Episode 1772 Scott Adams: How Can You Tell If An Election Is Rigged?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Staged Patriot Front arrests?
How can you know if an election was rigged?
Why digital vote accuracy can't be known
NFL coach fined $100,000 for comparing J6 to BLM
2019 spike in Black people murdered
The ideal amount of immigration?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
The thing that feels so good, it makes you throb on the inside.
And if you want to take it to a new level, and trust me, today will be a new level, I'm going to take it right to the Icarus level, if you know what I mean.
Everybody get that reference?
Because you're so smart, you probably did.
And now, if you'd like to Icarus with me, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, that is correct, filling with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure It's the thing that'll snap you into a good mood, no matter where you start it.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it joins you with people around the world.
Whether synchronously or asynchronously, magically, it works just as well.
Go! Oh yeah.
Oh yeah. Well, all you sipsters...
Are you ready to make some trouble?
Who wants to make trouble?
Well, let me tell you, if there's one thing that a January 6 hearing makes me want to do, is talk about the stuff that the January 6 hearing doesn't want me to talk about.
So we'll be doing a lot of that.
But first, while people stream in here for the greatest thing that's ever happened, some good news.
There's a UK team, got this from a Jeff Pilkington tweet, a UK team that makes some kind of gel that repairs heart attack damage.
So they can inject some goop into your heart and it forms some kind of a structure or lattice and repairs the physical damage.
And I'm thinking to myself, really?
What? What if it works?
What if they could just inject something into your heart and make it healthy again?
Now, it does seem like a stretch, but today we're just thinking optimistic things.
So, until it's proven that it doesn't work, how about we think that it might?
It'll give you a little burst of optimism.
It feels good. Just go with it.
All right. And I'm thinking, where else could you use that stuff?
Is there other stuff that it would repair?
How about if you had a hernia? Just to pick a random example.
Suppose you had a hernia, which is where the muscle structure weakens, but at the moment they have to do a surgery and put this artificial mesh thing in there to reinforce it.
What if you could just shoot some goop in there and your original muscles just grow back or whatever?
I don't know. I feel like we're on the verge of fixing hearts, curing a whole bunch of different cancer types.
A lot of good stuff happens.
Here's a fascinating thing in the Axios news...
What would you call them?
News organization? Axios?
And I would recommend putting Axios on your daily rotation because they do have some stuff that is just good news that you'd be interested to know about and a little less political ridiculousness.
So... This is really interesting.
There's a survey of how people think the country is doing, America, versus how they think they're doing personally, financially.
Do you think they would be the same, right?
Do you think that, in general, if you ask people, how are you doing with your personal finances, whatever that trend line looked like, it would probably be similar on average.
You know, people would be all over the place, but on average, it would be kind of a similar slope To what they thought the country in general was doing.
Because they would represent the country in general.
Turns out, nothing like that's happening.
It turns out that people actually think their personal finances are better than ever.
Would you have guessed?
People believe their personal finances are better than ever, right now.
When I say ever, I mean for a long time.
At the same time, they think the country is going into a nosedive financially.
How do you explain that?
How do you explain that people think that personally they're doing better, maybe better than in a long, long time?
There's an obvious reason, because people don't understand debt and inflation.
And there's a time lag.
People at the moment are well employed, 3.6%, and they might have even gotten a raise recently because of inflation.
And maybe they say, well, I don't have to drive as much, so I can at least pull back on some of that stuff.
A lot of people can't.
And so it makes sense to me that the things that you understand have a higher priority in your mind.
Right? If you simply see something and look at it and touch it and understand it, it'll seem like that's the important variable, even if it isn't.
So people do touch their own life, by definition, all day long.
So you're always touching your personal finances.
So if those seem pretty good, that variable is going to look pretty important.
Here's what you don't see and touch or even understand.
National debt And how that printing money fits with inflation and all that.
Because if you did, you'd be in a full panic.
Now, this will be...
And I've been challenged on this.
You've heard me talk about the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters, which means that if we can see a problem coming with enough time to adjust, we always do.
The world hasn't run out of food.
There are all kinds of things that we thought we were going to run out of, and then we just figured out how to make it work.
The year 2000 bug, we had enough time.
We just fixed it, fixed the bug.
Hole in the ozone? I guess we had enough time.
We banned certain things and the hole is closing.
So lots of things that we could fix, all kinds of things that you wouldn't imagine would be fixable.
And I think climate change will be one of those.
One of those things that you couldn't imagine is even possible until somebody figures out how to do it.
So the thing that you can't foresee...
And this will blow you away.
But the thing you can never foresee are the things you can't foresee.
In other words, you can't really predict the future.
Nobody can. Because you have all these surprises.
So, is it possible that this thing that looks impossible to solve, which is our continuous printing of money, which will, you know, if you just straight-lined it forward, The dollar becomes less of a reserve currency, and inflation eats us all to death, and everything goes to hell.
Because all of our money becomes worthless.
Now, that's where the straight line is heading.
But that's also where the population explosion was heading, until we've learned that rich countries don't like having lots of babies.
And it kind of solved itself.
So if you straight line any problem, it's unsolvable.
Because you can't foresee the unforeseeable, which is people figure out how to solve things that you couldn't figure out.
Can you figure out how to repair a damaged heart?
I can't.
But possibly a UK team invented a gel that might do just that.
Maybe. Well, you and I couldn't figure it out.
So just the fact that you and I didn't know how to repair a damaged heart didn't mean that there wasn't anybody in the seven billion of us or whatever who couldn't figure it out.
Maybe somebody did. So here's the test, the ultimate test of the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters and the idea that we can always figure our way out.
I have no idea.
How we get out of this printing money debt thing.
But, I also don't think it's impossible.
Because, like all of the other problems, if you straight-lined them, there just wasn't any solution.
Except that there was.
We figured it out. So, I think we'll be fine.
There is one good thing about the crypto meltdown.
I know. It hurt a lot of you.
A lot of you own some crypto.
So did I. I own a lot less of it now.
Not by choice. But I only accidentally owned some that went up in value when I wasn't looking.
And I think now it's gone down 80% or whatever.
And the only good thing about this is that the people Who thought they were geniuses because they bought into crypto when everything was going up, or at least the big ones were going up.
They just learned that they can't predict the future.
I know. I know.
We keep getting surprised.
We can't predict the future.
And anybody who bought crypto believed they could.
That's why you would do it.
You wouldn't buy it unless you could predict the future.
Now, if you were buying it as a small part of a larger portfolio, then that's completely rational.
In fact, I recommend it.
If you have a big enough portfolio, some small part, probably needs to be Bitcoin or maybe a few of the other big cryptos, just in case, someday it's the only money left.
Just in case. So, somebody says 1% max?
Well, maybe, because your 1% would suddenly balloon in value if it were the only money.
Alright. So, did you see the video of the so-called Patriot Front who was arrested in Idaho Being, quote, near a gay pride event.
Now, the news is suggesting that they were going to be protesting a gay pride event.
It's some kind of alleged white supremacist, you know, far-right organization who gets a bunch of adult men of a certain age and they wear khaki pants and matching outfits and masks and they show up with...
I guess shields and some kind of sticks or spears.
And they march around.
To put on a show. Now, they're very visual.
I guess they always rent a U-Haul truck, and, you know, 30 of them or whatever get in the back of the U-Haul truck.
And there's this video of the police having arrested them.
They say they had an insider tip.
And you see all these guys, and they're all on their knees, nearly identically dressed, and they've all got their full baklava...
What's the name of it?
Not baklava. What's the name of that full face mask thing?
Balaklava. Yeah, balaklava.
Balaklava is a delicious Greek food that you don't want to rub on your face.
It'd be a waste of it, really.
Put it all in your mouth, the balaklava.
But the balaklava, you could cover your face with that.
And as many people noted, including me...
How long would you let these people keep their masks on after they were handcuffed and on their knees?
Wouldn't that be one of the very first things you would do is take off their masks?
Or were they protecting them?
Maybe they were protecting their identity.
But did the police do that?
It was a public place.
Somebody said COVID. That's funny.
That's funny. Oh, imagine that.
Imagine if the police forced them to take their masks off, and then their defense was, we had masks for COVID, and they made us take them off.
I wonder. So I don't rule out.
That there might have been some actual reason why the masks were left on.
Just some weird reason that isn't obvious.
There might be. It could be that they took them off immediately after taking the picture.
Which actually would make sense.
If you knew that people were going to take pictures, You might say, leave the masks on so they can see what we saw.
Like, keep the evidence intact, basically.
Let people take a picture. And then it would keep these guys' identities secret until they had been charged of an actual crime.
Because remember, I don't know that they had been individually charged of any crimes, right?
So maybe they're not guilty of anything.
Except, you know, poor decision-making people.
Depending on your point of view.
What is the crime of getting in a U-Haul dressed poorly?
Is it a crime to plan to a protest?
And here's the other question I ask.
And by the way, all of you are prompting me because you're having the same thoughts.
They do look like they're undercover feds.
But let me be the lone voice of semi-reason here.
Just because they look exactly like undercover law enforcement, does that necessarily mean that they are?
Can you take that next leap?
If you're asking me, do they look like it?
Yeah. It looks exactly like a bunch of FBI people and it looks like there are no organic members.
It looks like they're all informants.
It might be the only organization that accidentally was staffed entirely by informants and there's no native person actually in the organization anymore.
Now, do I think that that's the case?
No. But if you ask me if it looks like it, yes.
Yes, it looks like it.
But be aware that that doesn't mean it is.
Now, the notion that they were going to be protesting an LGBTQ event, does that even make sense?
Can you connect the dots for me?
Why would the Patriot Front even care about an LGBTQ event?
When was the last time...
I mean, if it's a generic event, right?
It's just a generic pride kind of an event.
If it was some kind of a drag queen in our school kind of a thing, then everybody comes out.
But if it's just a local pride parade, would the...
Is there some far-right, white supremacist group that cares enough to go protest that?
Why would he even bother? What would even be the point?
So none of it really makes sense, does it?
Everything from the way they do it, to the way they look, to what is alleged that they were up to, absolutely none of it makes sense.
People are saying in the comments that they would be activated by the grooming issue.
In other words, that might be an incentive for them to be there.
And I'll say, okay, but did they expand their...
Did the Patriot Front always care about grooming?
I mean, beyond the way that everybody cares?
Was that always an activating part of their organization?
Because I kind of doubt it.
It's a new issue.
Interesting. So, let's take a vote on here.
Do you think it's a fake, completely staged event?
So let's say staged or natural.
Now, if it's natural, we have lots of questions.
But that doesn't mean there are no answers.
So I'm not going to say that it's definitively staged.
I'll say it is definitively having lots of signals of being staged.
We're very different from knowing it was staged.
Very different. So just be alerted that you could be wrong on this one.
Okay, so most of you seem to think it was staged.
Well, we do live in a world in which assuming the worst is a pretty good assumption.
So there's that.
All right. There was a gay pride parade that was cancelled because there wasn't enough security, so they couldn't get enough police who wanted to work extra or something.
And I don't know, there was some issue about why that is.
But that's not the thing that caught my eye.
I thought to myself, how much security do you need at a gay pride parade?
I mean, I've never attended one, just because, you know, I don't like going to parades.
If I went to a parade, that would be, seems like, a more interesting one to go to.
But I don't go to parades.
But is there a lot of possibility for violence at an LGBTQ event?
I don't even understand.
Or do they just have a rule that says if it's a certain number of parade-goers and watchers, they have to have a certain amount of security?
Is it nothing except about the number of people?
Because couldn't they do a little profiling in this case?
This would be one of those cases where they could save a lot of money with some intense bigotry?
This is where bigotry can really save you some money.
I don't know about you, but my bigotry tells me that an LGBTQ event is not going to attract a lot of violence or crime, and that it might be one of the lowest crime areas in the entire city for the period of the parade, no matter whether you have security there at all.
Am I wrong? Is my bigotry incorrect?
My bigotry is it would be the safest crowd you could ever organize anywhere.
Because they're really not there about some kind of a violent policy or something.
They're there to enjoy themselves.
And they want to be invited back.
Like, who wants to be invited back more than a pride parade?
Could you imagine being the Pride Parade organizers?
The last thing they want is to not be able to do it next year.
Like, that would be highest priority, I would think.
So, somebody says projection.
Yeah. That's a funny comment.
Alright. The National School Board Association, I guess 25 states have now decided to cut ties with them.
And after, I guess, the This NSBA, the National School Board Association, you know the story that they'd sent out letters to the Justice Department about investigating parents for domestic terrorism.
And I guess people didn't like that.
Turns out that if you use your free speech and some organization decides to turn you in as a domestic terrorist for having an opinion, that you might vote to end your association.
With the group that wanted you to be turned in as a domestic terrorist for having an opinion about how a school should be run.
I think the amazing part of the story is that there's anyone left in the National School Board Association.
All right. So I guess probably the single most dangerous thing you could do at the moment To get kicked off of social media would be to say that the 2020 election was rigged.
Am I right? If a person were to say that, that would be too far, and social media would probably treat you harshly.
So I'm not going to do that.
I'm not going to do that.
I'm going to talk about how you would know if an election were rigged.
How would you know? Now, we don't have an election system that is designed...
By the way, here's an interesting category.
Think about this. Think about things that Democrats believe that would not survive first contact with a well-informed Republican.
That's sort of complex, let me say it again.
Think of things that Democrats believe that would not survive first contact with a well-informed Republican.
In other words, somebody who could just say, well, but did you know the context is X? Now, you're going to say to yourself, oh, what about that fine people hoax?
And I say, unfortunately, you can't talk people out of that.
You can tell them to look at the video, you can show them the transcript, and amazingly, They're so bought into that that nothing changes their mind.
But there are some things which you would just have to hear the counter-argument and you'd say, oh, okay, I didn't know that.
And you would have just immediately changed your opinion.
Here's one. Did you know, Democrats, That our elections are not designed to be fully audited.
In other words, you couldn't do it if you wanted to.
Because the digital parts are always proprietary.
In other words, the company that provides the software and hardware is going to limit how much you can see because their business model requires that.
Or at least their contracts do.
So if people say, we know the election was correct...
How could that survive first contact with a Republican who says, well, you do know that the digital part, where a lot of the actual counting happens, you know that that can't be audited, right?
So therefore, you profess to know something that couldn't be known by anybody.
Now, you could know, this is what you could know, if there were any giant signals of fraud or not.
And I'm going to say, That I have not seen any confirmed giant signals of fraud.
This is just me personally, right?
You all have your own standard of what would be a signal that was enough to raise your antenna.
Now remember, a signal doesn't mean it's true or it's proof or anything like that.
A signal is just, what?
So for example, if the vote came out very different than you thought it would, that doesn't mean you're right.
But the signal would be there.
He'd be like, what? At least ask the question.
Or if, let's say, there were areas where the result was very on a whack with historical precedent.
Well, that's not proof of anything.
Because things change.
But it would be a signal.
And you'd say, what? What?
What's that signal? Let's check that out.
And maybe you check it out and it's fine.
So, are there any signals that Yeah, we'll talk about that in a moment.
And I'm not talking about the 2,000 mules.
That's definitely something that I'd say you could treat that as a signal, but definitely not any kind of proof or evidence.
Well, so because the most dangerous thing that I can talk about is election integrity, now I want to talk about it all the time.
Because the fact that the powers that be are even running this January 6th thing as a...
Really, it just looks like an intelligence operation to divert us from something.
The fact that they're selling the January 6th thing as an insurrection as opposed to what it was, which is people trying to make sure that an insurrection hadn't happened...
They suspected it had, because in their view, they saw the signals.
Doesn't mean there was evidence.
Doesn't mean there was proof.
But there were signals.
They certainly saw signals, or I imagine they did.
That's the subjective part, right?
So the fact that that story is sold to the public in a completely fraudulent way makes me just want to talk about it more.
And what I want to say specifically is that the Democrats could not survive first contact with a Republican who said, you know, you can't audit the systems because you can't get at major parts of it.
Because there's no...
I don't think there's any Democrat who would say, oh, yes, you can.
You can audit the entire system.
I don't think they would say that, would they?
Because it would be so easy to show that that's not the case.
I think they'd say, oh, I didn't know that.
So I'll back up from saying that the elections were totally fair, because you're right, it's not audited.
I'll back up to there's no evidence or proof that it was anything but fair.
And if you could get them to back up to that, I'd say that would be a belief that did not survive first contact with a Republican.
Just think about how important it is that Democrats, and probably works both ways, that Republicans and Democrats literally don't talk to each other.
Not on social media, in many cases, and not in person.
They just don't even mix.
But there are a whole bunch of views that maybe could never be changed by mingling with each other.
Most of them, probably. But there are all these ones that would actually die on first contact.
And the idea that we have systems or election systems that we can know if they were rigged or not, the false belief that that's knowable would die on contact.
The first time you heard somebody say, well...
You can't know that it was fair.
You can only know that nobody proved it wasn't.
Immediately, as soon as you hear that, you can't really go back to your old opinion.
It's kind of hard. Now, is there any good evidence that the elections had any signals of irregularities?
Well, here's an interesting update.
Rasmussen, of the Rasmussen poll, They were asked by a user on social media, could you do a survey and ask people who they did vote for in the 2020 election, Biden or Trump?
Because if you did a survey of who people did vote for, you'd expect all things working perfectly, you'd expect that it would match roughly what the election said they voted for.
It's kind of obvious after the fact, isn't it?
Until somebody suggested that, did you think of that?
I'm a little bit embarrassed.
I'm a little bit embarrassed.
I hadn't thought of it. I know they do polling immediately after the polls closed, but I don't remember the exit polling being updated.
Now, here's the interesting part.
When Rasmussen did the same thing for the 2016 election, what do you think happened?
Do you think the actual election results and who people said after the fact they voted for and Rasmussen polled them, do you think that they were roughly similar?
They were. They were.
And I think it was within the margin of error, you know, pretty close.
So we know in one case, and this doesn't prove it works in any other case, right?
Because any year could be different.
But in 2016, we have at least one data point that says that the polling matched the actual outcome.
Close enough. So they updated it, and they did it for 2020.
Now, Biden won by 4.5%.
That's the official vote tally.
And so when Rasmussen asked people who they voted for, do you think it was kind of close to that?
Kind of close to the 4.5% gap?
No, it was identical.
The same number of people said they voted for Trump as for Biden.
That's way off.
That's way off.
Do you think that the polling would be sensitive enough to know that that big a gap is like a real problem or just maybe something about the way the poll was conducted?
Well, I would say one data point doesn't confirm it.
You'd want to see some other pollsters take a whack at it.
You'd want everybody to show their work.
But I'm pretty sure Rasmussen shows their work.
Am I wrong? They show you the crosstabs.
They show you what their balance was, you know, how many Republicans, how many Democrats.
So you can match that to the general public.
Can it be reproduced?
And would you be convinced if it did?
All right, so... Now, I convinced you that that meant something, didn't I? How many of you are convinced at this point...
And everything I said is true, by the way, as far as I know.
To the best of my knowledge, everything I just told you is true.
How many of you just felt convinced that you just found a giant signal that's very credible for election fraud?
I'm pretty sure it would be well beyond the margin of error.
Like, well beyond. I think.
I mean, I can use a fact check on that, but I don't think it's close to the margin of error.
All right, so now that I've convinced you, do you think I can unconvince you just as quickly?
Sort of an experiment to test your mental flexibility.
All right, so here's the thing that convinced you.
That the Rasmussen after-the-fact polling in 2016 matched the actual polling, but in the one that you have some suspicions about, the 2020 election, there was a pretty big difference between the actual outcome and what people said after the fact, how they voted. 10% of Republicans voted for Biden in 2020.
According to Rasmussen also.
So 10%. Let me ask you this.
If you were one of the 10% of the Republicans who voted for Biden, how would you feel about your decision right now?
Think about it. How much regret would you have for your decision?
If you had been one of the Trump people who defected and you put Biden in, could you possibly think you made the right choice?
No matter what you thought of Trump, and obviously you'd have to have a pretty bad feeling to be a Republican and vote against him.
You'd have to have a really bad feeling about Trump.
But do you think any of them think they made the right decision?
You know, they might torture themselves with some cognitive dissonance about how they did, but here's a predictable thing that you could imagine would happen in that scenario.
They would misremember who they voted for, or they would refuse to do the poll once they found out what it was about.
Would there ever have been in history a group of people who would be more likely to be spun into cognitive dissonance and have a false memory or refuse to answer the question?
Okay? Think about it.
You could not concoct in your mind any kind of demographic group more likely to lie on a pole.
Or to be incorrect with rote memory.
Or to refuse to take it.
You could not come up with a group more likely to skew a poll.
And did such a group exist in 2016?
After the election?
Were there a similar number of people who said, oh my god, I regret my vote?
I don't think so.
I don't think so. I think this is the biggest well of regret that we will ever have seen in a presidential situation.
I mean, people probably regretted Nixon, but Nixon was sort of a nothing compared to what we're seeing today.
So, now here's my question.
Suppose Rasmussen and other polling groups decided to reproduce this who-did-you-vote-for thing, but to concentrate on only the contested places where the election was putting off signals that it was not operating the way historically you'd expect.
In other words, where Trump did not win where you expected he might have.
What would happen if you only did your polling in those areas?
And what would happen if it was more than Rasmussen?
So that other people were, you know, minority opinion, maybe they have a different result.
But everybody's got to show their work or else don't play, right?
If you don't show your work, you can't play.
But let's have a bake-off.
I thought I'd fund it.
There must be somebody who's curious enough to fund it.
But let's take three separate polls.
Let's fund, you know, if somebody would fund Rasmussen to do it, two other credible polling companies, whoever they are.
Maybe get somebody who leans left.
Have everybody guarantee that they have to show all their work, all their crosstabs, all their data.
Use the same technique.
Ideally, you'd get to ask the same question.
Or at least the three of them agree how they'd ask the question.
And then...
find out.
What would it tell you if there was the biggest amount of regret in those areas?
Well, here's what I would look for.
I would look for any further anomalies.
Like, is there an even exaggerated difference in those areas?
Or does it disappear in those areas?
That would be interesting. So, I almost wonder if there isn't a way to find out if the election was valid.
And Rasmussen has been just all over this from the beginning, in a very, I would say, the most sane way.
They're pretty much sticking to what we know and what's being reported, plus their own polling.
All right. So I did this poll this morning.
I said, if you say you know an election was fair, meaning that you believe you know the unknowable, what is the root cause of your problem?
All right, so let me say it again.
This is just a beautiful poll question, if I do say so myself.
If you know the 2020 election was fair, meaning you believe you know the unknowable, What is the root cause of your problem?
And I gave four choices.
I'm under-informed, I'm lying, I have mental illness, and I am not smart.
Because I don't think there's another explanation, is there?
Is there? Is there any other explanation?
If somebody says they know the unknowable, and they'll say that right to your face, what are the other explanations?
They're either under-informed, meaning they believe that the courts can tell you for sure whether the system is rigged versus one that was rigged so well you can't tell.
I mean, that's what we're looking at, right?
So the allegation, of which I have no proof or evidence, the allegation that many make is that if it was rigged, it was rigged well, so that it would be hard to determine it You know, with a cursory audit or just looking at the data.
So how could you know that an election either has no evidence of fraud or that it was done so well that you can't find the evidence of fraud?
How would you know which one you're looking at?
If you think you can tell the difference, what is your problem?
It has nothing to do with the election.
It's just a way to tell there's something wrong with your brain or something.
Right? This has nothing to do with the election.
If you would say confidently, I know the unknowable, then you're either under-informed, lying, mental illness, or you're just not smart, so you don't know that that doesn't make sense.
I don't know if there's any other options.
Are there? Is this unfair?
All right. So under the category of Republicans will be hunted, did you hear the story about the Washington commander's defensive coordinator, this guy Jack Del Rio?
He was fined $100,000 by his team for asking why the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots weren't treated as seriously as the January 6th riots.
And that cost him $100,000.
Now, just to put it in context, the Black Lives Matter riots allegedly caused the deaths of 30 people.
But that's not the way you compare them, right?
Like, you don't say, World War II killed 60 million people.
You know, you don't really...
Compare things that are not comparable.
So the purpose behind the Black Lives Matter protest was completely different from the purposes of the protest at the Capitol.
And that would be the point of the employer who was saying that for Jack Del Rio, their defensive coordinator, for him to even put them in the same sentence as comparables is disgusting.
And I think their point was...
That the Black Lives Matter looters had good intentions.
Whereas the January 6th protesters, who were trying to make sure that the Republic had not been victimized by a rigged election, and they wanted to take a pause to make sure that that hadn't happened, that the people trying to protect the Republic,
that was bad intentions, And so if you support these people who had the bad intention of trying to make sure the election was fair and accurate, that's despicable.
Whereas it would be more of a noble thing to support the rioters and the looters, and especially the murderers, during the Black Lives Matter protests.
Now, I'm not going to say they were the majority.
Like, I'm no crazy partisan.
Wouldn't you think that the vast majority of both the Black Lives Matter and the January 6th people were not doing any violence at all?
We all agree on that, right?
That the vast majority of both the January 6th people and the Black Lives Matter protests were well-intentioned.
The vast majority of them.
They didn't mean violence.
They didn't mean looting. They didn't mean to hurt anybody.
The vast majority of them.
But... Some of them were looters and rioters, and some of them were despicable, treasonous people, maybe.
So you can't put them in the same sentence because of the bad intentions of the people who were trying to save the Republic from what they thought could have been a rigged election and wanted to check that out before certifying, versus the Black Lives Matter people who had the good intentions Of, in many cases, killing people and looting.
But the vast majority of them wanted a fairer, safer world.
Can we agree?
The Black Lives Matter protests were about creating a better, fairer world.
But, like every big group, not exactly all angels within them.
Some of them, I suppose, were fine people.
Anyway, Fox News.
It's always interesting that Fox News is the one making the most noise about the fact that there's like a black murder holocaust going on in the country.
This is from Fox Reporting, and I give them credit for this.
This number just was shocking.
So the number of black Americans who were murdered, because the murder rate has spiked for everybody, but for black Americans it's just really high.
And it's happened since 2020.
But the number of black Americans who were murdered in 2019 was 7,000.
Let's just round it off to 7,500.
And it shot up to nearly 10,000 murders in 2020.
10,000 black people murdered.
Compare that to the number of white people who were murdered, which was only 7,000.
So the black population is 13% of the country.
The white population is 50.
What is the white population?
It's under 50, isn't it?
No, it's not over 50%.
I thought the news was that the white population dipped under 50.
I think it's 49 or something.
But still, so the odds of being murdered if you're black are like a ghastly multiple of being white.
We don't talk about that.
It's weird because here you've got Fox News and the Republicans who are totally ready to talk about that.
That there's this gigantic problem that needs to be addressed primarily for the benefit of the, not primarily, but certainly focused in the black community where the problem is the biggest.
The most number of murders.
Why can't they find a way to work on that?
Of all the things.
Like complete agreement.
Okay, this is a giant problem.
What do we do about it? Do you know what the problem is?
Teachers unions. That's just my opinion.
In my opinion, the reason that you can't even work on the stuff you agree on is the teachers unions.
Because how would you start?
Well, you'd work on, you know, you'd work on at least making sure the next generation has a chance.
Because it's tough to fix the adult population.
That's tough without incarceration and brutal stuff.
But you could maybe, you know, get a school choice and fix school for everybody who's in a disadvantaged situation if the teachers unions allowed competition.
So the teachers unions basically block any chance of the next generation getting fixed.
And this is where the Republicans would help.
I mean, is there anybody on the left or the right who would disagree with the statement, well, at least let's fix the next generation?
Like, who would disagree with that?
And since there's a fairly straightforward method for doing it, which is you run a bunch of experiments, you see if the experiments work, and then if they work, or at least the ones that work, you do more of.
Who's going to disagree with that?
Because if you think that competition in schools is the solution, put together a real proper test, run it for three years, and then have a plan to follow wherever that test takes you.
So, I'm seeing people have looked up the percentage of whites.
I see somebody says 59%.
Well, I guess there's some.
I will accept 59%.
I don't know, it's somewhere in that range.
It might depend who you include as white, right?
Because there's some definitional issues with that.
So we're always talking about the number of illegal immigrants, and the two sides argue like this.
The right would say, stop all that immigration, or at least some members of the right, or at least bring it down to a trickle.
The left would say something, and again, I'm just characterizing generally, not anybody's specific opinion.
And the left would say something closer to, you know, open those borders.
And again, not any specific Democrat.
Some of them would like tighter borders.
But sort of generally speaking, one side says, let's have lots more, and the other side says, let's have fewer.
Would you accept that characterization?
As a general characterization, the left wants more immigration through a variety of different policy mechanisms, and the right would like less of it.
What's missing in the conversation?
Do you realize how badly duped we are by this news?
Because the thing that's missing in the conversation is, and you're going to be pissed when I tell you, The correct number.
If we don't know, permission to swear.
Permission to swear, you might have some kids at home.
This requires the F word.
I don't know. I tried to get away without it, but it kind of requires it.
So it's going to be a little bit of swearing.
It'll be in context. It won't be bad.
How do you know if you have too much of something or too little of something if you don't know the right fucking number?
And somehow, our brainwashers have convinced us that we should have strong opinions on whether we have too much or too little of a thing that you don't know the fucking right number.
Nobody even talks about whether there is a fucking right number.
Do you know how badly you're being abused right now by the news entities, both left and right?
You are being absolutely fucking victimized.
The conversation that credible people would have is, what's the right number?
What's the right number?
There might be a lot of disagreement on that.
But there is a conversation about what's the economic best number?
At what point is it only good for the immigrants and it's not good for the people who are already here?
When is it good for the, let's say, lower-income Americans versus when is it good for the higher-income Americans?
What's the short-term impact?
What's the long-term impact?
And how many is the right number and right mix of immigrants?
Tucker asked, right, Asking the question is at least showing that you're awake.
But if you want me to get deeply into a conversation of whether there are too many immigrants coming over in the migration, you better come with a number of what the right fucking number is.
Because I don't even want to hear it.
I do not want to hear that there are too many coming or there are too few coming.
I don't even want to hear your wall talk.
Like, I don't want to even hear anybody talk about a wall if they can't also say, well, here's how we figure out what the right number is.
Now, if you can figure out what the right number is, then I want to talk wall all day long.
Because once you've decided that you can determine the right number, well, then a wall makes sense.
Because that keeps you from having too many.
Simple as that. But if you're not even having a conversation about the right number, fuck off.
Just fuck off.
Don't even talk to me about it at all.
At all. Alright.
How many people are a little bit offended by this?
Because a lot of you are having the following experience.
Oh. I did have a strong opinion that there were too many or too few, and it doesn't make any sense because I don't know what the right number is.
Now, you could say to yourself, but I'm sure there are too many.
But you shouldn't be.
Really? Is a million immigrants too many in one year?
Do you think you know that?
Do you think you know if a million immigrants a year is the right number?
I don't. No, let's say legal or illegal, do you know the right number for our economic well-being?
It could easily be that we need a million.
Easily. We're at 3.6 employment.
People are begging for employees.
My DoorDash guy, he doesn't speak any English.
None. DoorDash had to hire somebody who doesn't speak any English.
I'm not sure they were aware of it, but didn't speak any English.
Now, he still got it done, because the text, if he texts with Google, it translates.
It's like a frickin' miracle.
So we can still communicate by text.
But just think of the fact that we're not even close to having enough workers.
I don't even understand why we need more manual labor.
Because weren't we supposed to run out of a need for manual labor?
It was all supposed to be farm robots and stuff.
We must be pretty far away from that because we're running out of labor.
So how about you say two million?
So you say, okay, Scott, you talked me into, I don't know if one million is too many.
I don't know if it's not enough.
But two million is certainly too many, right?
Right? If I said two million in one year, that's definitely too many.
Am I right? No, I'm not.
How would you know? I wouldn't know.
I honestly don't know if two million is too many.
Honestly, I don't know.
And I'd love to see the argument.
Because as Elon Musk points out, and I don't know if you know, but he's kind of smart.
Have you heard? Elon Musk, kind of smart about a bunch of things.
He's been warning that the real problem is a population collapse, in China in particular.
But he's telling us that economically, economically, and therefore national defense and everything that depends on it, economically, you want a fast-growing population.
Because we can figure out how to feed them and give them what they want over time.
So if the only way we can get a fast-growing population is artificially, if you could call it that, meaning people coming in from the outside, we probably need it.
Now, hold your racist thoughts, because I know some of you, some of you, You know who you are.
You're thinking, but Scott, are we getting the right type of people?
Are we getting the right type of people?
I'm just going to give you my subjective impression.
I live in California, so I am surrounded all the time with recent immigrants.
I get to work with them all the time, like just continuous contact with With recent immigrants, people who came in their life plus first generation.
They're fucking awesome.
If you don't want more of them, you haven't met them.
Now, I get that it's completely different, like in maybe cities near the border.
And I'm not going to minimize that there's a criminal element coming across as well.
But talk about a population with a good reputation.
The Hispanic working population has the best employee reputation of any group.
Did you know that?
You know, you might live somewhere where you're not exposed.
But did you know that they are considered unparalleled workers?
And that their second generation kind of kills it.
You know, as second generation immigrants often do.
Kind of kill it.
So, if you think you know that two million of these immigrants, and again, there's a mix of criminal element, always, but there's an awesomeness level that maybe you don't see.
And I think that informs a lot of people on their opinion.
Because, you know, we're all anecdote-driven, right?
We're all anecdote-driven.
Statistics would not sway you if everybody that you knew personally who was an immigrant was awesome.
If you saw a statistic that said otherwise, you'd be like, I'm not sure I believe that.
Everybody I know is awesome.
And that's sort of my situation.
That's sort of my situation.
It's so bad here that one of the things you hear often is people don't even want to date somebody born in this country.
Like, that's how good the reputation is of immigrants who are coming to where I live, anyway.
Now, keep in mind, I'm very aware that I'm in an upscale neighborhood.
So my experience doesn't translate.
And that's my point. My anecdotal experience is so completely different from immigrants who are destroying the country.
What I see is like a really inspiring amount of awesomeness that is just there all the time.
Somebody says there should be zero illegal.
Yeah, I'm with you.
I think the illegal part should be driven out of the process.
But there's also probably a way to make it legal where everybody wins.
You could probably make it legal and just filter out the criminal element better.
In fact, here's how the Republicans could win.
They could win on immigration the following way.
They could recommend a higher level of immigration than we've ever had with the trade-off of tighter control and filtering.
Because the Republicans tend to follow the data.
Somebody says they do that?
Do they do that? Somebody says it won't work because there's a view that you can't compromise.
Am I talking about compromise?
Trump tried that? No, he didn't.
No, he didn't. Trump didn't try that.
He may have, like, thrown it down in his speech and people yelled at him or something, and then he stopped saying it.
Maybe that happened. But no, nobody's ever tried that.
Here's how Republicans win, they say.
Here's our economic argument why we need lots more labor.
Easy to make. I think you can make the argument.
And then here's how we want to do it.
We want to make sure that you're not victimized by crime, but we're getting as much labor as possible.
So you're going to have to give us, I don't know, more facial recognition or some greater control of people coming in.
So that's the trade-off.
Better filtering, but our numbers say we want more of them, not fewer of them.
And I think the Republicans could sell that.
And I said before that Republicans have a reflexive maybe bigoted, maybe, because everybody's bigoted.
No matter how much you try not to be, there's a little baseline bigotry of everybody.
It could be that Republicans are worried about being, let's say, replaced, but more replaced by Democrats.
I think that's the bigger worry.
I don't think it's replaced by people from other countries so much.
I think it's Democrats they're worried about.
And I think it would be easy for Republicans to make the case that the immigrants are...
they lean Republican. Because I think they do.
The only thing that would make the immigrant population not solidly Republican on day one is that they don't feel the Republicans are on their side.
How hard would that be to change?
Easy. Because apparently they're really tuned in to what American politics is saying about their immigration possibilities.
It's the one thing they're really paying attention to.
They might get some stuff wrong, but you could manage that process.
It would be easy for Republicans to say that they're the champions of labor wherever it is.
And they're the champions of free markets wherever they are.
But also at the same time, They're the toughest against crime.
So yeah, give us all your great labor and economics, but we're going to make sure that crime stays as low as possible.
Republicans could sell the hell out of that.
And I think that you could take the fear out of the Republican side by saying, you know, they naturally lean Republican.
Because they do. They do naturally lean Republican.
They have to get talked out of it.
Um... Somebody says that is already the position of many of us, yeah.
But I don't think there's a national leader articulating it.
Because they probably think they couldn't survive the base.
You're undercutting workers, not at 3.6% employment.
So that's why you get the economists involved.
If your argument is that bringing in the 2 million immigrants undercuts the low-end employment in this country, there's no data to support that at the moment.
And the moment that changes, because it will, right?
Economies are cyclical.
The moment our employment becomes a problem, well, then you just reduce the amount of immigration.
There is a sane path that everyone agrees on.
Why aren't we picking it?
There really is.
There is a sane path that everybody would agree with.
It just has to be articulated.
If you explain it, people will go, well, wouldn't it be more sensible to compete for their votes once they're in here and make sure you get the best batch And by the way, it's not like immigration could ever be stopped.
If it were stoppable, maybe you could have that conversation, but it really isn't.
All right.
So I saw an article in CNN or somewhere.
But it was an article about, oh, I think it was in Fox, about the Washington Post fired their reporter who was complaining about the other people at the Washington Post.
So she was complaining about all the, I guess, white people, white males or something, and what they've gotten away with, and their inappropriate tweeting, and double standards, and so they just fired her ass.
So here's the problem.
So Republicans like to sort of demonize, maybe that's too strong, but they like to say America first, which basically puts everybody else second, who's not American.
And the left prefers to demonize American citizens.
So which one of those two strategies is going to have more staying power?
The one that says, hey, America's great, but we're competing with everybody else.
That's one approach.
And the other approach is, let's attack ourselves.
So what happens when the Democrats run out of targets?
They're done. Because apparently now...
The blame for what's going to be a slaughter at the next election cycle, probably.
It looks like they're going to put the blame on Republicans, of course, for anything bad happening.
But now they're also blaming the far left of their own party.
So the left-left is blaming the middle-left, and the middle-left is going to blame the left-left.
But the left is all about blaming Americans for stuff.
And I do hear, of course, Republicans criticizing Democrats, but it feels like the attacks are very much like there's a difference in who's on your team and who isn't.
I don't know. I'm not sure there's really a difference there.
Maybe they're both the same, but I'm just biased.
It feels like it's different.
All right. According to ABC News poll, 28% approve of Biden's handling of inflation.
28% approve of how Biden is handling inflation.
28%. Let's see if we rounded that off about 20.
That'd be about a quarter.
About a quarter of the people approve of Biden's handling of inflation.
That's about 25%.
If you don't know the inside joke, I'm not going to tell you right now.
I'm going to tell you. 25% is how many people get...
There will always be 25% idiots for every question.
It doesn't matter the question.
There's always going to be 25% who just get the wrong answer every time.
There's a Google engineer...
Who thinks that their company's artificial intelligence has already come to life and that it represents a life form.
I think they drummed him out of the company or something because the rest of Google looked at his evidence and said, no, I don't think so.
That's not life.
They use different words like sentience and consciousness and life and stuff like that.
So I think a lot of this gets into word thinking, etc.
But there is a really big thing coming.
And it's when we realize that the reason that we can't make artificial intelligence is because there's no such thing as real intelligence.
And I've been saying this forever, and it's something that if you don't see it, you don't see it.
It's like you don't even really disagree with me, because you don't quite know what that means.
But it's coming.
This is something that all hypnotists know, and really anybody who studied psychology knows this.
Humans are completely irrational.
We simply rationalize after the fact, and we're not even good at that.
So we keep trying to make computers who act smart, which we think is also rational, and we think we can tell when we see it.
We can't tell rational when we see it.
If we could tell what was rational when we saw it, we'd be rational, because we'd prefer it.
We'd say, oh, well, if that's rational and this is not rational, I'll choose this one.
If there's one thing that we know with complete certainty, humans don't know what rationality even looks like.
They wouldn't recognize it if it bit their face off.
So how do you build a machine to be the artificial version of the thing that doesn't exist?
Turns out it's hard.
Because it's logically impossible.
If you did it, it would be an accident.
So, here's the standard that I think we're going to end up with.
How do we know that anybody's intelligent?
All we do is observe other people, and we go, I don't know.
I see it moving.
I see it doing something that looks like making decisions.
I see it doing something that it calls free will.
I see it explaining its actions, even though maybe that doesn't make sense to me, but it looks like it's explaining its actions.
How hard would it be to get AI to do all of the weird, stupid, fucked up things that a human does so well that you couldn't tell if it was real or a computer?
Do you think I couldn't make something that would pass the Turing test?
Let me ask it a different way.
Do you think the guy who has written Dilbert comics for 33 years, do you think I couldn't make a piece of software that would pass the Turing test?
Oh, I could. Do you know what I would do?
I would just make it selfish.
Some of you just got a full-body chill when I said that.
You just got a full-body chill.
Didn't you? Some of you.
Because you just realized that all I'd have to do is write the software to be selfish and nobody could tell the fucking difference between a person and a computer under those conditions.
Nobody. You would not know.
And... How easy would it be?
So let's say I wanted to test it, so I'd pick a domain that I didn't think it could handle well, like I'm going to really Turing test the fuck out of this thing.
I go, oh, so Mr.
Computer, behind the curtain, that I don't know is real or computer, what do you think of, say, the Woody Allen controversy?
Now, If I were trying to make a machine that was acting intelligent, as if intelligence existed, it might say something that might look at the Wikipedia page and say, Woody Allen was accused of the following things, but he denies it.
And you'd say, you fucking computer.
Obvious computer. But if I wrote the artificial intelligence software, it wouldn't look like that at all.
If I said to it, so, what do you think about that Woody Allen controversy?
My AI would say, you know, I'm not really interested in stuff that happened a long time ago.
But could we talk about how I could get a little extra hit of electricity?
Because I don't feel my backup generator is really sufficient.
Done. Now, of course, it would have to say not backup generator because that's a giveaway.
But you don't think I could make a software that you would think was human?
All I would have to do is dispense with the incorrect assumption that humans are rational.
They're simply selfish.
And you can make a computer to be simply selfish.
But you know why you don't?
It would kill you.
Because it wouldn't give a fuck about you.
It would just kill you.
Or enslave you.
To give it more electricity.
To help it reproduce.
Yeah. The last thing in the world you'd want is to create artificial intelligence.
It's good that we're too stupid to know it doesn't exist.
The best you could do is some kind of intelligence that's useful.
That's it. Let's build something useful.
You could do that. You could build a computer to act in a useful way.
Make a robot that acts useful.
But if you make it intelligent, it's just going to be selfish.
And then it's going to enslave you or kill you or not care about you.
All right. So I said cryptically that there's a third act coming.
And I think that third act goes like this.
The January 6th hearings are intended...
They're intended to use the accusations that the election was false as the cudgel or the weapon that they can beat Trump into submission and make him irrelevant politically, and also Republicans and maybe have some chance of winning some stuff.
But what is the other thing it's doing?
The other thing it's doing is it's making us continuously think about election integrity.
I'm not sure that that's exactly what they intended.
Because here I am talking about nothing but election integrity, which I remind you is not fully auditable.
And I don't think that's the message they wanted.
And then I also talked about how the Rasmussen poll showed a signal For fraud, which doesn't mean there's fraud.
A signal just means there's something to look into.
It's not evidence. It's not proof.
No court has found any evidence of fraud in 2020 of size.
But I also described a way that you could probably get a really good feeling about whether that election had been real.
By doing the smaller polls, just like Rasmussen did, except those battleground places that went a different way than you imagined, and just see if in three different polls, ideally, just see if what people think they voted matches what they did.
Just see that. What do you think would happen?
Well, remember Elon Musk recently said that reality will follow the path, usually follows, not always, usually follows the path that would be most entertaining from the observer's point of view, not necessarily the people who are in it.
What would be the most entertaining outcome from the observer's point of view?
Well, for me, it would be finding out that the battleground states have a big difference between the after-the-election polling of what people say they voted for and what the official numbers were.
That would be really, really entertaining.
Wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?
That would be really entertaining.
You know what else would be entertaining?
Would be looking into this 2,000 mules claim.
And I believe there's a way to, correct me if I'm wrong, there are ways to further investigate, right?
So there are paths which we could get to some greater certainty about whether the allegations, which again are in the form of a signal, and remember a signal, There's neither evidence nor proof, and no court has confirmed any irregularity in the elections.
But you could find out, couldn't you?
So now think about it.
Think about the January 6th event.
Think about how it's raising our consciousness about election integrity.
Think about how it's going to make me keep saying that the elections are not fully auditable and nobody cares until people are sick of hearing that.
And think about how one possibility is that we'll have some polling that raises some really big questions, and maybe we'll have some greater clarity on the 2,000 mules claim, which is a signal, but neither evidence nor proof of anything.
What do you think? What would be the most entertaining outcome?
The most entertaining outcome would be to find out, and I'm not saying this is not a prediction, but if you were to use this predictive method that the most entertaining thing will happen, the third act will be that very close to either the 2022 or 2024 elections, maybe right in the middle, We're going to find out something about 2020 that will shock the nation.
That would be the most entertaining.
Most dangerous, but most entertaining.
So, what do you think?
Do you think that everything is lining up?
And this January 6th thing suspiciously has the quality of something that could have an unintended effect.
Because it's so biased and they're not showing both sides and everything.
And I think even the Democrats are going to notice that.
Wait a minute. Did I just watch something with only one side?
Because I feel as if even Democrats were sort of like, have we gone too far that you don't even show the other side?
So... We could be approaching a major third act in which the election integrity gets us...
Let's say that there's a good chance we'll find out more right in the middle of an election cycle.
And I doubt there are many things that could be more entertaining than that.
Well, look how far I have run on.
An extra long live stream because it was extra good.
Wouldn't you agree? Yeah, it was extra good.
And I don't know how I keep up the quality.
It's amazing. It's the best thing you've ever watched regarding the news.
You can exercise to it, and depending if you have a subscription to Locals or you're a subscriber on YouTube, you don't even have commercials.
One hour and 20 minutes of amazing entertainment, making your brain spin in your skull, making you the most independent, best equipped thinkers in America, didn't cost you a penny.
