My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
New info on Wuhan lab leak
China has a reckoning coming
Alexander Vindman's pro-level persuasion
CNN in full panic over President Trump
President Trump and DOJ Rosen
Dominion won't release their code
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I've been working with the local subscribers here trying to work it out, and somehow, magically, it's all working out.
So if you can hear me, then something worked fine.
Thanks for showing up.
Now, you missed the first part of the presentation where I send this over to my email.
Does it seem like I'm not prepared today?
I had massive technical problems.
Oh, fuck me. All right.
Bear with me one moment.
Oh, fuck me.
I swear to God. Have you learned that just trying to use an application is like you have to be a hacker to get into your own account?
Now I've got like multiple sign-ons and they've got to text me and they've got to change my password and fix my settings and update my software.
Every fucking time I want to use an application.
My God! This stuff is so fucking broken.
Like, just to use any application, I've got to, like, search my records for the last sign-in.
I've got to get a new password.
Something's out of date. I can't fucking just turn on an application and just fucking use it.
Jesus. All right.
Sorry. Didn't mean to take the Lord's name in vain.
So here's what we're going to do.
Since I'm locked out of some other fucking account that I use every day, for no fucking reason, that just happened overnight...
I'm going to be looking sideways to get my notes.
Do I seem like I'm in a cranky mood this morning?
Does it feel like maybe I could explode any minute?
Oh, Charlotte says to please explain my Jesus sign to those who don't understand.
So over my shoulder, if you're listening on audio, there's a little sign that says, Jesus, King is, the audio is fine.
Now, it only says that because I've got yellow sticky notes over parts of the words on the original sign.
And let's just say the King part was the last part of a word that started with F. So I got rid of the F-U-C part.
And I didn't like taking the Lord's name in vain here on the live stream, so the is, the I-S, used to say Christ, but I got rid of the C-H and the T. So I just turned it from a very vulgar sign into a very polite one.
Jesus King is. Sorry I didn't think I was going to get YouTube working today.
All right, let's actually talk about some content.
I'm very happy that the Olympics is on.
And a couple of highlights today.
So I'm not going to talk much about the Olympics, but there are some really good highlights, some good news.
Number one, the American women's soccer team lost.
I don't know about you, but I was sort of rooting for them to lose.
Do I not understand how the Olympics works?
I'm not supposed to be rooting for my own country to lose, right?
But I kind of did. I kind of rooted for them to lose because of the kneeling.
You know, the whole point of representing your country, if you're not going to do that, if you're not going to represent your country and you're going to kneel for the national anthem or something, I'm all for that.
You're welcome to have your protest, and I have no problem with that whatsoever.
However... However, I also have the right to root against you.
So I was kind of happy that the women's soccer team lost because they don't represent me in a way that I'd want to be represented.
Now, number two, the other best story is that New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, she made history because she'll be the first openly transgender female athlete to compete at the Olympics in weightlifting.
So Laurel Hubbard...
Transgender athlete is in the Olympics, and I find this a highlight of the Olympics, personally.
Now, I know some of you may be purists in saying to yourself, hey, this is ruining the sport.
It's unfair to, I don't know, biologically naturally born women.
Is that offensive?
I've lost track.
So if that's offensive, it wasn't meant to be.
But I love this story because, first of all, what's the point of the Olympics?
Well, nothing, really.
I mean, the Olympics had a purpose in the olden days, but they don't really have any purpose now.
It's to sell advertisement or TV spots or something.
I don't know. It doesn't really have any purpose, in my view.
The Olympics don't. But they are entertainment.
Now, be honest.
What do you find more entertaining than The skiing and shooting competition.
The jumping up and down in weird ways competition.
The leaping over things competition.
The running fast competition.
Which one of those is entertaining?
Maybe not any of them.
But can you tell me you're not entertained by a transgender athlete coming into the weightlifting and winning everything?
Come on. You could have lots of feelings about that, and that's a separate topic.
But it's definitely entertaining.
So let's have that.
So there's new information on the Wuhan virus leak hypothesis.
Who lost?
Oh, she lost already?
The transgender athlete already lost?
Well, that ruins everything.
I think I might want to see some blood tests of whoever beat the transgender athlete.
Might want to see a little blood test there.
Just saying. So anyway, the Wuhan leak has some more information that makes it look more like it was a leak.
So first of all, they had a leadership change at the lab in 2019...
Oh, yeah. There's something missing, isn't there?
Oh, my God.
Do you realize I leapt into this without the simultaneous sip?
Yeah. It's pretty, pretty bad at me.
But never too late.
Never too late.
And if you'd like to enjoy this to the maximum ability that you can muster, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the YouTube app.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip, and watch it happen now.
Go. Well, for those of you on YouTube, over on the Locals platform, I'm watching a commenter who has put a picture of a cat eating a banana.
And if you think that's not entertaining, well, you're so wrong.
Cat eating a banana, entertaining every time.
All right, the Wuhan lab.
So here's some things we found out about the Wuhan lab, apparently.
One is that there was a management change in 2019, which suggests maybe there were some problems.
They had to change management. Number two, there was a proposal out to fix the ventilation two years after the ventilation had been put in new.
What? So there might have been some problem with the ventilation that they were aware of at just about the wrong time, if you know what I mean.
Apparently there was an increase in Google searches on COVID-19.
How did it even have a name?
COVID-19 had a name before it had a name?
And people were Google searching it before you ever heard of it?
I don't understand that part of the story.
And there was a bunch of activity around the lab at about that time, and no intermediate species have been found that would suggest that it came from a natural species.
And then also a couple more experts have told you We're good to go.
Now, I've told you before that sometimes I hear things before you do, and I can't give you examples because then I'd have to tell you how I found out about them and stuff.
So trust me that sometimes I hear the news a year before you do, like literally a year before you hear it.
Something like a few weeks into the pandemic, at the very beginning of the pandemic, I had a long phone call with one of the smartest people who knows about this kind of stuff.
And that smartest person showed me a satellite picture of the Wuhan lab and said it came out of there, in all likelihood.
Nothing proven, but it was too coincidental because it was sort of across the street from the wet market.
So long before the news was reporting anything, I was looking at a picture of the Wuhan lab on a Google map and being told by somebody who was really smart, this is where it came from.
At the same time, I asked the question, could you make this virus look like it was natural if it had been bioengineered?
And the person that I talked to said, oh yeah, definitely.
You could definitely make it look natural.
So that's what I knew...
Like, months and months before it was in the news.
And, you know, I'm not unique in that way.
So there were plenty of people who knew what was going on.
But here's the weird part.
Why did it take a year, I think it felt like a year, maybe it was just months, for experts to say that it could have been engineered and you wouldn't know the difference?
Why did that take so long?
I mean, I knew it probably a year before it was public knowledge.
And Scott, once again, being a narcissist.
So one of the weird things about narcissism is that narcissists think other people are narcissists.
I don't know if you knew that, but that's one of the traits, is that if you are a narcissist, you project.
And so you see other people as narcissists, and whatever problems you have, you just see them in other people.
And I've come to believe that a lot of my critics...
Are just narcissists.
And the problem is that they're pretty sure their right can never be wrong.
If I say something that disagrees with anything that they believe, there's got to be a problem with me.
And the way you can tell that it's narcissists as opposed to just critics...
Let me give you a contrast.
So today, if you saw any of my Twitter tweets, you saw people saying things about me, such as, Scott must be either bought off, compromised, bought into the narrative, or afraid.
And those are the only explanations for why my opinion might be different from, let's say, my critics' opinion.
The only reasons. There could be no other reasons but that I've been bribed or I've got some kind of problem going on.
Or I can't admit I'm wrong or something like that.
Now, let me contrast a conversation I had with an economist who is not a narcissist, and it went like this.
Scott, in your analysis of the risks of the vaccines, blah, blah, blah, you forgot one very important variable.
And I asked for a clarification.
And the economist gave me the variable, and then I said, good point.
I should bring that up.
The point was that in the short term, your risk of the vaccine, vaccination is, you know, there's one risk for the vaccination, but since you didn't have to get the vaccination because your odds of actually getting the virus in the short term are almost nothing...
So that short-term, long-term way that I was framing things was missing a big variable.
Now, when an economist who is not a narcissist gives me a criticism, I say, well, what facts are you looking at?
What argument are you looking at?
It's presented to me.
And then I say, oh, good point.
And then just like I did now, I tell you that my argument was flawed and that I corrected it.
That's how two people who are not having any kind of mental difficulty have a conversation.
Oh, you forgot this variable.
What is this variable? Oh, good point.
I've now changed my opinion to incorporate that variable.
Now, what does it look like when a narcissist comes after me?
Does it look like, oh, Scott, you forgot a variable?
Have you considered this in your argument?
No. Never.
Never. It's always some assumption about me personally being broken in one of a variety of ways.
Is that what's going on?
Now, I'm clearly as broken as anybody else in my own ways, right?
Everybody's fucked up.
If you think there's somebody...
If you think that there's...
Hold on. Jojo, it's not name-calling, if you're talking about me.
When I say somebody's a narcissist, that's a description of behaviors.
That's not name-calling.
And it's a hypothesis, which I'm giving you support for.
So, pretty different than name-calling.
But maybe you were talking about some of the commenters there.
So... When you see the people coming after me with nothing but attacks on my character or saying I've been bought off or something like that, they are probably not actual critics in the classic sense where they have something to complain about.
They seem to be just narcissists, and they're projecting upon me.
That's what it looks like. And you can tell...
Because you can look for cases where I've changed my mind because there was data.
I just gave you one. And did I have any problem?
Just observe me.
Did I have any problem telling you that I was wrong and have now corrected it?
I have no problem with that.
Because remember, the nature of this live stream...
It's about sort of mental...
I would say the biggest theme that goes through all of it is mental illusions, which we're all trying to get past.
So if I have a mental illusion and a total brain fart, I'd like to show it to you.
My motivation is to show you I was wrong, not to show you I'm right all the time.
But if I am right...
It is very useful as a tool that you hear me explain I'm right so that you can judge, oh, this kind of track record, and then the next thing I say, you'll say, well, let's put that in the context of how many times he's been right or wrong.
That is useful to you.
So if it sounds like narcissism to tell you how often I've been right, just put it in a different category.
It's just useful. You need to know what I think is my track record.
And you could disagree with it, sure.
But you need to know what I think, or else you can't put my opinions in context.
All right. Speaking of China, they've got problems with the Wuhan leak.
They've got massive flooding.
They've got pollution through the roof.
They've got prison camps.
They may be...
They're harvesting organs from political dissidents.
They're stealing our intellectual property.
They're dominating the South China Sea.
They're doing just about everything bad you could do.
I mean, the list is so long that it's hard to go through them all.
China is no longer safe for business.
And as that understanding starts to permeate the rest of the world...
China's got some big, big problems coming.
Some of them are just baked into the fact that it's a big country and lots of big things could happen, from floods and climate and everything else.
But I've got a feeling that China might have, like, a really big problem coming.
And you'll know it when you see it.
It's going to come in a variety of ways, from a variety of sources.
And it's going to look like a lot of coincidences.
But here's the question I ask you.
Since we do seem to know that China has this concept of, I don't know, what do they call it, total warfare or something, where they're really trying to degrade their opponents in every way they can.
They're trying to do it with psychology, with the law, with technology, with hacking, just every way you can, short of shooting an actual missile.
And What do you assume about their adversaries?
Do you assume unrestricted warfare?
That's the phrase they use, yes.
What do you assume about the adversaries?
We all know it, right?
All of the adversaries to China know that that's their stated philosophy, the unrestricted warfare, and we see them using it.
So there's no doubt that they believe it.
There's no doubt they're doing it every day.
What do you think we're doing?
What do you think Great Britain's doing about it?
What do you think Europe's doing about it?
What do you think Japan's doing about it?
How about South Korea?
How about the United States?
Now, one theory is that we're doing nothing.
Because maybe we just don't do that.
That's possible. But what do you think?
What's more likely?
Because here's the one complaint I don't have about Biden.
He's not a pussy. Would anybody disagree with that?
I'm open to a counter-argument on that.
But as much as I like Trump for a lot of stuff, I think different presidents are good for different stuff, so it's good that we alternate them so you get the good stuff of each personality.
But I don't think Biden's a pussy.
I've got a feeling that Biden is kicking the shit out of China under the hood, and we just don't know it.
And he wouldn't tell us, because that's the kind of president he is.
Don't know that. There's no way to know that for sure.
And I wish we could see some signs of it, but I don't think it works that way.
So my guess is that the counterattacks to balance out whatever the hell China's doing are probably just ramping up.
So I would imagine that we're just getting busy with that stuff.
Now, one of the biggest risks, as you might know, is that China, with its Belt and Road Initiative, and it's basically trying to get influence over all the smaller countries, especially if they have rare earth minerals.
So one of the biggest ways that China could conquer the world and dominate it is by controlling all the rarest of the minerals that are needed for pretty much all technology.
That's also, if you didn't know it, and I think this is true, I'll take a fact check on this too, but I think it's true that the reason that space exploration is such a big frickin' deal is that if the United States can't get on an asteroid to get some rare minerals off the asteroids, I don't know if we'll have access.
So space might be the only place we can get materials we need to be an advanced civilization.
Now, the other thing that you have to factor in with China, and China also makes too many of our medicines, the other thing you have to factor in is that the Chinese billionaires probably have as much influence over there as a billionaire does anywhere else, which is a lot. Again, I would take a fact check on that.
I'm imagining the richest people in China are like the richest people anywhere else.
They have lots of influence. So if the richest people in China are, let's say, many of them, our own minds and rare earth everything, this and that...
Every morning there's a bird that walks across my security camera during the live stream.
Just one time, this little black bird just walks across the security camera once.
Anyway, so here's the point.
China's trying to control these rare earth materials and pharmaceuticals.
But if we ever got into a deep problem with China, if it became military...
That's the least of our problems, right?
If we ended up in a full-out military conflict with China, we're not going to be worrying about pharmaceutical access because the whole damn planet will be destroyed.
But if it's not a full military conflict, do you think the billionaires that control the pharmaceuticals in China or control the mining interests are going to let the government shut them down?
Now, of course, the government is more powerful than a billionaire, even in China.
But still, there's some big, big influences in China that we'd be pushing back.
And imagine, if you will, there's sort of a mutually assured destruction when it comes to China and pharmaceuticals or rare earth minerals.
What would happen the day...
That China said, we're not going to give you, America, any rare earth minerals or any pharmaceuticals.
We're just cutting you off. What would happen the same day?
It would be the end of China.
Their economy would go into a free fall and never recover.
Right? If somebody says war, it wouldn't be war.
It would be economic war.
And it would be permanent.
It would be permanent.
There would be no recovery.
If China ever said...
We have a monopoly on your anything, your pharmaceuticals or your rare earth minerals, and we're going to stop you from having them.
That would be the end of the Chinese economy.
Because the Chinese economy depends on the rest of the world.
It doesn't operate independently.
And the rest of the world would just say, okay, that's too far.
That's too far. You can't be trusted with anything.
Not our rare earth minerals, not our pharmaceuticals, frickin' nothing.
So that would be the end of China.
So I'm less worried about them cutting off things than maybe other people are, because it would be literally suicide.
China would be destroying itself.
China is surrounded by enemies, I'm seeing in the comments, so that it would be suicide for China to start a war.
Well, yeah, I mean, any superpower that gets in a war with another superpower, why?
I mean, the only reason you do that is if you've just given up on living.
And I suppose anything's possible.
All right. So China, I see coming for a big reckoning, and I don't think China necessarily knows how big it will be.
And as I've told you before, there are always forces you can see and forces you can't see.
And forces you can't see are leaning pretty hard on China right now, and you're going to see the effect of that probably within a year.
So Alexander Vindman, you all know him from the famous Trump impeachment trials.
He was the officer who's now retired.
He's got a book. But he said something in an interview that I want to share with you because it looks like it's written by a professional persuader.
So here's his actual statement.
He said about the Trump administration.
He said, quote, We could have had a collapse of government and could have been an entirely different country.
So according to Vindman, we were very close to a collapse of government and we could have been in an entirely different country.
Does that sound like something that Vindman came up with on his own?
Maybe. You know, he might have some training in some kind of persuasion or something like that.
But let me tell you why this is a good persuasion.
This sentence... We could have been in an entirely different country.
What's that mean? We could have been in an entirely different country?
This is Cialdini-level persuasion.
I don't know if the publisher helped him with it.
I don't know if a Democrat persuader helped with it.
Um... Okay.
I'll get to that in a moment.
Just some breaking news just came across my phone here.
So Vindman is cleverly leaving it to your imagination of what's the worst thing you could imagine that this country could have turned into, which is this other thing.
That's good persuasion.
If you tell somebody something specific, they're likely to say, oh, I don't know, that specific thing?
I don't think that was going to happen.
So if Vindman had said, for example, if he had said it would be a dictatorship in a year or two, Even people who didn't like Trump would have said, I don't know about that.
I don't think it would have been a dictatorship.
But if you leave it open and you say, it could have been an entirely different country, then everybody who has a fear can fill in that entirely different country with whatever they're afraid of.
That's why this is first-rate technology.
I'm sorry, persuasion.
It doesn't look like Vindman would be the kind of person who would be trained to come up with that good of a sentence.
It looks like he had help, but that's speculation.
All right. CNN just became hilarious.
Now, if you didn't see this news, apparently Trump has amassed $100 million in political funds from fundraising, mostly on his claims about the election not being fair.
Now, he's got $100 million.
I think the next biggest amount that any politician had is Tim Scott, who's got like $8 million.
Like, not even close.
So, even if it's just money...
That is the only way Trump influences things, and of course it'll be more than that.
But he has so much money to influence things that he can affect races, he can affect Congress, all kinds of stuff.
So CNN just went full panic on Trump, partly because it's good for their business model.
But check out the Fox News website front page, and then see what stories they're covering.
Then go to CNN and look at just all the headlines and see what they're covering today.
It's not even the same planet.
Now, it's common that they cover the news differently.
That's the most common thing.
But they usually at least are talking about the same stories.
CNN isn't even on the same stories because they've decided that the return of Trump is like the only story.
So let me give you an idea of some of the things.
These are just the headlines just from today on the CNN website.
And Fox doesn't have any of this yet, right?
So just from today.
Trump's $100 million threat to democracy.
No, he hasn't raised $100 million for his political preferences.
It's a $100 million threat to democracy.
Democracy itself is going to be attacked with Trump's $100 million.
So that's a CNN headline.
Here's the funniest one, and I didn't click the article to read it.
So I don't know what the article said, but I do know what the article said.
And I'm going to read you the headline, and you also didn't read the article, but you know what the article says, okay?
Here's the headline. She survived attack by Jonestown cult members.
Hear what she says about Trump.
That's an actual headline on CNN. She survived the Jonestown cult members.
Hear what she says about Trump.
Now, if this is not CNN becoming a parody of itself, I don't know what is.
But here's another one. The disgraced ex-president is raising enormous sums on the power of a lie that is fundamentally altering politics.
The disgraced ex-president.
Disgraced ex-president.
Can't you say that about everybody?
Couldn't you say, the disgraced current president...
You just throw in that disgraced part and people will accept it uncritically.
I'm going to start throwing in disgraced every time I talk about a politician.
So the disgraced Nancy Pelosi was talking to the disgraced Joe Manchin.
I don't know. Just throw in anybody.
Joe Manchin's not disgraced, but we'll just throw in disgraced.
Make you think that's a fact.
All right. Here's another one from CNN Headlines.
Video shows Texas family pleading with officer on top of black teen.
Is it my imagination, or did we have an absence of police officers on the backs of black teens for several months during the first part of the Biden administration?
But now, as soon as Trump is back in the news...
There's a cop on a black kid's back.
Just right when you'd expect it.
The moment, the moment that Trump is a fear, well, there's a cop on a black person's back.
Happened right on time.
Which, by the way, just to be clear...
You know, any of this stuff is a tragedy, so I'm not making fun of the event itself.
I'm just making fun of CNN for discovering certain kinds of stories just when they need to be discovered.
Here's another one. Democrats increased pressure to act on eviction moratorium.
And one congresswoman slept on the Capitol steps.
Now... The Democrats increase pressure to act on eviction moratorium.
That sounds kind of dry, doesn't it?
Where are words like disgraced and threat to democracy?
Well, let me ask you this.
If Trump had been president, and let's say Republicans controlled Congress, and we were in the same place we are now with the moratorium on rents, Sort of running out.
Do you think that the news would treat Trump this dryly?
I think they'd say Trump is trying to put people on the streets and favor landlords.
This would be completely different news if Trump had been president.
But as long as the Democrats are in charge, it's just something they're working on.
A little headline. Something they're working on.
And then there was some mocking of the Arizona audit, of course, because they've got to hit that pretty hard.
All right, so here's some breaking news from Yossi Gestetner.
So, I guess this was A.G. Rosen said that back when he was the acting A.G., if I got this right, I'm reading it for the first time, said that the DOG will look into allegations in Pennsylvania, but this is what he had said to Trump back in that phone call that was reported, but the DOG can't overturn the results even if there are issues.
To this, Trump said, I don't expect you to do that, overturn the results.
Just say that the election was corrupt.
So a little clarification there.
So Trump was not trying to overturn the results.
He was just trying to get them to say that it was corrupt.
And I don't think they said that.
So I feel like this is a story of everything working the way it was supposed to work.
Isn't that weird? What would you hope to happen...
Let's say that Trump truly believed that the election was stolen.
I think that's fair. Don't you think he actually believes it, right?
I don't think he's making it up.
I think he literally believes it.
And he might be right.
We don't know. There's no evidence to prove he's right.
But there's no evidence to prove he's wrong either.
So I'd say that's an unknown.
And suppose you had a president who believed, really believed, That the election was corrupt.
What would he do about it?
What would be the most reasonable thing to do about it?
Well, if he really believed it, he would certainly talk about it in public, but he would also talk to his AG and maybe get the Attorney General to help out on what he thought was the right thing.
Now, again, we're not going to talk about whether it's the right thing, but he thought it was.
I think that's fair to say.
And then the Attorney General just didn't do it.
The Attorney General said, no, apparently he said, no, I'm not going to do that.
And then he didn't do it, and it was fine.
Isn't that exactly the way the system is supposed to work?
The President, who legitimately believes there's a big problem, tries to get as many people to get on his side.
That's supposed to work that way, right?
You get people on your side to help you make your case.
This person said no in my professional capacity.
This would be the wrong thing to do.
And then he doesn't do it.
Everything about this is something working the way you'd want it to work.
Am I wrong? You might not like how things went, but didn't the system work just the way you want it to?
People legitimately going after a problem, maybe they're wrong about it being a problem, but legitimately they thought it was a problem and went after it in all the right ways.
Obviously the protests in the capital were out of control.
That violence is condemned by everyone.
But certainly it makes sense to try to get people involved and get opinions and then the professional whose job it was to be objective said he's not going to do that.
That's just what you want.
It's sort of like a story about nothing happening.
I don't know. So...
Anyway, CNN's doing the whole Trump is the monster under the bed routine.
Rasmussen says that 75% of liberals say you should be required to wear a mask in public even if you already had COVID. So 75% of liberals say you should wear a mask even if you've already had COVID. Now, The latest information is that if you've already had it, you can't get it and you can't spread it.
75% of liberals think you should wear a mask in the context of you can't get it and you can't spread it, according to science.
Now, when I say you can't get it and can't spread it, there's always an exception, but exceptions are too small to matter in this case.
How do you explain that?
Do you think that if all you did is reverse which presidents were saying what, that that would just reverse?
Is that based on any kind of science?
That's the least scientific thing I've ever seen in my life.
But worse, 29% of conservatives agree.
Almost a third of conservatives also think you should wear a mask if you've already recovered from coronavirus.
What's going on here?
Seriously, what's going on?
I don't understand it.
Is it because they don't know the facts?
Is it pure brainwashing?
Is there no rational thought about this whatsoever?
And what news entity is telling them to do this?
I don't even think CNN is telling anybody to wear a mask if they've been vaccinated.
Are they? Is there some...
Does Fauci even say that?
I mean, Fauci wants everybody masked, but nobody believes him, right?
Are they believing Fauci?
I don't even understand this.
I don't know how you can get this number.
So it's sort of mind-bending.
So the Arizona State Senate has requested some kind of technical review, sort of an audit, of the Dominion systems.
Was Dominion software or hardware, too?
Somebody tell me in the comments, is the Dominion, are they hardware and software, or just one or the other?
Probably both. I'm seeing both, thanks.
Thank you for that. So they're both hardware and software, and they've declined, of course.
And they're saying that the people doing the audit are not qualified, and therefore, why release all their information?
And you know what this feels like?
I don't want to make too much of the analogy.
This is just something that feels like something else.
It doesn't mean you should draw a conclusion.
But it feels exactly like Trump's taxes, doesn't it?
Because the reason that...
You know, the obvious thing that you wonder, if Trump doesn't want to release his taxes, you say to yourself, well, that means there's a problem in there, right?
If you don't want to release your taxes...
That's because you know there's a problem in there.
Something illegal, right?
No. No.
That's what very inexperienced people think.
The reason you don't release your taxes is that people will imagine there are problems in it.
If they can't see them, they can't make stuff up based on anything.
They just have to really purely speculate.
But as soon as the actual taxes are available, people are going to look at them, and they will report to you that there's a crime in there, even if there isn't.
So there's a 100% chance...
That bad people will say there is a crime and it's right there in the taxes.
You could look for yourself if you had the taxes and you knew what to look for.
So the odds of fake news coming out of Trump's tax returns is 100%.
It's 100%.
You are guaranteed that there will be some, I don't know how many, but there will be some fake news based on Trump's taxes.
And it will be, well, in line number 17, he clearly did whatever.
And then if you ever looked at it, it wouldn't be that, or it's out of context, or some damn thing.
So, anybody who argues that Trump should release his taxes, if there's nothing illegal in there, don't know anything about the world.
That's not how the world works.
People are going to find the problem even if it's not there.
It doesn't have to be there for them to find it.
Have you been alive for the last five years?
It doesn't need to be there.
He just has to release them.
And then they'll say it's there.
And half of the country will believe whoever tells them that they looked at it and they said, well, there's a problem there.
Now, Dominion has the same frickin' problem.
Does Dominion have a problem that they're hiding?
What do you think? Are they hiding a problem?
Can't tell. You know, your suspicious nature is, uh-huh.
If somebody doesn't want to be transparent, they're hiding a problem.
But imagine if they let all that stuff out.
Do you think that there would be a, let's say, a cyber expert...
Who would look at their code and find a vulnerability?
Yes. Yes.
100% chance.
Even a vulnerability they're not even aware of.
If any large, complicated system...
Released all their IP to anybody who wanted to look at it, all of it would be imperfect.
People would find bugs all over the place.
Every time Windows releases a new release, somebody finds a major security bug.
You don't think Microsoft looked at it carefully before they released it?
They did. They had a lot of people look at it.
And then they released it, and almost every time, some major bug or You know, vulnerability.
So you've got this weird situation where Dominion, in order to have the business that they have, they have to convince the public that they're a credible organization with no major problems.
Their problem is they can't convince us they're credible if they don't release their code because there's no transparency.
But... They also can't convince us they're credible if they do release their code.
They have two ways to lose and no way to win.
Just like Trump. If he doesn't release his tax returns, you assume the worst.
If he does release his tax returns, fake news will tell you the worst, even if it's not there.
Just like Dominion.
You're going to find all kinds of problems there, even if there aren't any.
It doesn't matter if there's a problem there.
Oh, we'll find one. And it will be probably along the lines of, well, there's this vulnerability.
We don't have any way of knowing it was exploited, but it's there.
So was it a fair election?
We can't know.
We can't know.
Because you can't tell.
And I've said this before.
If you have a system that's unauditable for any reason...
You didn't really have an election.
Let me say that again. If your election is unauditable for any reason, and ours are, because there's no audit of the hardware and software component, if you haven't done that, you haven't really done the audit.
You can look at corners of things.
You can count a lot of things, check ballots, whatever.
But if you haven't checked the electronic systems, I don't know that you audited.
And therefore, it's not even a real election, in my opinion.
It's just something happened and a president took office.
Was it an election?
We don't know. If we could audit it, we would know.
But we can't. We can't audit it.
In the comments, you suggested long ago we should give up the right of privacy to allow the audit.
Yeah, that would help. I mean, I don't know if you have to give up the right of...
Yeah, you'd have to give up the right of privacy, or would you?
Because all you really need is for everybody to be able to check their own vote.
Does that give you...
Does that give up the right of privacy?
Because I could imagine that you would have maybe a code that only you knew that's matched with the code in the database so you could check your code against the database to see if you voted.
You'd still be anonymous.
Or would that be too much of a vulnerability?
Somebody says you can do this in Colorado, so apparently it's doable.
Yeah, and it's not like everybody has to do it.
You just have to have enough people do it to catch any fraud.
All right. Let's see what else we got going on here.
AOC is threatening to kill the infrastructure bill.
Now, I made a prediction that the infrastructure bill is just going to be sort of the forever and ever done bill.
Now, I don't know how long forever goes, but every time you see a headline that says, it looks like we've got a breakthrough on the infrastructure bill.
Looks like we've got some bipartisan movement now.
No. Every time you see anything about infrastructure about ready to get signed, a little recording in the back of your head should say, probably not.
So AOC is threatening to kill the bill with her pack of people who agree with her based on the fact that it's not liberal enough in the sense that it doesn't have enough goodies in there.
Dominion. Yeah, Dominion means sovereignty over, which is an unfortunate name for a voting company.
Electric helicopters.
Oh, there's somebody's...
Really? Electric helicopters?
I can't wait for my electric helicopter.
All right, so that's all I got for today.
Not much happening there.
And just go look at your comments for a moment, see if there's anything I missed.
Prediction on the governor's race.
You know, I need to check in on the polls.
I haven't seen any polls of California's governor race, the recall race.
I don't know if Larry Elder is within striking distance or not, but I'll check into that.
Yeah, I decided to go a whole day without talking about Bill Maher.
Larry Elder's has 16%.
But that's...
But once it gets down to...
I'm not sure how the election, the recall works.
But once you feel it's really between two people, that's when it gets interesting.
It's not vulnerable.
It's not vulnerable.
Somebody's saying...
Take it from an aeronautical engineer, electric helicopters, air taxis are not going to happen soon.
Well, Stephen, I'm going to disagree with you there about electric airplanes and electric taxis.
Because the only gaining factor is the battery capacity and weight, right?
And battery capacity and weight are reaching some critical crossover points.
So I think we're really close to the crossover where the battery technology is good enough, but it has never been.
It has never been good enough up to this point.
Yeah, so the weight of the batteries is going to be a big deal.
Somebody says airlines are actually ordering electric planes for delivery years out.
I'll bet that's true. The lightest electric car is over a ton.
Somebody says. What's the breaking news?
It wasn't breaking.
It was just an update on what Trump said to the Attorney General back in the day.
One flight around a Tesla tower and it's fully charged...
Yeah, I don't think so.
What's the smallest a nuclear reactor can get?
Well, they're small enough to be on naval ships and small enough to be in satellites, right?
Aren't satellites nuclear-powered, some of them?
Alyssa is asking me if I'm Q.
No, I'm not.
No.
All right. A lot of different topics coming by here in the comments.
But I think we're done for today, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
