Episode 1424 Scott Adams: Good Stories About Dumb People. Also Known as Politics and Social Media
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
COVID vaccination risk evaluation
Banned from Olympics for marijuana?
Raw Story hit piece
Alex Mehran accuses me of being racist
Allen Weisselberg's handcuffed perp walk
Arizona election audit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day.
Coming to you live on both the Locals subscription platform with no commercials and also on YouTube where you may be watching some commercials unless you're a subscriber.
Now, I know that some of you are thinking, hey, what's wrong with this live stream?
It could be better in some way, but I'm not sure what.
Well, let me tell you how to make it better.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen jug 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, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, but it's going to happen right now.
Go. That's good.
So, welcome to another day of my critics completely misinterpreting things I've said and then shredding me for their imaginary imaginations.
There was probably a better word to finish that sentence, but I didn't have it at the moment, so put a tack in that.
Alright, let's talk about the news.
Every now and then, somebody does something right.
My mic is not already right.
Now, how many times have I told you that the secret to success is simplicity?
And that if you add even one element of extra variable to the live stream, the failure rate gets to, it's like 30%.
And logically, that doesn't make any sense, right?
Logically, you say to yourself, well, wait a minute, just adding one variable, just one thing you have to push, another button to push, that's it?
Just one variable.
And you have a 30% failure rate?
Trust me. One variable will give you a 30% failure rate.
That's my experience.
So I'm now streaming on two platforms and had only one microphone on.
Other times I forget to turn on, I don't know, the power here, plug this in, whatever.
I guess I need a checklist.
All right, but that's enough of that.
So here's some good news.
Britney Spears, as you know, she is subject to a conservatorship, so she can't make all of her own decisions.
Her father, plus a professional company that signed on to be sort of a control for her father, so that there would be two entities, not just her father, they just resigned.
So the professionals who were going to be the balance to sort of balance out her father, the courts that allowed that, they just said, no, we just listened to Brittany say she doesn't want to be in a conservatorship.
So they frickin' resigned.
And I'm thinking to myself, that was exactly what you needed to do.
That was exactly the right thing.
Rarely do you see a company act perfectly.
And this is so clean because this is a company that if your whole job is to do conservatorships, the last thing in the world that you want is to have this kind of publicity where you're doing a conservatorship and a famous person says, we don't want it.
You know, I don't want this at all.
So this was very smart of them to bow out and to give their reasons.
And their reasons were very clear, that the subject of the conservatorship didn't want it.
And that's all they needed.
Oh, you don't want it?
Okay. So I have a suggestion for Brittany.
Well, it looks like she won't be able to get rid of her conservatorship entirely, so her dad's in charge.
And it looks like this trust didn't want to do it because she was not in favor of it.
Brittany, I would like to make you an offer.
So Brittany Spears, I know you always watch my live streams.
Okay, probably not.
But somebody might tell you about it.
And that's just as good.
And Brittany, here's my offer.
I will be your conservator.
I will be a very lenient conservatorship, meaning that all you have to do is tell me what you want and I'll give it to you.
It's your damn money.
I'm not going to keep your own money from you.
But I do have a degree in economics.
I have an MBA. And I have some appreciation for the celebrity lifestyle, you know, in a little bit.
My tiny little corner compared to Brittany's.
But I would be an excellent choice to be your conservator, either in place of your dad or even working with him.
I could work with him.
I'm very persuasive.
So if you need your dad persuaded, I think I would be a good choice for that.
I'm very, let's say, independent and would only want what's best for you.
So, Brittany, if you can get your lawyers to appoint you a new conservator, Keep me in mind.
I'll do that job for you like crazy.
Alright, the economy is doing great.
The economy added 850,000 jobs in June.
It was more than what people forecast, the smart people.
And even though the unemployment rate ticked up, we'd rather have more people going to work.
And the employment rate is based on who says they're looking for work, etc.
So it's a little bit disconnected.
So, let's check some of our predictions, shall we?
I'll talk about one of my predictions that's getting a little controversy in the last 24 hours.
But let's go with this one.
I take you back to a time a year ago when it looked like maybe the entire economy was going to melt down.
And I told you it's not going to happen.
All right? So I was one of the stronger voices saying that the pandemic wasn't going to take down the economy, it wasn't going to take down the food supply, and that we would pull out of it strongly in actually an impressive fashion.
How close was I? Would you say that the economy did pull out of it?
We did not run out of food.
We fed everybody. We took care of people.
We developed vaccines.
And damn it, we're pulling out.
Pretty impressive. Now, that was my prediction.
My prediction is that the United States would be the United States.
You know, the rest of the world is still struggling, and I'm not minimizing that.
But betting against the United States in a crisis?
Who does that?
Seriously. If you have a crisis, who are you going to call?
The United States, right?
It turns out that there's some things the United States is bad at, of course.
There's some things the United States is really good at.
We're really good at this.
We are really, really good at crises.
I guess we've had a lot of practice.
But if you're going to bet against the United States in a crisis, you're taking a bad bet.
Just remember that.
So there's interesting news about vaccinations, right?
And I have a question. So apparently Germany is, I guess, the first country to say you should mix the vaccinations.
So, for example, if you first got the AstraZeneca, the Oxford AstraZeneca, they're now suggesting that your second dose be a different vaccine.
So you'd get one dose of the Oxford AstraZeneca, maybe a second dose of the Moderna or the Pfizer.
And I'm not sure if all of them could be mixed, but the basic idea is that some of them can be.
Now, here's my question.
According to Rasmussen, I believe of the people who are not vaccinated, 50% of them don't trust that the experts are telling them the truth about the risks.
50% Of the unvaccinated people believe that the experts are lying about the risks.
That's a big problem.
Well, it's a big problem if what you want is to get people vaccinated.
And it's a big benefit if you think you want them not to, I suppose.
But here's the thing.
Suppose you were one of those people who said, I think there are risks of the vaccination.
But I also understand, and I think most people would agree with this, that there are probably some protective values, and you would have to weigh the protection from the virus against the risk that you took a vaccination and the vaccination had a problem.
Now, Some people have decided that the completely unmeasurable risk of the virus, because you don't know exactly what your personal risk is, is maybe not as high as the impossible-to-measure risk for you personally of taking any vaccination.
So the first thing you need to know is that we don't know either of those two things.
You might have some general idea about what the risk is from the virus, because there's lots of data.
We don't believe it all, but there's lots of data.
But do you know your risk?
Because you're not the average, right?
So if you're trying to calculate you specifically, what is your risk?
It's uncalculable.
Nobody really knows their risk.
I mean, you could say some general things like you have comorbidities or not, but you don't know if you're going to get it.
And you don't know if your genetics are the kind that will have a good outcome or bad.
You could say if you're a kid, you're going to be safe, probably, below a certain age.
But still, for most of us who are in that should you or should you not get vaccinated, you don't really know your risk.
So you don't know the risk that you're protecting against, but you also don't really know the long-term risk of any vaccination, right?
So you have two risks that you can't possibly measure, and you're trying to compare them.
Comparing two blobs that you can't measure.
How do you do that? Well, I don't know.
But I would submit the following.
And I'll put it in the form of a question.
Because if I make it as a statement, I think I get kicked off of social media.
So I'll put it in the form of a question.
The protection you get from mixing the two vaccinations seems to be an improvement from maybe 70-something percent to maybe 90-something percent.
Something in that range, right?
Something like 80s to 90s, something like that.
That's the extra protection.
So that feels like a number that you can make a decision with.
But do you double the risk of a side effect?
In other words, are the people who would have a certain reaction to one vaccination exactly the same people who would have exactly the same reaction to any of the vaccinations?
Because that doesn't seem likely, does it?
It feels to me that if you had two different vaccinations without being a doctor and without being a medical professional, I'll put it in the form of a question.
Wouldn't that double your risk?
So I don't know how big the risk is of a problem if you actually get the vaccination.
I imagine it's pretty small.
But doesn't two shots double it?
And if we're trying to be informed citizens, making up our own minds about our own bodies, etc., shouldn't they say that?
Shouldn't somebody tell us directly?
Look, it'll double your odds of a complication, but, and here I imagine this is what they would say, the odds of a complication are so small, the doubling hardly makes a difference.
Now, I don't know if that's true, but that would be a thing you'd expect them to say if the officials were being legitimate at all.
I hear some people say it's gene therapy, not vaccination.
I don't think that that is an accepted description of what's going on.
I don't believe that the experts would agree with you that it's gene therapy.
But I'm not the experts.
I just don't think that you're on the same page with the people who know what they're talking about.
Just follow the science, right?
Which is impossible.
All right, so we got that going on.
So there's an American sprinter who probably would have been in the Olympics and maybe even won a medal.
But it looks like she's in trouble.
Her name is Shaw Carrie Richardson, and she was born a woman, I think.
So that's something you have to add to these stories.
I'm pretty sure she was born a woman, and is still a woman.
And she was going to do well.
But she tested positive for cannabis.
So she had some marijuana.
And she might be banned at least for a month or whatever, so she won't be able to be in the Olympics.
Now... Does that seem right to you?
Is there anybody here who thinks that an Olympic athlete who smoked a joint should be banned from the Olympics?
Because remember, she probably smoked a joint legally, right?
Didn't break any laws.
And would she be banned from the Olympics if she had had a drink recently?
Can you drink alcohol?
Which is legal.
And still be in the Olympics?
I think you can. But you can't have marijuana, which is probably legal wherever she did it.
And you get banned?
Where is Joe Biden on this?
Right? This is something that if Trump were president, you know, he wasn't pro-legalizing marijuana as far as I know because he never did anything about it, which I consider a failure, by the way, a big failure of the Trump administration, a really big one, and I've criticized that forever.
But I feel as though Joe Biden, or if it had been Trump, need to do something about this.
Because it doesn't seem right to anybody.
I think you need a presidential level person to say, look, can you just change this rule?
Let's just change this rule and let everybody compete.
Because it's not like marijuana is going to be a performance enhancer.
At least not directly.
I suppose it could help your workouts, but I don't think that they think of it that way.
All right, so that's deeply unfair, and I would like to see either the Olympics canceled because they're a big old waste of time, or if you're going to do them, don't let this African-American woman who worked all her life to get to this point, don't let that tiniest of mistakes derail her.
We don't want that.
Nobody wants that. All right.
So Biden is following up on Trump's lead of getting out of Afghanistan.
And I guess part of the reason is that Trump had made some agreements that Biden was trying to follow, which I think is actually a reasonable thing to do.
And so once again, we see Biden doing nothing but following what Trump would have done.
So are you happy you got a different president if he just keeps doing all the things that Trump would have done?
But at least we're getting out of Afghanistan.
It looks like the Taliban will take over fairly quickly, and then we'll just go back to where it was.
Now, one of the arguments for getting out is that the moment we get out, it looks like the Taliban will take over.
After 19 years of training people...
In the government to run a proper government?
Nineteen years and all those billions?
And the government can't stand for more than a few months if we pull out?
Well, that means we shouldn't have been there because we were the only reason for the government existing.
So that can't be a long-term solution.
So there's a different topic.
There's some stories about Kamala Harris's office environment being abusive.
And people are impolite and abusive.
Now, who do you think started that rumor?
Do you think that rumor was started by the Republicans?
Maybe, right?
It's possible. But I have a feeling that there might be a Democrat who wants to run for president who may have started that rumor, or somebody associated with a Democrat.
It feels like an insider thing.
Because I don't think there was a Republican in the office, right?
So it was probably, you know, Democrats gossiping, etc.
So it looks like there might be some Democrats who are trying to take out Kamala Harris by starting these rumors.
By the way, it's one of those rumors that you kind of believe because you're prejudiced.
You know, you see Kamala Harris and you say to yourself, she looks exactly like the kind of person who would be mean.
Doesn't she? Now, Now, of course, that could be sexist, because if it were a man, would I be saying, oh, that man looks tough, so get over it?
You know, it's like Trump. Oh, yeah, Trump's tough.
You should have known that when you took the job.
Get over it. Of course, it's a harsh office environment.
But when it's Kamala, because she has a certain personality that you imagine...
All that laughing like a hyena doesn't happen in private so much, and that maybe she's kind of mean.
But I feel like I might be just being sexist.
Check me on that.
Do you have the same feeling?
And are you being sexist when you say it?
Would you judge a man the same way?
I don't know. But at least I'm asking the question.
So I get points for that.
I give myself points.
So as I told you before, Rasmussen is going to report that 32% of the people they polled believe health officials are lying about the safety of COVID-19.
Keep in mind that the way this is worded is that they're lying.
Not that they're wrong, Not that they're mistaken.
32% of the people polled by Rasmussen think the public health officials are intentionally lying.
Wow! And it's half of the people who are unvaccinated think that.
So how many people are being killed by the fake news?
How many people are being killed by the way the public is informed?
Because the public has lost all faith in our professionals, the professional class.
And whose fault is that?
Is that Trump's fault for calling everything fake news and for not passing the fact check?
Or is it the news's fault for being fake news?
Or is it the science's fault for having so many missteps that people stop trusting them?
It's somebody's fault.
But that's a shocking number of people who think they're being lied to.
Let's talk about me for a second.
You may have seen something on social media in which...
Yes, it's all my fault. You may have seen something on social media.
There's a couple stories on Raw Story and Bongo Bongo or Boing Boing or something like that.
So one year ago or so, I predicted that if Biden is elected, there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year.
So that's what I said a year ago.
If Biden gets elected, there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year.
I was talking more about Republicans here.
And then separately I said that Republicans will be hunted.
Now, my critics are shredding me today.
That's their word.
They're shredding me because of my bad prediction.
But like most things, they don't really understand what's going on here.
So let me explain to my critics.
Number one, if you say there's a good chance of something, what does that mean?
Let me give you an example.
If you go into a crime-ridden neighborhood, there's a good chance you'll be mugged.
If I said that, if you go into this crime-riddled neighborhood, there's a good chance you'll be mugged.
What would that feel like, percentage-wise?
Would a good chance of getting mugged feel like more than 50% chance?
90% chance?
Or would you say to yourself, well, wait a minute.
People don't generally get mugged, even in criminal neighborhoods.
Probably 10%.
Right? So, subjectively, you could put a pretty wide range on that, based on the situation.
You'd say to yourself, well, most people don't get robbed, even if it's a dangerous neighborhood.
Most people don't get robbed.
So, a good chance of getting robbed would look like 10%.
Right?
If I said, if you get a motorcycle, there's a good chance you'll die on it.
What would you translate that to in your head?
There's a good chance you'll die if you get a motorcycle.
2%? 5%?
You wouldn't say it's over 50, right?
You would put it in the context of motorcycle riders, and you'd say to yourself, well, how many of them die?
1%? I don't know.
So maybe you're saying it would be 2%.
But my critics have decided that when I said there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year, That instead of putting that in context of perhaps it increases the chances of violence against Republicans, let's say, they've decided that that really meant there definitely will be a slaughter and that I personally will be dead in a year.
Now, that's not even close to what I said, but it was enough for the raw story, an alleged publication, to write a story about how wrong I am.
But... How can you be wrong with statistics?
If I were to say there's a 30% chance of something happening and then it doesn't happen, was I wrong?
It doesn't work that way.
If I said there was a 75% chance of something happening and then it doesn't happen, am I wrong?
Because 75% is a pretty big number, right?
No. No, I'm not wrong.
If I said something is going to happen, such as I did say with Trump's election, I didn't say the odds of him getting elected.
I said, it's my prediction.
He'll get elected. Now, if I get that wrong, I'm just wrong.
But if I tell you there's a percentage chance of something happening, and it's not 100%, and then that thing doesn't happen, I'm not really wrong.
So my critics demonstrate this weird thing that people on social media especially exhibit, which is a binary mindset.
These are the same people who look at building a fence on the border and say, well, wait a minute.
If one person could conceivably climb over the fence in the right situation, fences don't work.
To which I say, ah, no, fences aren't supposed to stop every person.
They're supposed to make it harder, stop a lot of people, put a little friction on it, right?
So it's the people who don't understand friction or percentages or risk management.
They're sure that I made a crazy suggestion, and there are at least two articles on it.
But there you go.
Now, Now let's take it down another level.
When I made that prediction, what do you think was my purpose?
Those of you who have known me a while, what do you think was my purpose in saying that if Biden is elected, there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year?
Why did I tweet that?
Was it to make a good prediction?
Somebody says publicity?
Hmm... Yes and no.
I mean, everything I do publicly, you could argue, is for publicity.
To deter it from happening.
Thank you. Yes, the purpose of it is to make it less likely.
Because if you put it out there, people have to wrestle with it in their heads and then take it seriously.
And then maybe adjust in some way.
So putting it out there was sort of a way to warn people that there was something brewing to maybe take the edge off it.
Under that context, am I wrong?
No, I got exactly what I wanted out of it.
And some would argue that Republicans have been hunted, but not in the violent way so far.
So one of the benefits of having a bad memory is that I can be surprised by things that I already knew about.
This morning I got up Pretty early and started work.
I guess I got up around 2.30 this morning.
I hate sleep.
Have I ever mentioned I don't like sleeping?
So I got up and I was watching a video called The Accidental President.
Have you all seen it?
The Accidental President.
It's a documentary about Trump's election.
And I'm watching this thing and, you know, doing some work at the same time.
And I hear this voice that sounds really familiar.
And it's me. So it turns out I'm one of the stars of this movie, the documentary.
So I'm one of the people that they interviewed, and I had a number of clips on it.
I'd recommend it. It's really good, actually.
It's a fun romp through that time and what people were thinking at the time.
So check it out.
It's called The Accidental President.
All right, here's my funniest story for today.
All right? I've been laughing about this for a while.
So I was alerted to a video.
There was a Zoom meeting.
So a number of people were on the Zoom call.
And one of the people was the CEO of Bishop Ranch, which is a big...
Corporate building complex here out in San Ramon in California.
Now, that's where I used to work.
So my old cubicle, when I worked for the phone company, was in this complex that is owned by this Alex Moran.
That's his name. Sunset Development Company.
And so here's a little background.
So some time ago, I guess it was last year, I was asked if I could work with the property managers in this building to build a display of Dilbert Comics to sort of call out the fact that Dilbert was born in that building, in the sense that that's where I was working when I got syndicated, and that it was sort of a historical point of interest that my cubicle had been in that building.
So they'd asked for permission to build a display in a hallway in which there would be a whole bunch of Dilbert comics blown up and maybe some biographical stuff about me, etc.
So I was called and they said, would you like to work on this with us?
To which I said, no.
Nope. And they said, but it's an honor to you.
It would be good publicity and all that.
To which I said, no, not interested.
Now, is that my fault?
Am I a bad person?
Because I wasn't interested in putting in work to build a monument to myself?
Did anything about that seem inappropriate or even unprofessional?
I would say a person not wanting to work for free to build a monument to himself for the benefit of a corporation you don't care about Would be fairly reasonable.
Because what they were asking me to do is a good deal of work for a corporation I have no financial interest in about something I didn't want to happen in the first place.
I didn't want it there. I would prefer it not be there.
But because I didn't want to be a total jerk, I said, I'll tell you what, if you can make me not do any work...
You can deal with my syndication company who have the rights to stuff.
And if they approve the comics, just go ahead and do what you want.
It's fine with me.
So whatever you want to do, it's fine with me.
So time passes, and I see photographs that the property manager sends me, and it looks great.
It's like this hallway.
They've blown up these Dilbert comics, and they've got some words about it and everything.
It was a great thing.
Well, time goes by, And I'm alerted to this Zoom call, as I said, with Alex Moran, who's the head of the Sunset Development Company, and he tells the following story about that event.
Number one, he described me as, quote, hard to work with.
Is that fair?
Am I hard to work with because I didn't want to work for free For the benefit of a corporation that I don't care about and have no interest in, to build a monument to myself.
That was considered unreasonable.
Hard to work with.
But wait, it gets better.
Are you ready for the good part?
After they'd installed it and done a ton of work, somebody told Alex Moran that I was a racist.
And so they took it all down.
They had to remove the entire hallway exhibit that they'd done all that work for, for months, because somebody told them that I was a giant racist, which Alex Moran repeated on this Zoom call that I saw.
Now, is anybody aware of me ever being accused of doing anything racist?
Can you think of even an example?
And I'm talking about an example even that I would maybe disagree with, but even an accusation.
Have you seen any accusation in public, in private, anything?
So it's not as if there's even a story out there that's fake news.
I've never even been accused.
Not even close.
Can anybody think of any example where I've even been confused with...
Well, I've been confused with...
But I'm not even a Republican.
Right? I'm not even conservative.
I consistently say that I identify as black...
I've worked on reparations.
I've backed what's-his-name for kneeling.
I've worked with Black Lives Matter.
I'm working on the single most important systemic racism problem there is, which is school choice and the teachers' unions.
I don't think you could have much of a better record Of not being racist than I have.
It'd be hard. No matter whether you're a Democrat or Republican, it would be really hard to have a better public record of not being a racist.
So this poor bastard, Alex Moran, spent all of this money, and they built this whole exhibit, and then because he's a gullible fucking idiot, he had to rip it all down.
Somebody's saying I should sue him.
Now, it's funnier that he wasted his money.
And sooner or later, somebody will point him to this video.
And Alex, let me talk to you personally, because you'll probably see this clip.
You're a fucking idiot, Alex.
Whoever told you that I'm a racist, do a little bit of research.
Just a little bit.
You wasted your fucking money, you idiot.
All right, so that's that.
So the Trump Organization's legal problems seem to be ratcheting up as the CFO, Alan Wieselberg, actually got handcuffed and taken to court.
How do you feel when you see the CFO of the Trump Organization handcuffed and taken to court?
Number one...
Did they really need to handcuff that guy?
I mean, I'm sure it's just some kind of a rule that they always have to do it or whatever.
But seriously? Seriously?
That guy needed to be handcuffed?
That's just wrong.
That's just wrong. Next, apparently they're going to plead not guilty and I don't think he's going to jail.
Maybe, but I'll doubt it.
So we'll see. Apparently, Arizona voting strength, well, depending on your point of view, Arizona had some rules to, they call it, strengthen their election security, but of course the critics call it racist, and it's just a way to keep poor and black people from voting.
And The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republicans.
And basically, I guess the idea is, as long as you're doing something that has a legitimate value to tightening up security, it's not going to matter that much if it has a racial impact, because pretty much everything does.
Everything it does has a racial impact one way or another.
But as long as you're doing what you were supposed to do, which is strengthen the security of the system, I guess you can get away with that, according to the Supreme Court.
And where do we get to the point where voters actually make a difference?
Have you noticed that the actual voters don't seem to have any role anymore?
Because as long as the presidential elections are kind of close, and it looks like that's going to be that way for a while, it's all about the rules.
Well, that's it. It's about the rules.
Who gets to decide what the rules are of who votes and how?
That's the only thing that changes the election now.
Now, the Democrats did a great job of maximizing the pandemic crisis and getting rule changes that work for Democrats.
But now the Republicans are on to that trick.
So it looks like they're tightening up in those states that they can do that.
And it's not about the voters at all.
The voters are irrelevant to this process.
It looks like the Republicans will just use the court system to create a situation in which...
Probably Republicans will win the next election.
Somebody says, Matt says, not true.
Give me more, Matt.
Give me more than not true.
They've been cheating for years, somebody says.
Well, how many of you, let me ask you in the comments, we're still waiting for the results of the Maricopa County audit.
How many of you believe that the Maricopa County audit will show massive voter fraud such that you could easily imagine it changed the election outcome?
How many of you at this point are predicting that that will happen?
In the comments, the Maricopa thing, will it change your mind about anything?
So I'm seeing lots of people saying yes.
50-50. Well, most of you say yes.
What will you feel like if you're wrong?
Because I think you know that...
Yeah, some of you say no and no chance.
So my prediction is that if they had the goods, we would know about it for sure already.
At least in concept, we'd know about it.
But the fact that we haven't heard about anything yet...
I don't think so. Now, I have two things to say about that.
Number one, I don't think that they're going to find anything with the way they audit it.
But number two, has anybody ever audited the software or the databases?
Is that even a thing?
Is the biggest place that you could potentially have a problem, which is within the context of the technology, has anybody audited that?
And how do you audit that?
Is it even doable? In other words, do the records exist in a way that they could be audited?
I'm just looking at your answers.
Matt says, in 2042, the Maricopa audit will be continuing.
Yeah, so maybe the audit will just go forever or we'll never hear about it.
So Matt Brainerd said to expect something big.
You know, I made the mistake of thinking that when Rudy Giuliani said that they had the goods, that they had the goods.
Because I thought to myself, Rudy Giuliani, he's got, you know, a reputation and lots of credentials.
He's not going to make a claim that's ridiculous in public.
But it looks like he did.
The same with Sidney Powell.
I said to myself, well, she's got a reputation to protect and she's a very high-level, smart person, etc.
She's not going to make a claim in public that she can't back up.
Just a ridiculous claim.
But it looks like maybe she did.
So when you say to me, Matt Brainerd says we're going to see something big, my impression of Matt Brainerd is that he's very capable.
And very credible.
But I also thought that about Rudy Giuliani.
And I also thought that about Sidney Powell.
So do I learn?
Can I learn from my mistakes?
Because somebody said, you'll be dead.
RLB, did you miss the part where I called people like you really stupid?
You probably came in late.
But the people who can't read well believe that I predicted that we'll all be dead.
The people who know how to read see the words, good chance, and understand that there was a chance of it that might have been greater.
So, stop reading the raw story and boingo, boingo, or whatever the hell you're reading.
The new grift is something big is coming.
Why did Rudy and Sidney do it?
Good question. I'll give you a hypothesis, but I don't know what percentage of confidence I would put on it.
My hypothesis is that both Giuliani and Sidney Powell believed that there was something to find.
So that's number one. So if you believe there's something there, you're more likely to imagine you saw.
So cognitive dissonance probably was at work, but not the whole story.
I'm guessing that they were fed some fake data.
That somebody who wanted to embarrass them told them some stories, especially the ones about Venezuela controlling the machines or some damn thing.
And I think you remember that when I heard those stories, I said, okay, those stories are definitely not true.
And at least up to this point, it looks like they were not true.
But I did think that given all the different pieces of evidence they claimed to have, I figured they had something.
I mean, that was a reasonable assumption given the people involved.
But there's still a little bit of a mystery as to why they were so strongly sure that they had the goods, and we have not seen that yet.
So Robert Barnes stated that they were fed BS. Yeah, that's what it looks like.
That's what it looks like.
Because that's a real thing. I mean, there is precedent for feeding people bad information to make them seem less credible when they get good information.
All right, some of you think the Arizona audit will rip the fabric of reality.
Maybe. Maybe.
I'm going to bet against that.
All right. The evidence that they were focusing on was too on the nose.
I hear the locals clicks through Scott's mic.
What does that mean? Okay.
That's all I got for now, and I will talk to you on YouTube tomorrow, and I'll spend a few more minutes with the locals people before I go.
