Episode 1219 Scott Adams: Forensic Audit of Voting Systems, Hypnosis to Change Sexual Identity, The Great Reset
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden's throat clearing (a cold?) during speech
Liability issues for small businesses if customer gets COVID?
Rapid, cheap home COVID tests...why not?
The Great Reset...global desire for more socialism
Dominion forensic audit results...68% adjudicated
Solarwinds hack, who did it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
Best time of the day for most of you.
And if you'd like to enjoy it to its fullest extent, I mean, really, really enjoy it, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, sistine, a canteen jug, 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything except solar wind software better.
It's called the Simultaneous Hip.
It happens now. Go! Somebody says, where is YouTube?
YouTube is live.
It's live at the same time.
So I hope your week is going better than mine.
If I seem a little down, I'm not having the best week, to say the least.
But I'm going to try to raise my spirits for you.
So there's a story that there's a filter that's made for astronaut urine.
That could soon be providing drinking water to Earth.
That was the headline in CNN. So it's some kind of an amazing filter that you can put urine into it.
Astronauts have been using it, and it just turns it into clean drinking water.
But I have some questions.
When it rains, will you be able to tell how much is the regular rain and how much is coming from the International Space Station, if you know what I mean?
I feel like we need to know that.
Sweden has disappointed us quite a bit.
Poor little Sweden, early on in the coronavirus, seemed to be some kind of a weird exception that made it look as though all of our worst fears were exaggerated.
Because Sweden didn't lock down as aggressively as other places, and even though their death rate was high, They seem to have gotten through the first wave not too badly.
But it turns out that the second wave, not so good, and Sweden is getting crushed in terms of rate of infections compared to Europe.
So, can we say now that Sweden was a mistake?
Are we at a point where even the skeptics will say, okay, lockdowns work.
And okay, I guess the social distancing and the masks might make a difference.
I'm looking at the comments.
Not yet. We're not ready to cave on that yet.
Well, how about the fact that nearly 300,000 Americans will die from coronavirus?
Are you willing to give me that it's not just the flu?
Anybody? Anybody who thought it was just the flu?
Any revised opinions after 300,000 people dead?
Or are you still on the view that they were all misdiagnosed and they died of something else?
Well, we know that if you've seen around on Twitter, there were some tweets going around saying that the net death rate was actually down.
And it turns out that the way you arrive at that Conclusion that the net death rate is down is by using the wrong data in the wrong way.
But if you don't do that, the death rate's way up, and it's coronavirus.
But you've probably seen that tweet, did not pass the fact-checking.
Took about a minute to get debunked.
President-elect Joe Biden gave a speech.
Was there anybody dumb enough to watch it?
Imagine the last time you heard President Trump was going to give a speech.
Didn't you automatically say to yourself, oh, I wonder where I'll be.
Maybe I'll listen to that.
Could be interesting. But what did you say when you heard that Biden was going to give a speech?
Did you say to yourself, well, that's appointment TV. I'd better set my alarm.
I'd better get over there and listen to that.
Well, I do this every day, talk about politics, and even I couldn't get interested in his speech.
I thought, well, if anything happens, I'll see it on the highlight clip.
But apparently one of the things that happened is he was clearing his throat a lot, and he said that he's battling a slight cold.
Now, does that sound true in the age of coronavirus and in the age of everything else?
Well, let me ask you this.
Joe Biden has been socially distancing and wearing masks.
How did he get a cold?
Where'd the cold come from?
I mean, I'm just kidding, but if he was really socially distancing, does Jill Biden have a cold?
Because if he didn't get it from Jill Biden, what's he doing when we're not watching?
Maybe he only goes down into the basement for his videos.
I don't know. But I'm glad he doesn't have coronavirus, but how do you catch anything if you're socially distancing?
You'd have to work at it, I think.
But he pulled it off.
And when I say that Joe Biden has a bit of a cold, I mean possibly dying.
Same thing. You give a guy that age a bit of a cold, Well, you know, start writing the obituary, because he's at that age where he could be taken out by normal respiratory problems.
But we hope it's just a cold.
Quite a coincidence.
He has a raspy throat during a coronavirus situation.
I gotta say, I don't know I've met anybody who's had a cold since the coronavirus started.
Let me ask you, have you seen a lot of colds in your house?
Since the coronavirus started, I believe I haven't seen any.
I've seen some allergies.
Somebody says he got it from sniffing hair.
In the big news, you may have heard that Pornhub is deleting all of its unverified content.
I think the idea there is that they're cracking down on Sex trafficking and underage stuff.
So there's probably a good base for that.
But there was a tweet on this topic from Steve Hassan, PhD.
And he's an expert on cults.
He writes books on cults.
And he said this about Pornhub.
He says, I hope they are deleting all hypnosis videos.
What? I watched two videos, says Steve Hassan.
To convince people they were another gender.
What I saw was highly sophisticated mind control.
Detransitioners pointed me to them.
So according to Steve, there are videos on Pornhub, or unless they've been taken down, that would convince people they were another gender.
Do you think...
Now, the first thing you have to ask is, Steve Hassan is an expert, he's written books, he's a PhD, written books on cults and cult indoctrination and getting out of cults.
But is he a hypnotist?
I don't know. I don't believe he's a trained hypnotist, but I am.
So if I were wondering about this question, I would ask me, is that possible?
Can you change somebody's gender with hypnosis?
And if you could, could you put it in a video and put it online and it just changes people's genders?
The answer to that is nope.
No, you can't.
You can't change people's gender.
Or, in other words, you can't change people's mind about what their gender is.
That's not a thing.
What you can do...
If somebody was interested in doing that, those videos would probably make a difference.
But you have to start out wanting to do it.
Nobody wanders into the site and says, hey, I wonder what this is.
Let me click on this and just sample it for a few minutes.
I'm just curious. I certainly don't want to change my...
I am now a woman.
Okay, that's not happening.
But it is true.
That people might want to fantasize about that or make it happen anyway.
Those videos might make a difference.
But no, you will not be accidentally hypnotized to be another gender.
Let me say that with complete certainty.
That's not a thing.
Now, you can change people's preferences.
So if they wanted to indulge in this content, they could change their preference and then anything's possible.
But the nuance of knowing that it can't change you unless you wanted that change is pretty important.
All right. I saw online that the New York Times has not covered the story of Representative Swalwell and the alleged Chinese spy that he allegedly had a close relationship with.
And I'm thinking to myself, how in the world does the New York Times just not cover it?
Maybe that could be not true.
So somebody might fact check that and say, oh, they covered it.
So I guess I shouldn't assume that's true just because I saw it on Twitter.
Here's something you don't see in the news.
What is the thing that's most holding up the coronavirus relief kind of packages in Congress?
And the answer is, the biggest issue seems to be the question of whether businesses would receive some protection from being sued should they not do things right with coronavirus.
The Democrats want to change nothing and allow people to be sued.
The Republicans say you can't ask people to open up business in a pandemic At the same time, they can be sued if anybody gets a virus.
So here's what's missing.
Where are the news programs where people who understand both sides of that issue, just the liability issue, where are the news programs where those people are on and they're being interviewed and the person interviewing them, let's say on CNN or even Fox, hears the argument.
Because I keep waiting to hear the argument.
I have a bias, because I used to own small businesses, so my bias is I'd like to see protection so they can't get sued.
To me, it makes perfect sense.
But if there's some gigantic problem with that that's holding things up, my question is this.
Why are we not seeing that debate?
Why are we just saying it exists?
Well, that's what's happening.
Congress is having that debate.
It exists that they disagree.
I feel like we need to get involved with this, right?
Are you telling me that the public should not be pushing Congress for this?
Because here's the problem.
I don't think Congress is the right entity to make that decision.
Congress is the right entity to make lots of decisions.
It's designed that way.
But when it comes down to this question of personal risk, I just don't know that Congress can do it, because they don't want to make a mistake.
So it's a situation where whichever way you go, it's going to be a mistake.
If you say that the small businesses are protected, it's going to look like a mistake, because sooner or later somebody's going to do something so egregious that you wish they had been sued.
But if you go the other way and say, all right, you can sue, it's going to happen.
And then small businesses will be put out of business for largely things that they probably couldn't control.
So you've got two ways to lose, and there are only two options.
So how can we expect Congress, who needs to get re-elected, to sign up for either thing, either to keep it the way it is or to sign up and put their name on changing it?
Because both of those things could cost them their job.
So it turns out that Congress is just the worst tool for this decision.
But the public isn't.
The public, if we had, let's say, a 75% opinion that businesses should be held faultless, I think Congress would have to do it, right?
So, have you seen any polls on whether Congress should go with limiting the liability or not?
Have you seen a poll on that?
I don't know if there have been polls on that, but I haven't seen one.
Wouldn't you like to know if 75% of the country was on one side or the other?
Because if 75% of the country is on one side, I don't know which side it would be, actually, then we should be pushing Congress to just do what we need them to do instead of having them try to make that decision.
Never work. So Amazon, turns out they bought a startup with a self-driving car, I don't know why Amazon's getting into the self-driving car business, but I'm sure it's strategically smart because they tend to be.
And this one's different because it won't have steering wheels and it won't have any way for a human being to control it.
It'll just be a pure self-driving car.
So if it goes where it's not supposed to be, you can't take the steering wheel.
And it would be like a taxi.
The company name is Zoox, Z-O-O-X. And here's what's interesting about this.
If you told me that Amazon should stay under the hardware business, I would have said yes about that.
I would have said, yeah, Amazon, stick to your selling stuff online.
You're pretty good at that.
But then they invented their digital assistant, the A-L-E-X-A, that I won't say out loud because I have them in the house.
That piece of hardware impresses me every single day.
It is sensational compared to, let's say, S-I-R-I on your phone.
That's just sort of a novelty or a toy.
But Amazon's version of the digital assistant, and maybe Google's too, I haven't used that, but Amazon's version is really, really good.
So much so it's like having a Star Trek computer in your home.
I talk to it all day long.
I order things through it.
It's transformational.
So if you tell me that Amazon isn't the right company to make a self-driving car, I say to you, they might be.
They might be. I mean, I wouldn't bet against them after seeing the Alexa.
And maybe their play here is that if the car is self-driving, you need to do something while the car is moving.
And what are you going to do while the car is doing its thing?
Well, you're going to read, right?
You're going to look at some content.
You're going to watch a movie. Maybe you get it from Amazon.
So there's probably some way for them to tie this car to their service.
And this is why I predict that inevitably you're going to see these big companies Building homes.
Because if a big company such as an Apple or a Google could build a home and the only catch, let's say it's free.
They'll build you a home and it doesn't even cost you anything.
It's just free. And the only catch is that all of the services that support the home have to be bought from them.
So you'd have to get your energy from them, your Wi-Fi, your insurance maybe.
So you'd just have to get all your services from whoever gave you the shell of a home, and then they could give it to you for free.
And I think that might be what's happening with this taxi thing.
Rasmussen is reporting.
They did a survey and they found that 52% of likely U.S. voters think that many news organizations ignored the Hunter Biden story To help his father's campaign.
So that's over half of the likely voters believe that the media rigged the vote by what coverage they did, especially on the Hunter Biden thing.
Over half of the country thinks that the media rigged the election.
Think about that.
And only 32% disagree with that.
So here's a...
I don't know if this is new or a story or not, but a bipartisan, and the bipartisan part is important, energy package just got attached to the omnibus spending bill.
So omnibus means it's a big comprehensive spending bill, and they attach to it this little energy package that has provisions to boost, and here's the fun part, I'm just quoting from this tweet, to boost green technologies such as advanced nuclear power.
So with no caveats, people are talking about green technology being advanced nuclear power.
So the administration is putting this in the bill.
It'll probably get passed. And they're also looking at energy storage and carbon capture.
Now, if you read my book, Loser Think, you know that carbon capture is a big deal.
And there are a whole bunch of ways to do it where you can turn it into products and goods...
So you don't just capture and bury it, you can capture it and use it in a variety of ways.
So it feels as though the Trump administration, assuming Trump is still there to sign off on this thing, was doing maybe some good stuff on advanced nuclear power, at least funding the research, and maybe Biden will do more of it.
But it looks like here's the biggest news in the world.
The biggest news in the world...
Is that you can write a tweet and say, green technology such as advanced nuclear power.
You can write that sentence in a tweet in public, green technology such as advanced nuclear power, and people will just read it and go, yeah, that sounds about right.
Do you know how big a deal that is?
That's the bigger deal than anything in the news today.
You know, even if our elections were stolen and I don't know.
This is like the biggest deal in the world.
Because the climate change, Green New Deal thing, even if you don't think it's exactly as scary as the proponents of that view do, you'd have to admit it's a gigantic issue.
Whatever you think of it, it's gigantic.
It's going to determine the fate of the Earth, etc.
And now the biggest problem looks like it's solved.
The biggest problem was psychological.
Simply understanding that advanced nuclear energy was a green technology and what else?
It's a green nuclear technology and the only technology that a lot of smart people say could do anything about climate change in the long run.
Because the other technologies have their hiccups and problems and limitations.
It's a big deal.
Alright. I would say the most impressive thing about our election system is how amazingly poorly designed it is.
Because think about a system where the system, by its nature, is subject to massive different ways to do fraud.
So it's not even like there's just one way to do it.
There might be a dozen or 25 different ways to cheat in an election.
So you've got a system that's amazingly transparent.
I'm sorry. It's amazingly...
It's got holes in it everywhere.
So it would be easy to cheat if that's what you wanted to do.
You might get caught, but it would be easy to do the cheating.
And at the same time, We have a system which guarantees there'll never be enough time to look into any allegations of cheating.
So this is by design.
Our system, including the Constitution and all the ways we vote, these are systems.
And by design, this is the freaky part.
It's not an accident, meaning that we know we did it.
It's an accidental outcome, but we designed it.
And it's doing exactly what anybody who looked at this design would say, oh yeah, that's guaranteed to happen.
And here's what it is.
We're guaranteed to have fraud because there are so many ways it's possible.
And the upside potential for getting away with cheating on an election is gigantic.
So if you have a situation where it's possible and the upside potential is through the roof, it's going to happen every time.
Guaranteed. But normally you'd still be okay Because eventually you're going to catch it, and once you catch it, the people who might do it next time are going to say, wow, they always catch this.
Why would I do it again?
But we've designed a system with a compressed window.
And our courts don't want to get involved because our system keeps the courts a little bit of a distance from what the states want to do in their own state.
So you don't really have a court that's designed to handle the problem.
You don't have a timeline that's long enough for the judicial system to handle it and produce a penalty that would make a difference for the next time.
And it's guaranteed fraud.
It's really a perfect design If you didn't want to have a fair election.
Let me say it in a different way.
If you were going to start from scratch to design a system that is guaranteed to have massive fraud, guaranteed, no way around it, guaranteed, how would you design it?
Just like this. You'd make it complicated.
You'd make sure that there were not lots of ways that you could be detected if you cheated.
And you'd make sure that it's not transparent, so you don't have witnesses in all the different places that you could cheat.
And then you'd make sure that there was not enough time to find fraud.
That's how you design it.
You would make it like that from scratch, exactly like the system we have.
It's designed... Maybe accidentally.
But I'll say the design is such that the fraud is essentially guaranteed by the design.
You couldn't not have it.
Jim Cramer of CNBC. You all know Jim Cramer, Mad Money.
And I guess he's going to have a guest on his show, or unless it already happened, Michael Mina, who is the biggest name talking about these rapid, cheap coronavirus tests.
The part that the public and maybe the government fails to understand is how less sensitive tests or less specific tests could get you a better result than more accurate tests.
And the reason that people can't understand it is that people are not good with statistics and probability and risk management.
We're just not good at it.
So if I say to you, why don't we introduce these tests, they're less accurate than the other tests we already have, you're kind of done with the conversation, aren't you?
We have good tests, and you're saying you'd like to introduce some tests that would be widespread and not accurate?
Isn't that the worst of everything?
It's widespread and not accurate?
I mean, what could be worse than that?
And the answer is, you don't understand risk management, or statistics, or decision making, if that's your view.
Because here's the real reason that the less sensitive tests are the way to go.
You could test yourself every day.
If it misses it once, it picks it up the next day.
You spent $5 instead of $2.50.
People who wanted to test could do as much as they want.
80% of the time they'd get the right result.
Although I've heard some rapid tests that might be in the high 90s accuracy.
Don't know about that yet.
And the point is, if you have enough inaccurate tests, it's way better than having not enough, wait three days for your response, accurate tests.
Now, Why is it, and this is the mystery that I've been wondering, why is it that the administration has not, they of course know about the idea, because I can vouch for the fact that the idea has reached the administration.
I guarantee that.
So they've heard the idea.
What they haven't done is said, we don't like the idea because of X. Apparently the FDA has some problem with these tests.
That I don't quite understand, maybe has something to do with reporting requirements, etc.
Not a good reason.
But if the government knows about these tests, what are the two possible reasons that they are not implementing them?
Number one, that this Harvard-trained expert and all the people he's talked to are wrong about the thinking of That would be one reason not to do it, right?
That Michael Mina is just wrong.
He's thought of it wrong.
He did the risk management wrong.
He's not wrong about how accurate the tests are or how much they would cost.
But one reason not to do it is he got something wrong.
What is it? We haven't even seen a counter-argument.
To my understanding, there has never been A counterargument.
There are simply people who don't understand it.
Now here's the powerful part of this.
Jim Cramer is not normal people.
The reason he has this gigantically successful show is that Jim Cramer has a special skill.
That he brings to the show, which is risk management.
Statistical understanding on top of lots of financial and TV things.
He's got an amazing talent stack.
But a big part of the talent stack is that he can look at a complicated situation With lots of risks and possibilities, and he can analyze that better than you can.
That's why you watch him for his stock picks.
And I think he's probably the exact right person on the exact right topic.
Because if you're in the administration and you see Michael Mina talking by himself, you might say to yourself, well, I don't know, nobody's mentioning it lately, maybe it's not a thing, but if you see Jim Cramer talk to him and endorse it, I don't know if he will, but let's say he does,
you'd say to yourself, oh, I don't know much about Michael Mina, but I've been watching Jim Cramer forever, and if he says this is the way to go logically, just common sense, logically, Risk management, statistically.
If he says this makes sense, suddenly I take it seriously.
So there might be something very important happening here.
It has to do with the fact that Kramer can put a seal of credibility on exactly this kind of thing, even though he's not a medical guy, because it's not really a medical question, ultimately.
So we'll see if that makes a difference.
I don't know. Maybe he's already been on the show.
Could have already happened. Let's see.
Let's talk about the Great Reset.
I didn't want to do it, but I decided to Google it this morning and look into it.
And the Great Reset is basically two words for what people already wanted to do.
And what people already wanted to do, and of course, not all people, but the people who use this phrase, what a lot of people wanted to do globally, not just in this country, is have more socialism.
So if I could simplify the Great Reset, it is, hey, let's introduce more socialism in more countries.
The idea being to help the people at the bottom strata.
That might require taking money from the richest, but there are a number of ways to do the Great Reset.
The details of the Great Reset are less important than the fact that the people who want more socialism are saying, hey, let's use this crisis as an opportunity.
Now, there are two things that they want to use as their opportunity.
Hey, it's a coronavirus.
Let's do more socialism.
But also, hey, it's climate change.
Let's do more socialism. Now, the coronavirus did cause more socialism in the United States, right?
We just printed money and started sending it out.
So that's as socialist as you can get, in my opinion.
But let me ask you this.
If you take away the words Great Reset, just the words, what's different?
Do you think that the people who wanted socialism were not looking for every excuse to say, well, we got a solar flare, so I think we need more socialism.
It looks like there's going to be a war, so a little more socialism.
It's going to be a virus, how about some more socialism?
Climate change, I want a little socialism.
So I don't think there's anything different.
It's just a word put to what People want it.
Now, is it true that the coronavirus will accelerate that?
Yeah, because it happened already.
We saw just checks being mailed down.
And people getting free health care, at least in part, free vaccinations.
So yeah, we're way more socialist than we were a year ago.
So, saying that there's something that will cause more socialism is different.
From saying, I've got a plan.
Watch me release this virus so I can have some socialism.
But it's not really the socialism I want.
It's really the power.
But here's the problem with the theory that the real point of the Great Reset is power.
Yes, socialism consolidates power.
It does have that element to it.
It gives the government more power.
But for whom?
If there were somebody running for office and also wanted the great reset, you could say, ah, they're saying it because if that great reset happens, they're going to get elected because they're associated with it.
But how would Klaus Schwab benefit from one of the guys pushing the great reset?
How would somebody who's not running for the highest office benefit?
Yes, there might be more control, but the people who would have the control are not the people promoting it.
So why are people promoting more control for other people?
That doesn't even make sense.
So if you dig even this much into the Great Reset, it looks like they're just putting words on things that are going to happen anyway because society changes.
All right. Here's...
So Banzai Sharma had a long tweet thread that I retweeted, and you should look at it.
And it starts out by saying the biggest real problem with our voting system is not only that we've got these voting machines in almost all of our states, But with relatively few exceptions, I guess. But we have a system that's not only universally similar in states, but it rigorously defies fraud detection.
I love that phrase.
Our election system rigorously defies fraud detection.
It does. It looks like it was designed to not show you the fraud if it happened.
It looks like it was built that way.
It's so bad. But here's some things going on.
The Georgia Secretary of State announced that an audit of voter signatures on absentee ballots will happen in Cobb County.
Now, of course, everybody said, why Cobb County?
That's not the bad one.
Why don't you do the ballot count in the county that there are allegations there was misbehavior?
I don't know if Cobb County was even one of the ones somebody had to question about.
But anyway, so all they're going to do is check signatures.
I assume they'll find some amount of fraud.
I assume that they won't be able to prove how much it is because they're only looking at a sample, and therefore you can't always generalize that sample.
And therefore the courts will say, so what?
Yeah, you found a bunch of fraud.
So? The courts don't care, so does it matter that there's going to be an audit of voter signatures?
I mean, maybe for your curiosity, but whatever.
All right, here's the good story.
It's the one you're waiting for. There was a forensic audit of Dominion voting machines in Michigan in one county.
And here's the result of the audit.
All right. Now, I'm just reporting what I heard.
Okay, that's it.
I'm just reporting it. Remind me to talk about Patrick Byrne in a minute.
Somebody's prompting me.
So what they find is that 68% of the votes that went through the voting machine went to adjudication.
So that means that they feed a bunch of votes into the machine, and 68% of them were bounced as it needs a person to review them.
68%. Do you know what is the allowed error?
Way less than 1%.
So the amount that would be acceptable, given that nothing is perfect, by contract, way less than 1% would be acceptable.
They had 68%.
Way, way less than 1%.
Not even close to 1%.
They had 68%.
Okay. 68%.
Allegedly. Alright, we'll get to that.
Now, what happens when a ballot is adjudicated?
Well, we found out because we saw a video on it.
So what happens is a separate machine lights up if something was not proper in the vote counting.
And then you can see the ballot and it comes up and the operator can put anything they want on that ballot.
Yeah, I really said that.
The operator who sees the adjudicated ballots, the ones that have some question about what the voter intended, all of those votes go to somebody who sits at another computer, a separate computer, it comes up on screen, and then they can change the votes to whatever they want.
And nobody's watching. Just whatever they want.
So they could take all 68% of those votes, just change them all to Biden.
And do you know how easy it would be to get away with it?
It's 100% easy.
Nobody's watching. And do you know what happens when they looked for the logs so that they could look at the actual record of what happened in 2020?
The 2020 log is missing.
Oh, they've got the 2018 log still in the machine.
Oh yeah, they have the 2016 log still complete, still in the machine.
Only the 2020 log was deleted, and it was deleted the day after the election.
And every vote in there that went through adjudication, allegedly, was unmonitored.
Now, These are the same machines that allegedly are in widespread use.
And one of the things that disappeared with the log that would have told you what happened with this machine was the indication of whether the internet had connected to the machine at any point.
So the thing that would have told them if the internet had ever been connected to that machine, at least during the voting process, that log is missing.
Wasn't missing in 2018.
In fact, it's still there, right on the disk.
Wasn't missing in 2016.
Now, what do you think about this?
And then the analyst who looks at it, he says that this is not an error.
So it's not a bug.
He said he can look at the code and he can see that the code was written to create 68% errors.
It wasn't a mistake.
It's right there in the code to create the errors that aren't real errors.
So... So let me say this.
If this is true, this is, you know, cracking times 10.
It's all you would need to know, really.
You wouldn't even need to know if it happened.
You would only need to know this is a thing.
If this is a thing, that the adjudicators are getting tons of votes...
And nobody watches what they changed them to.
If that's real, the election is just garbage.
But is it real?
Is there anything about this story that you find unsettling?
So turn on your skeptic mode now, right?
I know you want to believe this is true.
You do, don't you?
You want to believe this is the Kraken.
You want to believe this forensic analyst Nailed it.
You want to believe badly if you're a Trump supporter.
But just work with me a little bit and turn on your skeptical filter and tell me, is there anything wrong with this story?
There we go. Somebody nailed it.
A little too on the nose, right?
A little bit too on the nose.
Meaning, the story's a little bit too good.
And by a little bit too good, I mean way too good.
Way too good to be true.
Now that doesn't mean it's not true.
But if you had to place a really big bet on this one, you should bet against it.
Sorry. That doesn't mean it's false.
I can't tell. I don't really have any independent way to know if it's true or false.
I'm just telling you that if you ever hear a story that sounds like this one, and you don't know anything yourself, you've just heard this story, if it sounds like this one, bet against it.
Like you, I join you in saying, I would love to know if this is true.
Because if it is, There's one other tell here that the analyst says the code is intentional.
Do you think that these voting systems would include intentional code that was obvious when you just looked at it for fraud?
Or in this case, obvious code for creating adjudicated ballots for no reason?
Do you believe that that's really there?
That you could just look at the code And you could see a cheat code and you could tell their intentions just by looking at the code?
Well, maybe.
Maybe. There's nothing that would rule that out that I'm aware of.
But you've got a story that's really a little too perfect.
A little too perfect.
And you've got somebody who might be doing a little bit of mind reading, because you can tell what the code does, you can't tell the intention of the person who wrote it.
You think you can, but you can't always.
Now, you could be speculating correctly.
You could be speculating that that's the reason the code is there, and maybe it is.
Maybe that's exactly why it's there.
But I'll betcha. I'll betcha.
That when the makers of this software respond, they will tell you a story of a reason that that code exists that will be plausible.
Probably. Now that doesn't mean their plausible explanation is true, but I'll bet you're going to hear a plausible explanation.
I'll bet you will. So wait for that.
We'd like this to be true because it'd be fun, but who knows.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of this morning, Google has not told us what caused the massive outage.
Is that true? Still true as of this time of day.
It was true when I woke up.
So I think if Google does not tell you what caused their outage, you have to assume it's probably this hack, this hack.
This wind, what is it?
Solar wind thing.
Now here's a question for you.
I've read stories that associated the hack with China, but those were not credible.
And now it sounds like the New York Times is saying that the hack is Russian.
Does that feel a little bit convenient?
That it's a Russian hack?
Here's my question.
Is Russia the only country that's good at it?
Are you telling me that China isn't good at hacking?
Because why is it that Russia is the only one who breaks through?
It feels a little too neat to me.
So then here's the question.
How do we know? How do our intelligence people know?
Because that's who we're telling us.
So I guess the US intelligence people are saying they think it's Russia.
Keep in mind that 50 U.S. past and present intelligence professionals also said the Hunter Biden story was Russian information.
I guess I was informed that they didn't use the word disinformation.
They're saying it's Russian information, sort of assuming that they're playing fast and loose with what information means.
Do you believe...
That the same intelligence agencies, who 50 of them believe that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian information, do you believe that the same class of people can tell you who hacked this software?
I don't think that's a thing.
Now, if there is a hacker out there who actually has experience, like a real, you know, super experienced hacker, who wants to disagree with me, I will listen to that.
But I'm not going to listen to ordinary people who don't know more than I do, which is not a lot, about hacking.
Tell me that we can always tell where a hack comes from.
Because I don't think we can.
I don't think that's a thing.
I think that often you can tell.
I wouldn't rule out the fact that there are times when you can tell.
That seems reasonable.
But are you telling me that Russia...
Or China? You tell me they don't have the ability to hide the source of the hack?
I'm not a hacker, but I don't believe that things can't be hidden.
Prove me wrong. There's a story out of Great Britain where unconscious bias training is being scrapped for civil servants.
So I guess in England, or just England I guess, you had to take unconscious bias training to find out how much bias you had that you didn't even know about.
And apparently after doing it for a while they decided there is no evidence that this makes a difference and there's a little bit of evidence that it makes things worse.
So that's in England.
I don't think that's going to happen here.
I think over here we'll be doing more of this, not less of it.
But England decided to go without.
Scott, why aren't you talking about Russell Ramsland Jr.?
Remind me who Russell Ramsland was.
I did read him.
I think that's another...
Russell Ramsland...
Who is he? Rams.
Because I know that's a real story.
And I remember seeing it and ignoring it.
Oh, that's a state official.
Oh, he slams a report on the votes.
So is he the one who did the...
Yeah, I just talked about that.
Why are you asking me to talk about that?
I just got done with that. Oh, Patrick Byrne.
So Patrick Byrne, who had been the CEO of Overstock, he's no longer, I think, but he has a story that the FBI asked him to work on a sting for a bribery of Hillary Clinton.
The credibility you should put on that story is zero.
Zero. Unfortunately, Patrick Byrne has a credibility problem.
Yeah, zero. Now, again, people can be non-credible, but they can be right sometimes.
So I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm just saying that if that's your only source, zero.
Zero. All right.
Talk about bar.
You know, I haven't talked a lot about Barr, but I'll give you my layperson's opinion.
I think he was great, honestly.
I was looking at the comments from Democrats who were saying that he lied to the country about the Mueller report, to which I say, did he?
Did he lie about the Mueller report?
Because I don't think so.
I think he handled the Mueller report just right.
Now, should he have told us more about Hunter Biden's laptop before the election?
Not if he's doing his job.
I feel like he should not have told us that, even though I wanted to know, even though it would have changed the result.
I feel like there are some lines that you just don't cross, and that feels like one that should not have been crossed, and I would respect him for not crossing it.
I respect him for being good with working for the president, and if there are people not being prosecuted for, I don't know, the Mueller report origins or whatever, it's probably because they don't have the goods yet.
So I don't have any problem with Barr at all.
That's just me. But he didn't tell.
Excuse me. Sorry about that.
He didn't tell the President or Congress.
Well, that's to keep it from leaking.
It's the same issue.
And if he had told Congress, it would have leaked.
And I don't think that would be fair.
He quit before he could be fired.
Possibly. Thank you.
All right. The child of a candidate.
Blah, blah, blah. All right. Look them up when you have time, somebody says.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Alright, I think we've covered everything, haven't we?
I think we have. That's all for today.
I will talk to you tomorrow.
And you YouTubers, Alright, you got any questions for me?
Some of you trust bars, some of you don't like them.
What's your one sentence explanation for socialism?
Sharing versus competition.
That's it. Why was my week so bad?
Well, you might find out someday.
But today's not the day.
Oh, I'm feeling well.
I mean, I'm healthy. You know there's some times when you have an unbelievably bad week, like so bad you can't even believe it.
