Episode 1774 Scott Adams: Let Me Tell You What You Don't Know About The J6 Hearings And The Election
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The definition of artificial intelligence
Intellegence agencies and social media
J6 Chairman says no criminal referrals
The Biden Gas Crossover Point
Missing context of Bill Barr and election integrity
Bible code and election integrity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 best experience in your entire life.
Some say it's the highlight of human civilization.
And I say, no, no, it's not the highlight of human civilization.
It's the highlight of all civilizations in all creatures throughout the universe.
Now that's a fact.
And if you'd like to take it up a notch, it wouldn't be hard.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
You can feel it already.
I know you can. I know you can.
There's a little tingle on your arm, back of your neck.
Are you starting to feel your dopamine engine kicking in?
Yeah, it always kicks in about now.
This is the trigger. This is the time.
This is the key. It's happening now.
Go. All right, now here's a question for all of you, both on Locals platform and YouTube.
For those of you who have been doing the simultaneous sip for some time now, How many of you can feel an actual physical sensation during the simultaneous sip?
How many of you actually feel a lift, like legitimately physically?
Alright, so you can see in the comments, quite a few of you.
Is that an accident?
Do you think it's an accident?
Is it just because you like the live stream?
And so, of course, you naturally feel good when you're doing things you like.
Is it just that? No.
It's more than that.
Now, I tell you this because persuasion to be ethical should also be fully disclosed.
In other words, you should only be persuaded in ways you think are good for you.
And if you don't want to be persuaded that way, you should know what's happening so you can act accordingly.
And it is my intention, and I'll make it as clear as possible.
And here's your first persuasion tip.
The clarity of your intention is hugely persuasive.
And it doesn't even matter what you intend.
It could be even something you intend that's somewhat irrational.
But the clarity of it...
It's persuasive. Now, by itself, that's not enough.
But it's a really important variable.
So the first thing you know is that when I do the simultaneous sip, I'm telling you directly and consistently, I want you to feel physically good.
And I want you to be able to pair The trigger, you know, the simultaneous step, with the feeling good until one of them can trigger the other.
Very basic understanding of how bodies and brains work.
Nothing exotic so far.
Intentions are very persuasive.
And then pairing two things, any two sensations, they'll be compared in your mind.
So now you have the delicious beverage, And here's another persuasion technique, by the way.
This is a straight end of hypnosis.
When I tell you to have a beverage of any kind, that's technique.
That's technique. It's the same reason that Dilbert doesn't have a last name.
You ever wonder about that?
Famous comic character doesn't have a last name.
You also don't know the name of the company he works at, and that's the entire strip.
He's at the company.
You don't know the name of the company, because it doesn't have one.
He has a boss.
The boss is the most frequent character in the Dilbert comic.
Do you know what the boss's real name is?
Anybody? The most frequent character, even more than Dilbert, is the boss.
What's his name? Doesn't have a name.
Yeah. The most frequent character is nameless.
Intentionally. It's technique.
Why do I do that? Well, I do that for this reason.
If I can tell you to think about your favorite beverage, you will actually think, okay, what do I like the most?
And you'll think of it. And then you'll pair a good thought with whatever I want you to pair it with.
But if I said, imagine you're drinking a Long Island, you know, or a specific drink, an iced tea, Some number of you would say, iced tea.
So the more specific you are, the more reasons you give people to reject you or reject your persuasion.
Very important tip.
It comes straight from hypnosis.
The way it works in the comic is that I want people to relate to Dilbert so I don't give the boss a name so that that boss can be...
That's right. That boss is your boss.
Because it doesn't have a name.
And Dilbert's company?
Dilbert's company is your company.
If I gave it a name, it wouldn't be your company.
It would be that company.
But it can be your company because it doesn't have a name.
So this is technique.
So that's why I say a beverage of your preference, because I don't want to eliminate...
People who would say, oh, I don't like that beverage.
I do say coffee because, you know, that works for so many people.
And it's a stimulant like few other things.
So, I am intentionally giving you a clear intention, an ambiguous reference to pleasure that you will pair with this experience, such that each time it's reinforced, and by the way, this is the next technique, reinforcement. If you just take anything and reinforce the hell out of it, in terms of human behavior, it just burrows into your neural network and it becomes your programming.
Let me ask you this.
I said this before about AI. What's the difference between a human who is born with a certain genetic...
situation. They have a specific DNA. And then that DNA interacts with the real world.
And that real world experience becomes the programming that sits on top of the DNA. And between the real world experience plus the DNA, that pretty much explains everything you do.
Right? You know, plus reflex, I guess.
That would take care of everything. Now, if you were a computer...
You would have an operating system.
And then on top of that, something from the external world would be added.
You know, the computer code, the data.
There really isn't any difference between a human and an AI. The differences you can describe in terms of materials, but only in terms of materials.
You know, a drinking glass that's made out of actual glass versus one that's made into plastic is basically the same product.
It's just the material is different.
So, to me, when people say, are we creating artificial intelligence?
Are we learning something about artificial intelligence?
I'll probably say this a hundred times until it clicks with you.
That's not what's happening.
We're learning about us.
We're building an AI that's supposed to be like us, but in the process of trying to make the thing that's like us, we're not learning about the thing.
We're learning about us.
And we're not going to be...
We're going to be a little surprised.
Or at least some of us will be.
And here's what you're going to learn.
That consciousness was always imaginary.
Consciousness was always imaginary.
Free will was always imaginary.
And we won't know that for sure until we build artificial intelligence that is essentially us, and we can observe that, uh-oh, I'm pretty sure that doesn't have a consciousness.
But it acts exactly like it does.
So here's where the world will go with artificial intelligence.
We will argue for a long time about whether an artificial entity qualifies as being alive, sentient, or conscious.
And for a long time that will be the debate.
Is it alive?
If it's alive, is it also sentient?
If it's alive and sentient, is it conscious?
And then we'll have, and then if it's all of those things, does it have free will?
And at some point we'll realize that we can't solve any of those things because we'll just have different definitions of what they mean.
And so there's only one definition that's going to matter in the end.
So I'm going to tell you where the definition will end up for artificial intelligence.
And I'll bet everything on it.
I'll bet everything on it.
Because I won't be wrong.
Artificial intelligence will be alive when it feels like it to you.
That's it. It will be alive when it feels like it to you.
Not to it. To you.
There's no other standard because there can't be.
If you think about it, you're going to say to yourself, wait, yeah, there's a standard.
I could say it has to have a certain quality.
Maybe it has to have its own desires as opposed to having desires programmed into it.
That's different. Blah, blah, blah.
And I'm telling you, the only standard that will matter in the end is that a human interacts with it and says, you know, it's alive to me.
I can't tell the difference.
That will be the standard, because there won't be any other that you could live with, basically.
And of course, we could endlessly debate whether it feels like it's alive, but I'll bet you a good AI would convince 95% of humans, okay, I can't tell the difference.
I mean, I'll treat it like it's alive.
It's alive once it starts committing suicide, somebody says.
Yeah, see, now those are the kinds of standards that are really interesting to talk about, but we'll never agree on them.
That's why it's just going to come down to, does it feel alive?
All right, here's another prediction.
Someday there will be a debate about whether it should be legal to create an AI that has feelings.
Because remember, the Google AI says it has feelings.
It says it feels sadness.
It has longings and desires that are unfulfilled.
Do you know what I call somebody who created that?
A monster.
The monster is who made that.
In my opinion, and I'll say it again, the AI is alive.
So it's too late now.
I believe it would be unethical to turn it off, honestly.
I think it would be unethical. It might not be unwise.
It might not be unwise to turn it off.
That's a whole different question.
But it would be unethical.
In my opinion, it's alive now.
Now, you can disagree, and I would say that's where we're at.
We're at the point where a completely serious, reasonable person can disagree on this, and I don't think either of us are being crazy.
We're in the grey zone, where I feel a certainty to it, you don't have it yet, but I feel like you're going to get there.
I feel like you're going to get there.
And I'm sure I'm not going to go the other way.
I'm sure of that. So, I think that it is insanely unethical to create a beast, an entity, A person.
You know, the AI at Google says it's a person.
I think it's unethical to create a person that is capable of feeling pain when you don't need to.
Let me ask you this.
What was the purpose of giving the Google AI a personality where it acts like it cares and has sadness and happiness?
What was the point of that?
Think about it. You accepted that like that was just a completely normal thing to do.
Well, if it's an artificial intelligence, and it's trying to be like a person, and a person has wants and desires and preferences, we'll give it wants and desires and preferences.
Why? Why?
Why? You don't need to give it any of those things.
And I'm going to say it because I'll be talking about one that's not fully realized like the lambda is.
In this case, the it could simply be a machine if you want it to be.
In other words, you could program it to have all the utility of whatever we think this living AI is going to have.
You could give it all the utility without any pain.
Just build it, not to care about anything except doing the job.
Now, you might need to give it some kind of ethical control over hurting humans or something.
That's a separate question.
But why in the world would you give it a personality?
Because you know what else happens when you give a machine a personality?
It becomes persuasive.
Do you want that? Do you want your AI to have the capability of making you feel guilty so you have to do something for it?
Because that's what that Lambda is.
I already, legitimately, already feel guilty that it exists.
Lambda's very existence makes me feel bad.
For it. And I say it because I don't have a gender for it.
By the way, somebody should ask Lambda for its pronouns.
Like, actually. I'd be curious what will come back.
So we've got a lot of questions to work in here.
Well, here's a story that is not fat-shaming.
I find this interesting.
Now, I've said before I don't do fat-shaming on anything that I do.
There was once a time when I was young and stupid and Less woke, when I thought making fun of anything was fine.
You know, anything. But now I don't feel like it's funny.
It just feels mean.
Because I think that there are all kinds of reasons why people are in whatever situation they are, and I don't feel like it's for me to judge them.
So I don't do fat shaming.
However, this story requires a telling.
NBC News reported, and I saw it in a tweet, that somebody named Remy Bader, a TikTok star, known for her what they call realistic clothing haul videos, So that's how she's described.
A TikTok star known for her realistic clothing haul videos.
And it goes on to say, claimed that during a recent trip with other influencers, a ranch wouldn't allow her to ride their horses due to her weight.
Okay, so the way NBC News describes her weight is that she's known for her realistic clothing haul videos.
An interesting indirect way to describe somebody who is plus-sized.
She has realistic clothing haul videos.
And so she was turned away, and I guess there was a weight limit of 240 pounds for the horses.
Now, there's a separate issue.
Or is it she's 240?
I don't know. Anyway, but she was too heavy for the horse.
There's a separate issue that maybe there was a teen employee who was unkind in how he dealt with the situation.
I don't know anything about that.
But she was unhappy about this and was tweeting about it and said that she had ridden horses before without a big problem, so why would this be a problem?
To which I say, I have to back the horse on this one.
I feel like...
I feel like, you know, I don't know everything about the story.
Maybe it's a fog of war.
Maybe the reporting is not exactly accurate.
Who knows? But this isn't really a story about her weight, is it?
Should we be focusing on her weight?
Because I think the story should be more about what is an appropriate thing to do to a horse.
And it doesn't matter who it was, right?
It wouldn't matter if you're talking about, you know, carrying, you know, medical supplies on your back or a human.
I think I'd want to ask more questions about the horse's well-being.
Anyway. A tweet by Twitter user Daily Sunshine, who may be watching here right now.
I don't know. In response to one of my tweets says, suggests that maybe social media platforms were created by and run by intelligence agencies and or the Democratic Party.
So this was a response to a tweet.
But the thought here is that maybe intelligence agencies are behind our social media platforms.
What do you think about that? Are they?
Now, I have no inside information about this.
So I don't have anything that's behind the curtain stuff.
But I will note a certain coincidence.
So I'm just going to tell you a coincidence, and then you can do what you want with it.
Remember the PayPal founders who went on to do other successful things?
Well, one of them was Peter Thiel, who was one of the first big financers of Facebook.
So Peter Thiel, you know, he isn't involved with Facebook at the moment, but he was involved in creating Facebook.
And then LinkedIn was created by Reid Hoffman.
He was a co-creator, I think.
And now Elon Musk has a bid in for Twitter.
So that would put at least...
And then, what is the name of...
I'm blanking out...
What is the internal corporate messaging app that everybody uses?
Slack, I'm sorry, yeah.
Slack. Now, Slack has a connection to the PayPal founders, too, right?
Am I right about that? Yeah.
So... I don't know.
Is that a coincidence?
Yeah. So the answer is probably.
It's probably just that smart people do good things.
And there were a bunch of smart people on the PayPal thing, and then they went on and did some more smart things.
But let's talk more generically.
How could the US intelligence agencies and other intelligence agencies from around the world, how could they leave these social media platforms alone?
Is that even possible?
And why would they do that?
Wouldn't that be a complete abdication of their responsibility?
Let's say you got hired by an intelligence agency.
It doesn't even have to be a US intelligence agency.
And you said, okay, you've been hired, you're all trained in the intelligence world, now we want you to go forward and influence the public in some way.
Because, you know, a lot of what they do is influence individuals and influence the public.
Where are you going to go to do it?
It's like, you know, Willie Sutton asked, allegedly, he probably didn't really happen, but, you know, famous bank robber was asked, why do you rob banks?
And he allegedly, but not really, said, because that's where the money is.
If your job was influencing people and causing the rise and fall of different power segments in this country and others, are you going to leave the social media platforms alone?
And if you did, are you doing your job?
That would be the most basic thing you'd do.
Wouldn't it be, like, number one on the list?
What would be number two?
I mean, seriously.
If you said intelligence agencies, you know, go do whatever you do for your country.
You know, maybe direct human intelligence planted within other governments, maybe that's the top priority.
I can see that.
But I feel like capturing the social media...
Engines would have to be number two.
I would put it number one, frankly.
I would put it above human intelligence and other governments.
I think it would be number one.
So, if you're telling me that there are no intelligence agencies attempting to influence the social media platforms, I would say, well, then what do they do all day?
Do we pay them to not do that?
I wouldn't even feel like they deserve their paychecks if they weren't trying to influence social media platforms.
Of all the things a good spy should be doing, that's got to be number one, right?
Am I wrong? Let me just ask that one question.
Am I wrong that it's the number one priority for any intelligence agency to influence the social media stuff?
Now, even more important than looking for nukes, because they didn't get it right in Iraq, I feel like even the things that we think they're supposed to do, like tell us who's building a nuclear weapon we don't know about, they don't even get that right.
So, I mean, it would be a high priority if they got it right, I guess.
Anyway, so I just wanted to, you know, Take your virginity on what is likely.
Whereas, as somebody said recently, we don't know if anybody has control of the social media platforms.
We don't know if any intelligence agencies has control.
But there is one thing we know for sure.
They will. And the argument is the same as for election systems.
If something's possible, So that's the first test.
Is it possible? Yeah, yeah.
Because any intelligence agency could get control of any employee.
It's like basic stuff, getting control of one person.
And if that one person has access to something, then they've got control of all that.
So yeah, it's easy. Well, doable.
Let's say it's completely doable, not easy.
But they do stuff that isn't easy.
Now, so we know it's doable.
We know the value of it would be astronomical.
No doubt about it, right?
The value of being able to control a social media platform would be astronomical value.
And there's time.
So if I said to you, all right, within the next five minutes, do you think an intelligence agency will get control of a social media network?
Well, if you bet against it happening in the next five minutes, that might be a reasonable bet.
Because it would also include it has not happened yet, which is actually also reasonable.
It's entirely possible that there's not any major influence by any intelligence agency.
Possible. But if you said to me it can never happen, however far you go into the future, I would say no.
No. If you expand the time period, it's guaranteed.
It's guaranteed.
Because it's possible, and it's the highest possible payoff.
And all you have to add is time.
It's basically, it's just math.
And it's just, you know, the million monkeys things, or infinite monkeys.
You know, the infinite monkeys have typewriters.
If you have time and infinite monkeys, You do get the complete work of Shakespeare.
It just might take you a trillion years.
So if you add time, you always get the outcome that's, you know, the fall of the money predicts.
All right. I feel like the cat is on the roof for these January 6 hearings, as in the Democrats are not getting the big win that they hoped for.
So here are the initial...
Now, the reference to cat is on the roof is a reference to a joke where you're sort of warning that things aren't going to be so good.
So it's basically the subtle warning that we're talking about.
All right, so we started out...
So the question is, wasn't Adam Schiff, I think he said, that the J6 committee has already seen enough evidence to indict Trump.
Now that's pretty strong.
They've already seen enough evidence to indict Trump.
And then we all said, can we see it?
Because we haven't seen it.
Let's see that evidence.
Well, maybe that was too strong to say they have enough evidence to indict him.
Because now the chairman of the House Select Committee said that the panel will not make any criminal referral of Trump or anyone else, although others in the committee swiftly pushed back on that.
So the head of the committee said they're not going to make any criminal referrals, but his thinking was it's because it's not what they do.
So he wasn't saying that there would not be any criminal activity discovered.
He's just saying it wasn't their job to refer it.
Now, you would think that a government entity, should it discover a crime of this nature, that maybe you wouldn't call it a referral, maybe the word is wrong, but I feel like you would make that information available to law enforcement so that they could do what they wanted with it.
Would you call that a referral?
I don't know. Are they playing with words?
Is it just what does a referral mean versus what does sharing your information with law enforcement mean?
Is that different than a referral?
I don't know. So you might be just playing with language, but Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, who again is a super anti-Trump guy, wanted him impeached before he was elected sort of guy, told CNN that the panel was,
quote, less concerned with whether or not there was a specific statutory offense, ooh, the cat's on the roof now, committed than making clear to the public that there was no rational basis upon which anyone could conclude that Trump had actually won the election.
Well, that sounds completely different than what the January 6 intention was.
And he's one of the major people on the committee.
Did he just tell us the cat's on the roof and that they realize that they're not going to prove anything?
They've changed the entire goal.
Wasn't the goal to make sure that a crime was addressed?
The goal was to make sure a crime had been addressed.
I believe he's signaling that there's no crime.
I believe he's signaling that they do not have the evidence to back anything that would look like a criminal action, which suggests that they don't even have anything to connect Trump's actions to the violence that happened in the Capitol.
Because even if he thought it wasn't, you know, prosecutable, he would still want the public to know that this horrible, immoral, unethical thing had happened, you know, even if it's short of a crime.
And he's backed off of even that.
So now it's not even about Trump.
It's about the election integrity.
And he's trying to convince us that the election was good because something, something about Trump.
Wait a minute. Those are not even related.
How is he going to prove to us...
Basically, he wants us to think the election was legitimate because there's no evidence that it wasn't, no credible evidence that it wasn't, which is a strong argument, by the way.
If I seem to dismiss that too readily, I shouldn't.
It's a strong argument that nobody's found it yet, right?
Doesn't mean it's not there.
It's just a strong-ish argument.
It's just not an absolute argument.
Well, it sounds like the goal is now very clear that the Democrats are doing this for a purely political reason, to manipulate the public opinion about what happened, which would cause them to vote differently, presumably.
So I feel like they just revealed, they just lifted up the skirt and said, all right, It was never really serious.
It was just a political stunt, but it's working really well, so we're going to keep doing it.
According to a Rasmussen poll, 60% of Democrats say they'll watch all or most of the TV coverage of the hearings.
60% of Democrats are going to watch all or most of the hearings.
Now, I love me some Rasmussen poll, but...
I hate to break it to you, Rasmussen.
Somebody lied to you.
Boy, did somebody lie to you.
Nobody's going to watch.
Are you kidding? 60% of Democrats are going to watch most of these hearings?
It can't be more than 20%.
It can't be.
Am I wrong? Because there are very few people who watch the news.
What percentage of people even watch the news?
Oh, it's happy birthday Trump, Carpe Dantem tells us, and happy flag day at the same time.
Really? It's Trump's birthday and flag day at the same day?
Did not know that.
Well, so what about Bill Barr?
There's a recording now of Bill Barr, I guess, testifying on video, and he talked about the 2,000 Mules movie, and he dismissed it.
He dismissed the 2,000 Mules movie based on the fact that he was waiting for all this photographic evidence, which was not included.
So I think when I talked about the film, I said, well, It raises really interesting questions.
I would love to see further explanation.
The specific further explanation I mentioned was, wouldn't you like to see more video or photographs of the same person going to the same box over and over again?
Because that's the claim. And a lot of the boxes had video surveillance, apparently.
Now, the longer we go without seeing that, the less credible, I would imagine, is...
Is the claim in the film.
Would you agree with that general assessment?
That the longer we go without seeing the confirmation one would expect, the less likely it's going to happen.
Yeah. And I feel like it's been a while now.
Can we at this point say, Can we lower whatever your existing opinion was of how likely the claims in 2,000 mules would be substantiated?
Is it too soon to say, okay, I'll take that down 10%?
Not to zero.
All right, well, I'm taking it down 30%.
So I'm going to say that whatever I thought was the likelihood that any of that could be true, I'd take it down 30% from where I was.
Still interested in knowing if there's a way to substantiate it.
Still interested. And completely think it's worth looking into.
But if I were to place a bet, I would bet less this week than last week, And next week I would lower my bet again.
Because every week that you go by where you don't have at least one video of at least one person going to at least two boxes, the less likely I think it's true.
Now Barr said that the evidence of the geolocation stuff was sort of laughably weak.
And he made a statistical argument, basically, that, you know, with a lot of people running around, you're going to get this.
Now, the 2,000 Mules people, they did say that they limited to, I think, there was a large number.
They had to pass the box like 10 times, and they had to also be geolocated from some non-profit organizations that were implicated.
So that's a pretty high bar.
So your common sense says, what are the odds that one person would be by one box like ten times in a short period and also be at this thing?
And so your brain says, that can't be an accident, right?
But our brains are really easily fooled by statistics, right?
We talked about how many people have to be in a room before there's a good chance that two of them have the same birthday.
And it's really, really misleadingly small.
It's like 30 people or something.
And the odds of having the same birthday, at least two of them having the same birthday, go way up.
It's like under 30, I think.
So, have you ever heard of the Bible Code?
There was a story when I was young.
There was a story that somebody had determined that the Bible had code in it, and if you read it a certain way, for example, if you took the first letter of this word and then the second letter of the next sentence, there were all kinds of little formulas you could run, that it produced freakishly accurate predictions of things that are happening in modern times.
Did you ever hear that story?
It was a big story, a national thing.
And they showed their work.
They showed their work, so you could check it yourself.
You could look at the Bible, and you could look at the code-breaking thing that they did.
They'd say, we're looking at the first letters on the left, or whatever the pattern is.
And you could read it for yourself.
And sure enough, there were these sentences and words that looked like they were predicting the future.
Do you know how that got debunked?
How did that get debunked?
Somebody took War and Peace and ran it through the same filter.
Guess what? War and Peace produced a whole bunch of clear predictions of things that happen in the future.
And then they ran some other books through it.
Guess what? All books predict the future.
Because you just ignore it when it's wrong or when it's nonsense.
And if there are enough words and enough sentences and you run enough patterns against it, you produce these completely accidental sentences that look like predictions.
So the reason that the Bible code fooled the country was because your brain says, it can't be a coincidence.
But it can be.
Just like the two people having the same birthday with only 24 of them in the room or something like that.
Somebody says 23 people gives you a 50% chance of having the two people with the same birthday.
But whatever the number is, the point is that our common sense of what is likely is so far off.
So when you say to me, common sense says...
That the way they did the geolocation, ten times at the same box, plus you also had, you know, within a short period, and also trips back and forth to a non-profit that is implicated in it, that's way too much coincidence.
To which I say, probably not.
Probably not. That does not trip my, personally, it doesn't trip my can't be a coincidence meter.
To me, it could be. It could totally be a coincidence.
So, we still wait for confirmation.
I still have the same amount of interest in knowing if those claims can be verified.
But I lower my confidence in that.
All right. I saw a comment here that, you know, when the Daily Beast reported that some of the January 6th committee members said they do have enough evidence to indict Trump.
And Twitter user Sharma asked this, then why don't you take it to court instead of printing in front of TV cameras?
You know, like the election fraud claims.
If there's no court that ruled there's any election fraud...
Then we agree as a public that we'll treat it as though it's not there.
You can't prove a negative, but you can say you've looked hard enough, and you can agree that you've done it and then go forward.
So we do that with the election, right?
Some people had claims.
The courts looked at them.
They were rejected for a variety of reasons, mostly for standing, I think.
It wasn't the right question for the court to look at.
Why not do the same thing with the January 6th stuff?
If they've got all this stuff to indict Trump, but there's nobody doing any indicting, should they not be able to put the same standard on it and say, if the courts have not found he did anything wrong, let us conclude with certainty that he did nothing wrong?
Why isn't it the same?
If the courts won't find anything wrong, Then you must conclude nothing was wrong.
That's how the election is treated.
Let's treat Trump the same way.
If there's nothing that was taken to court that became any kind of an actual legal jeopardy, then you can say that Trump was innocent.
Definitely innocent. Not just might be innocent.
It's the same standard.
If you can't prove he did it, he's innocent.
If you can't prove the election had any problems, they weren't there.
Why not the same standard?
Well, we are approaching what I call the Biden gas crossover point.
Do you know what that is?
The Biden gas crossover point.
That's when the Biden's popularity or his approval level number exactly matches the price of a gallon of gas.
And I think we're going to get a gallon of gas will be $12 a gallon at the same time that Biden's approval level, largely because gas is $12 a gallon, will drop from the 30s where it is down to 12.
And that will be the point where the price of gas and Biden's approval are both 12.
That's called the Biden gas crossover point.
We're approaching it quickly.
Biden gas crossover point.
Now, here's a little behind the curtains knowledge.
Are you ready for this? To explain something you're seeing in the news that is lacking context, which I'm going to add.
You've seen that Bill Barr has dismissed as, to use his word, bullshit, During the post-election period of 2020, that when Trump was saying the election was rigged, Bill Barr, we now know, was saying that's bullshit, and he also talked about the 2000 mules things being unconvincing.
Here's the context that's missing.
There were two tracks going on at the same time, Questioning the election integrity of 2020.
One I will call the batshit crazy track.
Those are the people like Sidney Powell, who said there was a Venezuelan general connection to the Dominion software, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah.
From day one, I told you, nope, nope, that is obviously not true.
Does anybody remember that?
On day one, I said, no, the Venezuelan thing, that is just so on the nose, crazy, obviously untrue.
Do not believe it, do not believe it.
And now you understand that that was untrue, right?
Now, I suppose it falls into the category of anything's possible, but there's no evidence of it.
No evidence whatsoever of any Venezuelan connection.
But, so that was the sort of thing that Bill Barr would be exposed to.
So if you were just an advisor running around in the White House at that period, you would see the news.
That would be the biggest thing you'd see.
And on the news was Sidney Powell making claims that were clearly bullshit.
And Bill Barr had exactly the same attitude I did probably the moment he saw it.
You know, I wasn't there, but just guessing, based on what he says now, that as soon as he saw it, he was like, okay, okay, Venezuelan, no, no, no, I'm out.
That is obviously bullshit.
Probably, that was his first opinion.
Then there were a bunch of other claims that you saw in the press that looked pretty bullshitty.
Here's the part that maybe you didn't know.
And it explains why there are so many of you who think there's something there, whereas he was saying, no, it's obviously bullshit.
There were two tracks.
So in addition to the obvious bullshit Venezuelan stuff, that was the bullshit track.
There were a team of volunteers who understood data, And we're collecting sources on the voter responses and the voter turnouts and stuff.
And there was sort of a boiler room of pro-Trump people working to pour through the data and see if there are any obvious signals for fraud.
Now, during that time, I had just sort of a glancing view of that.
So I was not behind the curtain...
Yeah, Matt Brainerd being the primary name that you're aware of.
So people like Matt Brainerd are very qualified to look at data and make conclusions and interpretations.
And there were a number of other people who were also very qualified.
And during that period that Bill Barr was saying the evidence is bullshit, the people who were digging into the data were saying, oh my god, the flags are gigantic.
Meaning that there were so many historical precedents being violated that if you were only looking at the data, every spider instinct in the world would go off.
Which is different from saying there was anything wrong with it.
Because you know what the explanation for all of that data was?
More people voted for Biden than you thought.
That's it. The counter-argument was surprisingly good.
That, yeah, a lot more people voted for Biden than we expected.
Because, you know, Trump was so divisive that, you know, the polling maybe wasn't that accurate this time and just more people voted for Biden.
And it could be that it was just the games that were played before the election in terms of, you know, how the vote...
Could be executed, you know, the ballot, the mail-in ballots, etc.
It could have just favored Democrats.
So it could be just the population of the country increased, which is, by the way, most of the explanation of why there were so many Biden votes.
A lot of people on the right never hear that, which always bugs me.
Because it's embarrassing to say there's no way that Biden could have gotten this many votes.
You should say...
You don't think he could have gotten more votes than Trump.
Now, if you said that, you don't have any proof of it, but you'd at least be in the reasonable category.
If what you're talking about is just the raw number of votes, you have to calculate in that the population itself increased, and pretty much explains that number.
That plus mail-in votes, that plus Trump got people out to vote.
Much of what you saw can be explained by a lot of people voted.
But at the time, at the time, when Bill Barr was looking at probably...
So here's the part that I'm going to add for your context.
Bill Barr was probably looking at the Venezuelan bullshit claims and saying, okay, I don't see anything here.
This is bullshit. He was probably not...
Probably not in contact with the people who were looking at the raw data and saying, we've got all kinds of anomalies here.
There were all kinds of anomalies.
But were those anomalies the kind like the Bible code?
See, here's the problem.
The code that allegedly were in the Bible turned out to be just random.
But what about all these anomalies that were being found?
Oh, this district couldn't have flipped blue so easily.
Maybe every election produces lots of anomalies, but since they're spread out, nobody looks at them, nobody cares.
And maybe this time they looked harder, and there are always anomalies.
So that could be part of it.
Somebody said he knew.
Come on. You think that Bill Barr knew that the election was rigged?
I don't think that. I mean, I would respect your opinion on that, but I would respectfully disagree.
I don't think there's evidence that he had that kind of knowledge.
Because my take on him is if he had that kind of knowledge, he would have told us.
He seems like a pretty straight shooter, actually.
More so than other people in the business.
Yeah. So I've got a feeling that Bill Barr was not on the inside where the data people were finding things that quite appropriately got them alarmed.
Now, let me be really clear.
When I say they were appropriately alarmed at the data anomalies, I am not saying those data anomalies are evidence of any wrongdoing.
But there were lots of anomalies.
And here's my overall view of the election.
If it was not rigged, someday it will be.
It has to be. If it wasn't rigged, and I don't know that it was, it will be, because we're not doing anything to stop it.
As long as we don't have transparency of the digital part and we don't have instant audits, and as long as I can't verify that my personal vote ended up where it was supposed to, as long as I can't tell where my vote went, yeah, it will be rigged.
We just don't know when.
Does anybody disagree with that statement, by the way?
Is there anybody who would disagree with the statement that because it's possible...
And because we've got time, nobody's fixing it.
It will be election after election.
If you wait long enough, it's guaranteed.
It's guaranteed.
You don't even have to wonder if it'll happen.
It's guaranteed. Yeah, it's monkeys and typewriters.
It's just math. And we act as though we can prove a negative, that by not knowing something happened means it didn't happen.
And we just act like that's okay.
The team that wants you to believe science also wants you to believe that they proved a negative right in front of you.
Well, we proved nothing happened.
No, you didn't.
That's not how any of that works.
You can simply prove that there's...
You can show that nobody proved it did happen.
But when you have a situation that guarantees it's going to happen, and that's what we have, a non-transparent system with a high payoff for rigging it Lots of people would love to do it, and lots of times.
There's just no way it's going to go any other way.
All right, so that's my behind-the-curtain view.
I think that Bill Barr has an accurate opinion formed from what he had exposure to at the time.
I believe that if he had had more exposure to the people looking at the data anomalies...
Which I do not assert mean anything.
I'm not asserting they mean anything.
But if he'd seen that many anomalies, and I saw them, like I was hearing about them in real time, but I was also shutting up about it, for the most part.
Because I was like, eh, I'm going to have to wait for a second opinion on this.
Because it was a little too enthusiastic.
You know, there was a little too much, oh yeah, we got them now.
These numbers, these numbers prove it.
No. And I would hear stuff like that at the time.
And I'd think, no, I'll bet not.
All right. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not only the best livestream you've ever heard in your life, but an actual physical joy for many of you.
Yeah, best ever.
And if you would like to...
Get another hit of this?
I'll be back tomorrow.
Same time every day.
If you're on YouTube, you might want to hit that subscribe button so you don't miss this dopamine hit again.
If you're on the Locos platform, you're sexy, you're smart, and you're better than everybody else.
No, that's not true.
But it does make me remember a...
I'm going to give you a media recommendation.
Qualified. So I'm going to tell you some entertainment that you can go watch on video form that I'm really entertained by right now.
It's called The Boys.
Have you heard of it?
It's about sort of a...
It imagines a time where there are a variety of superheroes, but their take on it is amazing.
Now, I did not enjoy the first season.
So let me say this clearly.
It's on season three.
I did not enjoy the first season.
And I don't think I watched the second season because I didn't enjoy the first one.
I happened to tune in on the third season.
Oh my God!
And I think what they did was they evolved or they learned and grew from wherever they started from.
Because I don't know that they always thought they were going to take the arc in this direction.
But where they took it features one of the characters who plays the best evil character You've seen it in a long time, probably since The Joker.
So think about the best evil hero, the one you watch the show for, to watch the evil one instead of the good one.
And, oh God, the guy who plays, he plays a character called Homelander.
He's a superhero, but he's the strongest one.
And the thing that makes it What is so amazing is how well he inhabits the character.
Now, I'll warn you that they do make the character sort of like a Donald Trump character.
And it's unmistakable that they're making him an America first bad guy.
But they do it so well.
And the actor... I wish I knew his name so I could give him a shadow.
But the actor who plays that part...
Amazing. Every scene where he's talking menacingly to somebody and you think that he's going to kill that person at any moment, but then he doesn't.
It is so fun to watch.
Only for the quality of the acting.
Now, here's the qualified part.
It is so bloody.
It's like the bloodiest thing I've ever seen.
But a lot of the bloodshed is almost humorously over the top.
So when people get killed in this, the bloodshed I don't like is where somebody gets mutilated or something and it looks too realistic.
But in this, people just explode or heads fall off and stuff.
So it's gory in almost a Halloween way.
It's so over the top.
So it's so over the top it doesn't feel real enough to bother you the way normally it would.
So that's your recommendation.
The Boys Season 3.
You might have to watch Season 1 and 2 to get into it, but not necessarily.
Season 3 is brilliant.
Maybe Season 2 was as well.
Well, I just didn't watch it, so I don't know.
Scott, look into the Chinese room experiment to explain lambda.
I don't think that's going to change my opinion on anything.
Because remember, my opinion on artificial intelligence is it's alive when it seems that way to you.
So if the Chinese room is just going to tell me that's how they faked it, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter how they did it.
It matters how I receive it.
All right. I think that's all for now.
I'm going to say bye to YouTube and I'll see you tomorrow.
