you probably didn't see it.
Here it is. The official story is that no witnesses were sent home.
So the most important part of the story is that the ballot counting witnesses were sent home.
The official story is, no they weren't.
Now, the counter to that is, but you saw it yourself.
It's right there on the video.
You can watch the woman give an announcement, you can watch most of the people leave, and then you can watch four people stay and continue counting votes that they pull down from under the table.
So who's telling the truth?
Was there somebody who said, hey, witnesses, you all need to go home?
Or did it not happen?
I don't know, but isn't that the only thing that matters?
Have you seen the woman who was accused of telling people they should go home if they're witnesses?
Not envelope cutters, because the official story is that the only people sent home were the envelope openers, because they had opened all the envelopes, there was nothing else to do.
So if you're just an envelope opener, you're not a witness, you're just an opener.
You go home. Now, was anybody else told to go home who was a witness?
Show me an interview with a person who claims that they personally heard somebody say, witnesses go home.
Now, that is the report, right?
The report is that that's exactly what happened.
Have you seen that person?
I would say that the credibility you should put in any personal account of somebody saw something is kind of zero.
If you've not been around law enforcement and you know how unreliable eyewitnesses are, if you only have one eyewitness to anything, any kind of crime, how reliable is one eyewitness to anything?
And the answer is really unreliable if it's just one person.
So you would want multiple people hearing the same thing.
At a minimum, you'd want multiple witnesses.
And then you'd also want some other kind of confirming thing because even multiple witnesses could be lying.
So here's the thing.
If it comes down to...
If it comes down to...
The only question is, did somebody tell the witnesses they had to leave?
It feels like that would be pretty easy to demonstrate, wouldn't it?
Because there were so many people in the room, and I don't think that they're that hard to find.
Could the news organizations not say, alright, alright, look, there were 12 people in the room when this allegedly happened.
We have their names.
We know where they are.
Now, somebody's saying that there were affidavits.
You want to see the person being interviewed, don't you?
And you want to see a few of them and see if their stories are the same.
Because the minimum that I would require is to see multiple people in the room say, yeah, they used the word witness, they looked right at the witnesses, and they said, you witnesses are going home for the night.
Now, if I hear that from an actual person as opposed to an affidavit, And there's more than one person who says, yeah, yeah, that's exactly what happened.
It was witnesses. It wasn't just cutters.
It wasn't just envelope cutters, Scott.
I know that's the official story, but I heard it with my own ears.
It was witnesses. Go home.
Several of us heard it.
Now, if that could be...
The affidavits don't mean anything to me, honestly.
They really don't. I'd need to hear them say it in person.
Because... We do know, we can say with some confidence that a lot of the affidavits are not necessarily lies, but misinterpretations.
Let me give you an example of how people could have honestly done an affidavit to say that they heard it, and it didn't happen.
Because one of the ways that you could be honest on an affidavit is by telling what you thought you saw or thought you heard.
But you could be wrong, and you're still telling the truth, So, affidavit doesn't mean that the person who did it interpreted what they saw correctly.
It only means that was their impression.
So imagine, if you will, here's just a scenario so you can just imagine why there could be a different explanation.
Imagine, if you will, the envelope cutters are done.
The people counting the votes know that there's a law that says that you can't leave with uncounted ballots.
Apparently that's a law.
So it wasn't legal for everyone to leave the room.
It wasn't legal.
So the four people who stayed were doing what the law required, which is staying until the votes are counted.
And that's what the person who organized and was in charge of the voting system in Georgia said.
That's what he watched. He watched people doing what the law requires, which is you can't leave that room unattended while there are uncounted votes.
You've got to stay there until they're done, which is what he watched.
So the question of whether the witnesses were let go is an important one.
Now imagine, if you will, that the woman who gave some kind of an announcement on the video before people left, imagine that she said, Hey, everybody.
Hey, everybody. And imagine that she knew she was talking to only the envelope openers and that behind her were the three other people who would be counting votes.
The people who would later be counting votes already know that they're going to stay.
There's no ambiguity among the vote counters because the vote counters know the law.
They have to stay. They can't leave while there are uncounted ballots.
And so the person giving the announcement speaks to the rest of the room, And says, okay, we're done here.
Everybody? Everybody?
Notice the word. Everybody?
Everybody? It's time to go home.
We're done here. Done for the night.
Thank you, everybody. You're done for the night.
The envelope cutters hear, everybody's done for the night.
They do not know that there's a Georgia law that says you can't leave these ballots there, but the ballot counters do know that, because that's what they were trained in.
The ballot counters were trained to be ballot counters.
The envelope openers were just trained to be envelope openers.
They don't know the law that might apply to the counters.
And the envelope openers hear everybody go home.
What is their interpretation of what happened?
Well, their interpretation would be, and I'm not saying this happened, by the way, I'm giving you an imaginary scenario in which you could imagine that everything you saw had a normal explanation.
So the people hearing it, Like any large organization, they all interpret it differently, right?
If you give any instruction to a group of people, you know from living in the real world that if you ask that group of people five minutes later to explain what they just heard, it will be different.
So some of those people might have heard, everybody go home, including the witnesses.
Because we're done for the night.
Other people might have understood the context and might have thought, oh, we're done with this part, so we'll go home, but some people will probably stay because their part is not done.
Now, here's the claim.
Those of you who are still quite firmly convinced that there was a woman who sent witnesses home You would have to address this.
So the official story is that the deputy chief investigator for the Secretary of State's office was present, at least beginning at 12.15 a.m., when there was still a lot of counting going on.
And according to...
There was somebody else who was there.
And he said that the The guy who overlooked it said the vote result was not unusual.
I don't know about that.
All right, so there was at least somebody there witnessing.
I don't know if that's true.
You have to be a little skeptical of that, too.
Address this.
Regarding cheating. Official stories are usually BS. That's true.
The official story, I don't think you should assume, is usually true.
So, again, the people in the comments who are saying that I'm excusing the fraud, are you missing the whole point?
That you don't need these examples?
The fraud happened. It had to happen because that was the situation.
There was no way it couldn't have happened.
The trouble is that if you're looking at a specific piece of evidence, it's far more likely it's confirmation bias for a specific piece of evidence.
That doesn't mean anything about the whole.
All right. So I would say that if you want to believe that this is evidence of what it looks like, you're going to need to get some people on camera Who are being interviewed by real journalists, and more than one, to ask them what they heard and saw at the moment of the announcement.
Because there's no requirement that witnesses be there.
Did you know that? There's no legal requirement that any witnesses are there during the counting.
It's just an option. So if somebody had wanted to stay, what would happen?
Was there anybody who was a witness who said, hey, I'd better stay because, as a witness, I know that you have to count all these ballots?
I'd wait to hear that before I knew anything about it.
All right. Then, on top of it all, there was the handing off of the thumb drive.
Two of the same people involved in the four who were left and counted votes There's a mother-daughter combo, apparently, shown on video.
And if you've seen the video, you see that the mother seems to surreptitiously hand something small to the daughter who sort of palms it and looks around, you know, holds it close to her and looks around.
And there's another gentleman who walks up to the table looking suspicious.
Of course, you know, your mind is what's making you think it's suspicious, right?
Because it might be suspicious.
I'm just saying that it looks suspicious.
That's all you know. And the guy there stands by the table.
And then after a while, the guy yawns.
He's like, just got to yawn.
And you see the woman who had the item in her hand appears to, but it's on the other side of the gentleman, so you can't be 100% sure, stick something in his pocket.
Now, if it was one of the USBs that had been apparently missing, at least in some of these elections there are alleged USB sticks missing, was this one of them?
Was it being given to a Confederate to go off and reprogram and add or change votes before it was put in the official system?
We don't know. Let me ask you this.
Is there any other explanation for what you saw on that video.
Is there anything else that that could have been?
Any thoughts?
Is there anybody who has a good enough imagination who could imagine what that was?
Can you? What would be some other thing that somebody wouldn't want other people to see that you would surreptitiously Kind of want to hand to one person who might put in a pocket of another person.
Is there anything else that could fit in that category?
Yeah, the answer is drugs and money.
Drugs and money. Somebody said a tampon, but given that the...
Nobody would hide a tampon.
I mean, it's 2020. If it were a tampon, you wouldn't act like it was a crime of the century.
It's 2020. And you wouldn't hand it to a guy to take to somebody, right?
So I would say tampon could be ruled out based on what you saw because the guy was involved and that doesn't make any sense.
Now, is it my opinion that it was not a USB drive?
No. It is not my opinion that it was drugs or money.
It's my opinion that this is exactly the kind of thing that could fool you.
You don't know. It could fool you.
You don't know. Now, I would say that my own...
Oh, somebody said a doobie.
Oh, that was... Yeah. Actually, a joint would be a...
Yeah, that would be...
A joint would be exactly what you would do if the cameras were on and your friend came up and said, hey, you have a joint?
I've been here a long time.
So I guess if you had to compare these two possibilities, what are the odds that somebody would hand somebody a joint...
Without wanting somebody to see that it happened versus a USB drive.
Which one of those is more likely in your opinion?
What is more likely?
Let me ask you this.
How many of the poll employees do you think were stoned during that evening?
So let's turn it around a little bit.
So I don't know how many people end up working at these poll locations.
Is it dozens or is it hundreds?
I don't know the number. But let's say there's multiple dozens of people who know they're going to be working all night at a mind-numbing task, which is just the same thing over and over again a million times.
At the same time, A population which probably has access to marijuana and enjoys it at some level.
What percentage of poll watchers in any of these inner cities, what percentage of them do you think were stoned during the counting and the witnessing?
What would you think?
20%? I would say at least 20% were stoned.
If it was a normal cross-section of Americans, probably 20%.
Because you wouldn't catch me doing that work without being stoned.
Let me put it this way. If I had volunteered to be an election, you know, witness, and I knew I was going to be there for 12 hours overnight or something, Yeah, I'd probably head out to the parking lot for a few minutes and take the pain away.
Pretty sure I would have.
So if you put me in that group, that would be at least one stoned person at midnight.
I don't know how many others were, but some of them were.
So if you ask me does it look suspicious, yeah, yeah.
It looks really, really suspicious that somebody handed off a small object to someone who handed it off in the context of an election counting room.
It could not look more suspicious.
But you know what else looked like that?
Covington kids. So don't believe videos.
Don't believe your own eyes.
You can be fooled. Doesn't mean you're fooled, but you could be.
I guess there's a lawsuit with stronger claims based on the numbers.
And so Trump, joining with one other Georgia citizen, filed this lawsuit.
And here are all their claims of the various things they found.
They found...
So they're not making a claim about the voting machine software.
They're not saying that that's good.
They're just saying we're going to make more ordinary claims in this lawsuit.
So here are all the categories of things they say they found.
People who are not registered to vote, who voted.
People who registered too late after the deadline, still voted.
People who registered but weren't old enough to vote, and still voted.
Convected felons.
That were ineligible to register a vote, apparently voted including people at correctional facilities.
The other allegations are that people voted more than once, allegations that the names of people who are no longer alive.
I always think that's the least important one, because there will always be a few of those, but I just don't think there will be big numbers of dead people.
There's also claims of people who The way they worded it is funny.
Reside within post office boxes.
Because you have to have a real address, not a post office box.
There are people who registered and voted in more than one state.
And that's not legal in either state in some cases.
And moved to another state without re-registering as required by law.
And the claim is that the number of votes affected by all of these categories exceeds the amount it would take to change the election.
Now here's an interesting legal fact.
If you find out that, let's say an election is only off by 100 votes, hypothetically, and then you find that there's some problem or some ambiguity with 101 votes.
Well, that would be enough to change the outcome.
Technically, I guess, you know, 51 votes changed to the other would be enough to change the outcome.
But you don't need to know what the mix of those votes that weren't counted or whatever.
You don't need to know the mix.
You only have to know that there's enough of them that if 100% of them went to one candidate, which of course could never happen, that it would have changed the outcome.
So apparently this satisfies the legal requirement that the court doesn't care to look at something that's too small to matter.
So it's big enough to matter.
Remember I told you that there would be weak claims and strong claims?
I think this is the first lawsuit with strong claims.
I'm not positive about this, but my sense of it is that this is the stuff I was waiting for, the things that I'd heard rumors of.
So it's the data analysis where you can actually look at the names and stuff.
And I think that these allegations are based on data as opposed to looking at actual specific, looking at an envelope.
And I think the purpose of this is to either inject enough doubt that the legal The legal process can maybe change the outcome or to get an audit.
So it might be that they're just going to show that the data suggests all these things happened.
They can't prove, prove, prove it.
It's just in the data.
But to prove it, if you looked at the actual envelopes and stuff, maybe you could.
So I think that they're just trying to get a good audit going here.
But it would be good enough if they won politically as well.
So those are what I would call the strong claims.
I believe also that it is guaranteed that any software-based election system is compromised.
I don't know how much, and I don't know by whom, and I don't even know if it was the Republicans who compromised it or somebody else.
Maybe multiple people compromised it.
It's a guarantee that an election software system will be compromised eventually.
Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but that would seem unlikely to me.
But I don't think you need that because these claims are so many and it's so big.
What would be the word you would use for a collection of claims In which there was, let's say, numerous examples of fraud.
What's the word? It starts with a W. I think there's a spread in the word.
Yeah, yeah, there's some word for a whole bunch of different frauds that if you added them up, they would be so large that it would change the result.
Widespread! Widespread!
That's the word? Yeah!
Widespread. So I would not be surprised to see the official story go from it's baseless.
There's no evidence. It's been proven that there was no fraud.
Okay, it's not proven that there's no fraud, but it's totally baseless.
All right, so there are allegations.
You could argue that the allegations provide a base to look into further.
So maybe not baseless.
Baseless, but certainly there's no widespread.
Okay, you got the Georgia lawsuit.
There's a lot of examples in that, and they would add up to a very large number.
So it's not exactly widespread, but it's not proven.
It's not proven.
Okay, it's not proven yet.
Okay, they've proven it.
You can almost feel where this is starting to go.
I'm still predicting that Biden will take the job no matter what the votes were.
I think at this point the votes kind of don't matter, unfortunately.
All right. What about China?
Pompeo says that the United States terminated five China propaganda protests.
I don't know what they were, but there were five identifiable propaganda programs in the United States from China.
Did China change the election with their five propaganda programs and God knows what and who knows what they've invested in in terms of election machines?
I don't believe any of that stuff.
But let's see what else China's been up to.
So they may or may not have influenced our election outcome.
Well, that's pretty bad, right?
Is there anything else they're doing?
Well, according to Kyle Bass and various reports, China is working with the cartels via China's banks that the government controls, essentially, to launder money for the cartels in their moving of fentanyl to the United States, which is killing, I don't know, 50,000 people a year in the United States, whatever the number is now.
So, Okay, so they're attacking our election system, via this propaganda at least.
Who knows what else?
They're attacking us with drugs, which are killing 50,000 people, and they're doing it both by supplying the fentanyl and then by supplying the money laundering so that the fentanyl business is a good business model for the cartels.
Anything else they're doing?
I wonder if they're doing anything else.
Yeah.
Well, of course, spying is what they're doing.
So China, I feel as if we almost have to stop saying that we're worried about getting a war with China when you're in a war with China.
I feel as if the way large countries that have nuclear weapons...
The only way they will fight in the future is with this propaganda and persuasion because it's a better weapon.
It's not that it's the only weapon you're left with.
It's just a better weapon.
If you're going to attack China, do you want to do it with a nuclear weapon?
Because you'll die five minutes after, well, whatever.
I mean, they're going to kill you too.
So a nuclear weapon, ironically, is the weakest weapon you could have.
Because it guarantees that you die at the same time if you use it against a nuclear power.
But what if you use persuasion against another nuclear power?
Are you just as likely to die?
Actually, you're unlikely to die.
And if your persuasion works, you can actually conquer a country.
It's been done. It's been done.
It's doable. It's way more doable than you think.
And then on top of that, I would add this.
That the social media and the ubiquity of communication now makes persuasion as a weapon a superweapon.
Where persuasion has always been a weapon, and it was always the mass media, at least in modern times.
So it was always powerful.
But the power of persuasion in 2020, it is really weaponized beyond what it was in the 60s and 70s.
And it was really strong then.
So... Yeah, why would you use your worst weapon, which is a nuclear weapon?
You would use your good weapon.
So of course they are.
And we are in a heated war with China right now.
It's just a persuasion war.
But it's a war. It's a war that could topple one of the two countries, and probably will.
The likely outcome of the war is that one of these countries will be pretty crippled.
We'll see if it's us or them, or both.
The Bay Area is closing down.
My county is closing down Sunday, I guess.
So everything fun will stop.
We can't even eat outdoors.
You can't visit anybody.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. We'll get through it.
It just won't be fun.
The Trafalgar Group says that Georgia voters, 53.2% of them, think that the election was compromised.
That's right. A solid majority, 53% seems pretty solid, a solid majority of Georgian voters don't think they had an election that was fair and credible.
A majority. A majority.
That's a big deal.
A majority of the state doesn't think it was legal.
Now, if you are a representative of Georgia, And the majority of your state thinks the election didn't happen, in the sense that there was no fairness to the election, what do you do?
If you represent your state, now you don't have to go with the majority, that's what the republic is all about, right?
The representative can disagree with the public if the representative honestly thinks that doing so is better for the state.
But can you do that?
53% of your citizens say, I don't think this was a real election.
And then you can certify it?
When the majority of your state thinks it wasn't credible?
A majority. I don't know if you can do that.
And still keep your job.
Maybe you can. And only 38% said it wasn't.
So you've got 9% who are unsure, But only 38% of Georgians think their own election was fair.
38%. How do you certify that?
Alright, and then on top of that, Rasmussen says Trump got a 50% job approval rating in November.
How do you lose an election for re-election with a 50% job approval rating?
In the month of the election.
Does that happen?
How often do you lose with a 50% approval rating on election day-ish?
That's pretty unusual.
Certainly room for question.
Alright, now let's do something fun.
I know you don't like me disagreeing with you a lot, so let's go to something that you'll like a lot better if you're Trump supporters, and I know some of you are.
I'd like to give a little scorecard here to the experts versus Trump.
Who has done a better job, experts or Trump?
And the way I'm going to score this is with these three markers.
Orange means that President Trump was right and the experts were wrong.
That would be orange, of course.
Green means it's a tie.
Either the experts were wrong and Trump was wrong, or they're both right.
So it's a tie if it's green.
And then blue would be the experts were right and Trump was just wrong.
So let's see how they do. Because we've all been taught that you should listen to the experts.
And I think that the twist I would put on listen to the experts is this.
You should listen to the experts first.
That's it. So add the word first after you should listen to the experts first.
Then you need to make a decision.
And that may be different.
But you should listen to the experts first.
You don't want to make a decision and then listen to the experts.
Alright, so let's take a look at some of the things.
Now, this is not science.
There's a lot of subjectivity to it.
The thing you should get out of this next exercise is the way of thinking.
So, you know, you might put a different judgment on some of these calls that I'm going to make, some of these grades.
Don't worry so much about that.
Think of it in terms of the style of looking at it.
So, how did the experts do on the question of masks?
Were the experts right or was Trump right?
I'm going to grade that one a tie because the experts said masks were bad or unnecessary before they said they were good.
Trump largely went with the experts.
Some people say he could have been more aggressive about pushing it.
But would you agree?
That nobody was bathed in glory when it comes to masks.
Whether you think that the masks are bad or good is irrelevant to this question, because the experts were on both sides of it.
At one point they said no, at another point they said yes.
So at the very least, they were half wrong.
And Trump, I would say, was somewhere in the same range.
Trump was more compatible with the experts than not, so I'd say that's a tie.
So if you're saying, listen to the experts, yeah, okay.
It wasn't any worse than listening to Trump.
Give it a tie. Closing travel.
Who wins on that?
I'm going to give that to Trump.
Closing travel. He did that before the experts were completely on board.
Yeah, there were some experts who were early.
There are always going to be experts on every side of everything.
It's just the way it is.
But I think you could give that to Trump.
His instincts were right.
How about closing schools?
Trump was blamed for being a bad guy, but now as more information comes out, solidly Trump, because the experts have now come around, Dr.
Fauci, etc., have come around to the closing schools, shouldn't have been as aggressive as it was based on the data.
So I'll give that to Trump.
How about the question of the, remember the initial, it was two weeks to flatten the curve?
And the experts said, all we need is a couple of weeks.
If you'll just bear with us for a couple of weeks, we'll shut down, we'll be good.
Was Trump on the same side as the experts?
I think so. I think he was.
So we're going to give this one a tie.
I think that Trump and the experts were completely wrong about a few weeks of closing down being a solution.
Turns out it wasn't even close.
But they were both on the same side.
They both said, let's try this.
It didn't work. It's a tie.
How about the timing of the vaccine?
The experts largely said, that's going to take years.
Trump said, no, you're going to do it faster.
Watch this. Trump gets the win, unambiguously.
This one's a clean win for Trump.
No doubt about it.
How about remdesivir?
What did the experts say about remdesivir?
The experts said, we think this remdesivir works, at least for critically ill people.
What did Trump say?
Trump believed the experts.
He was sort of on the same side.
He thought, he said this in public, hey, I think this remdesivir is looking pretty good.
Turns out it doesn't work.
It's a tie. Trump thought it worked and the experts thought it worked.
That's where he got it from. He didn't make it up out of his own head.
He believed the experts.
They were wrong on that.
How about the death estimates?
Have the estimates of the number of people who died, do you think the experts were more right or Trump?
This one's a little dicey because we saw some reporting that suggested that what Trump was saying in public Was more rosy than what he was saying, at least to some...
Who was it? The Watergate reporter.
I forget his name. But he did say privately, at least to a reporter, which isn't really private because he would expect that to be reported.
But Trump seemed to be on both sides a little bit.
You know, what he said publicly a little bit differently than what he said privately, maybe.
But what about the experts?
The experts said it might be between 200,000 and 2 million, right?
Woodward, thank you. So Trump did tell Woodward he thought it was bad.
At the same time, in public, he was sort of underplaying it a little bit, some people say.
Who was right on the death estimates, would you say?
Because it's a little murky, but who would you give this one to?
Would you say a tie, or would you say the experts got this right?
I would say the experts got this right.
It's a little unclear, but I'm going to give this one to the experts.
Because the experts did say between 200,000 and a few million in the United States, will that be where we come out?
I think so. I think so.
The experts said if you do nothing, over 2 million.
If you're aggressive, maybe you can keep it down to 200,000.
I think we're going to be in that 400,000 range.
I'm going to compliment the experts on this one.
Now, would you agree that nobody's been rougher And more critical of predictions of anything happening in the future than I have.
I universally mock anybody who thinks they can predict the future with their numbers and their models, right?
But it must be said that they nailed it.
They nailed it. I don't think you like that, right?
Because, you know, people are feeling bad about the experts in some sense.
But I would say that, and let me give you some context.
I used to do lots of financial estimates for a living.
It was what I did for years and years.
So I would have to guess what the budget would be or, you know, what the real number would be compared to the budget.
And I was always predicting. As a predictor, you learn that if somebody says something is between this gigantic range, that that's useful if it makes you act a certain way.
So the only usefulness of the estimate is not to be precise.
The point of an estimate is to tell you to act a certain way.
So if the experts gave us an estimate that caused us to act in the right way, the experts got it right.
And I think they did. They caused us to be really serious about it.
And I would say that was the right answer.
How about hydroxychloroquine?
Here again. What did the experts say?
Well, in the beginning, the experts were a little bit mixed.
There were a smaller number of experts who said, you know, Zelenko and the doctors you saw on TV, etc., who would say, yeah, there's enough evidence to think this works.
President Trump was very pro-hydroxychloroquine.
Time goes by.
What is our current understanding of hydroxychloroquine?
Well, I would say that the experts as a...
I don't know if it's consensus, that's the wrong word, but a majority would say it doesn't work as of today.
That would be still the majority.
But I'm going to throw you a little bit of a curve here.
I give this one to Trump.
And this requires some explaining.
I do not believe that hydroxychloroquine is likely to ever be shown to be like a kill shot that we missed.
I don't believe, so that's just my guess, and I'm not in very strong territory here, but based on the fact that we've gone this far, Without knowing for sure that it works, suggests to me that it either has a weak effect or it doesn't work.
Far more likely.
I'd give it no more than a 10% chance, 20% chance that we missed the boat here.
Now, why did I give it to Trump at the same time I'm saying he was positive about it, but it doesn't look like it works?
Wouldn't that be the opposite, right?
And here's why. This was a Risk management decision.
This was not a science decision.
It was a risk management decision.
There was enough information to suggest it might work.
And if it did work, it would have been hugely important to the entire world.
And if it didn't work, we'd probably know pretty soon, if we went wild with using it, we'd know pretty soon if it didn't work, so we could discontinue it.
But maybe a few people would die, but probably hardly anybody.
So even though Trump probably, this is my guess, will be shown not correct in his, let's say, his instinct or his gut feeling that this was going to be a big deal, I think he's not going to be right about that.
But he was 100% right that we should have tried it anyway.
So this is sort of a weird definition of what it means to be right.
The decision was right, and science was wrong, unambiguously wrong.
But science would have had the right answer, maybe, by luck.
They may have had the wrong decision and lucked into the right result.
That's possible. So you could argue about this one, but let's look at the list here.
So let's ignore the ties, and that gives us...
Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've got sort of a pattern here happening.
It looks to me like the experts are not so dependable, because the only one that the experts were unambiguously right about was the death estimates, at least of this list.
Now, of course, the reason this is misleading is I've cherry-picked the categories that I'm going to look at, For my critics, you are absolutely correct.
If I had included more things, maybe this would start to look differently, etc.
There's one point I want to make, and that's it.
Just one point I want to make about this.
Don't believe the experts.
Here's a rule that's better than just believe the experts, or believe the science, or follow the science.
It goes like this. It depends who you are.
It depends who you are.
If you're somebody who has been listening to experts for decades, let's say a Trump, if you are an expert on bullshit, because you create lots of it yourself, if you're an expert on what it looks like to lie, because maybe you've got a little experience there too, if you lived in this world where you're continually the one who has to make the decision, okay, the experts say we can't build this building here, but we're going to do it anyway, and then it works out.
The experts say if you do this, you'll get sued.
Well, you do it anyway.
Then you don't get sued. Trump has a very long track record of calling bullshit on experts.
I also have a very long track record of calling bullshit on experts.
So if Trump or somebody like me, it doesn't have to be me, somebody who just has a similar amount of experience, Decides to not go with the expert.
That can sometimes be a smart thing.
I've told you lots of anecdotal stories before of times when I have gone against the experts and it worked out really well for me.
And I would say that I wouldn't let everybody ignore science.
If you are young, and you're 25, and you haven't lived a life where you've seen how often the experts are wrong, and you've not developed an instinct to spot it, to pick up the signs when the science is bullshit, maybe you're better off just following the science.
Your odds are probably pretty good if you do that.
If you are very experienced, very experienced, and I put myself in this category, I would say I am a very experienced person in this world.
It's not a compliment.
It just means I'm old, right?
So I'm not saying I'm better than you.
I'd rather be young than experienced.
If I could trade and be 25, I might do it, right?
So it's not like a great deal that you have experience.
It just happened. Let me give you some other examples.
I'm just going to pick some names that maybe you would be familiar with.
And I want you to answer this question.
Should this individual trust science, or should this individual trust their own judgment if it disagrees?
I'll just name some names.
Ilan Omar.
If science says something, should she follow science?
I'd say yes.
Because I don't know her background, but she's young.
And I would imagine she has not had a whole bunch of experience of seeing the experts be wrong and seeing her own intuition be right.
So for her, I think she should follow the experts, follow the science.
How about Mike Cernovich?
Say Mike Cernovich has an opinion.
Most of you know him, so I use him as my universal reference.
It's amazing how many examples Mike Cernovich fits into.
I don't know what's up with that, but he fits into lots of analogies.
If Mike Cernovich said, I don't believe this science, whatever the science is, we don't even need to know what the category is.
Mike Cernovich says, I don't believe this science.
Who do you go with?
The science or Mike Cernovich?
Well, if you've been paying attention, I'd say if you go with the science over Cernovich, You're taking a pretty big chance.
Doesn't mean he's right every time.
Nobody's right every time, right?
But look at that contrast.
Would you trust a young person with maybe less of a skill stack?
How about Alyssa Milano?
I always say good things about Alyssa Milano because I think she's a sincere person who's trying to make the world better.
Maybe not the way you'd like to see it.
But she's sincere and she's trying and she's putting in the work.
I have only good things to say about her.
If she disagreed with the science, whose side would you take?
I think I'd take the side of science.
In that case. Because I don't have any knowledge that would tell me that Alyssa Milano has a deep talent stack where she could maybe use her intuition and her experience to override what the experts are saying.
I'm not sure I would trust her to do that.
How about... Let's see if I can think of somebody else here.
How about... Gosh, give me another name.
Throw out a name that we would all be familiar with and tell me if you think that that person should follow the science or maybe use their own judgment.
Tim Poole.
Now, Tim Poole is young, so he's got that...
Oh, okay, Elon Musk.
There you go. Elon Musk.
Let's say Elon Musk disagrees with some science.
Now, I think we've seen examples where Elon Musk has disagreed with science and science was right.
Right? I mean, those exist.
That's a real thing. But take Elon Musk's talent stack and ask yourself, if you get in a debate between standard understanding of science and what Elon Musk says looks more logical to him, which way are you going to go?
Seriously. Which way are you going to go?
Would you put your own money on the science?
If it was your own money and you had to bet, would you bet on Elon Musk if he disagreed with science?
That's a tough one, right?
But you see my point. The only point I'm trying to make, Joe Rogan, another good example, I feel like he would be somebody who could pick up some bullshit pretty easily.
Right. Yeah, these are good examples.
So, here's another one.
Peter Thiel. Do you think Peter Thiel can spot bullshit?
Yep. How about Warren Buffett?
Warren Buffett.
Do you remember what Warren Buffett said with all those derivatives and those financial instruments of mass destruction?
Warren Buffett said, this is all bullshit.
He was right, right?
The whole financial market was wrong, and Warren Buffett was right.
If Warren Buffett tells you that there's some piece of science, or if Bill Gates, if Bill Gates tells you there's some science that's wrong, who are you going to believe?
Would you just dismiss Bill frickin' Gates if he disagreed with some element of science?
I wouldn't. I wouldn't.
I wouldn't assume he's right.
But I sure wouldn't dismiss it.
So my point is this. The point is, don't take the bumper sticker advice that you should follow science or not follow science.
It depends. It depends.
If you're a person with lots of experience, and you have a track record of going against the science and winning, and I certainly have a long track record of that, maybe take that into effect.
I would argue...
That history will look very kindly on Trump.
And that the longer time goes by, the better Trump will look.
And I think that that's just going to go on and on and on.
And I think that his best days are actually ahead of him.
Which is weird, isn't it?
Because all of the day-to-day fight, once that is behind us, you're just going to remember that he did stuff like this.
You're going to remember that he did this Operation Warp Speed and it looked impossible.
You're going to see that he did something in the Middle East that looked impossible.
You're going to see that he got elected and it looked impossible.
You're going to see that he cut all of these regulations that people said, if you do that, it's the end of the world, and he was right.
And it's just on and on and on.
You're going to see all these cases where all the experts were against him, And he was right.
Now, will there be some cases where it goes the other way?
Yeah, yeah, there'll be some of those cases, that's of course.
There'll be cases where he's wrong.
Yeah, North Korea, experts said, don't do that, that worked out.
History is going to frickin' love this president.
And honestly, and I said this from the day he got elected, I said this, and I continue to say it, he's not The perfect person to serve two terms.
I prefer it.
If I had a choice, I'd rather a second term of President Trump.
I worry about Biden, especially if they got the Senate.
I think that'd be a pretty big problem.
But he's a transformational kind of character, and I feel like the system can handle one term of somebody that powerful.
You just sort of need a break after one term.
And maybe the country...
Got a tremendous amount of value.
And Joe Biden is going to run into a wall.
And the wall is going to be that Trump did stuff that looks like it works.
Somebody has prompted me to talk about Ellen Page.
So Ellen Page has some kind of interesting gender thing going on.
There's a story about, I forget, either she's designating herself...
As what, masculine as opposed to lesbian or something?
So she's got her own opinion of how to talk about herself.
My take on all of the gender stuff, the trans stuff, etc., I probably am not compatible with most of your opinions.
I'm extremely pro-LGBTQ and pro-trans.
And I'm pro-them.
Not just okay, not just, hey, they should have equal rights.
I'm pro. Because I like living in a world where people can sort of plot their own path and they don't get stuck in buckets.
I don't have to be like you, and if you were born with a different situation, you've got different preferences.
I want to live in a world where you can do what you need to do.
You make your choices, I'll make mine.
So I'm assertively, aggressively pro anybody who wants to be different and is trying to figure out how to make it work.
I love you extra whenever that's the case.
All right.
That's all I got to say about that.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
All right.
Those periscopers are gone, YouTubers.
Let's see, your comments are going by so quickly.
Let me see if I can see a few.
It's the end of man.
I don't know. Do I really have coffee in my cup?
Yes, I do. Why do you think Biden will take office?
I think Biden will take office because The courts don't just look at the law.
The courts also look at stability.
And even Alan Dershowitz, I think, agreed with this general statement.
It's not a statement about a specific case or anything.
But in general, the Supreme Court and the higher courts are going to look at what's good for society, even though that's not their job.
It's not the job of the Supreme Court to tell me what's good for me.
It's their job to tell me if something's constitutional or not.
But the reality is that they do both.
That they're humans living in a human system and they act like humans.
And that's why you don't want robots to do that job.
I want a Supreme Court that will break its own rules.
I know you don't, but I kind of like it.
And when I say break its own rules, I mean only in an emergency.
Only if they have to.
Not in the normal course of business, of course.
But if it's to save the country, if it's the difference between the country collapses and it doesn't, I want the Supreme Court to keep the country together.
That's the higher mission.
And I would not push back too hard on anybody who disagrees and says, you know, it's just the Constitution or nothing.
There's no wiggle room there.
I have sympathy for that.
Opinion, but I still appreciate humans acting like humans, which is, sometimes you've got to bend a rule.
So, rules are rules.
Well, you know, again, I appreciate an impulse to want to follow the rules and everybody be in the same rule book, unless it's going to destroy the whole country, in which case, maybe you've got to be flexible.
Export Selection