Episode 1802 Scott Adams: Our Election Systems Need To Be Improved Because They're Already Perfect?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Elon Musk vs President Trump
Steve Bannon's J6 testimony
My smart, honest Democrat friend
Vote verification and cheating schemes
Chris Cuomo in Ukraine
Ukraine war strategizing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 what will be a peak experience for you.
Some of you will have your lives completely transformed by this and others will just have a great time because I'm your virtual friend.
If you don't have enough people in your life, Well, I can help a little bit.
I'll be here for about an hour every day, same time.
If you...
You don't even have to see commercials.
If you watch it live or you're watching it recorded on some...
Either the locals platform, no commercials there.
Or if you...
I guess if you subscribe to YouTube...
Is it YouTube Red?
That you don't see commercials?
So I would say if you could find an hour of fresh...
Non-commercial, interrupted entertainment.
You should be watching that.
And that is what I give you.
But first, let's take it up a notch.
Let's go all the way.
All the way to a cup, a mug, or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. I think I had too much.
I don't know. Did you catch that?
I think my slurp to sip ratio was a little high.
Anybody catch that? Needs to be about 10% less slurp.
Right, right. You heard it.
And then a little bit more sip.
See if I can adjust. Work with me.
Work with me. Nailed it.
Nailed it. That was exactly the right amount of slurp to sip.
Well, President Trump has publicly said that Elon Musk is another bullshit artist.
Unquote. For saying you'd buy Twitter and then saying you won't, I guess.
And Elon struck back, he said in a tweet, I don't hate the man, talking about Trump.
He says, I don't hate the man, but it's time for Trump to hang up his hat and sail into the sunset.
And then he says, this is the interesting part.
Dems should also call off the attack.
Don't make it so that Trump's only way to survive is to regain the presidency.
Do you know that the Democrats could win every election if they just listened to Elon Musk?
All they have to do is take his advice.
Because I'm going to talk to you a little bit about how they don't understand systems.
It's like Democrats understand an individual topic well enough, but as soon as those topics are combined to make some kind of a system, then Elon Musk can see it.
Because that's what he does. I mean, his whole thing is seeing the whole picture and how all the parts fit together.
And so here he is explaining to the Democrats that they're actively, actively screwing themselves.
They're making it so Trump's only option is to become the President of the United States, which is also the only thing the Democrats don't want.
So they're working hard to get the thing they most don't want.
Elon Musk can see it.
I can see it. I don't think I've ever articulated that.
But you've thought it yourself, haven't you?
Have you not thought that if they just treated Trump with respect and said, you know, you gave a good first term for your base, but your base is not the world...
And now the rest of the world wants a shot at it.
It'd be really easy to treat him with respect and let him go off as an honored statesman or something, even if they didn't feel that way.
But they are creating the only situation that could get him re-elected.
It's the only situation.
Because if his supporters see how heavy-handedly...
You know, he's being attacked without basis.
It's really going to get people fired up.
So the Democrats are firing up the Republican base, and I don't know if that's going to work out for them.
My favorite story, and I didn't know if anybody figured out what's really going on, but there's some reporting from CNN in which CNN does know exactly what's going on.
And the story is that Bannon Who had said he would not testify before the January 6th committee, has been urged, according to CNN, has been urged to testify because Trump wanted somebody on his side to be talking publicly.
Now, it's going to be live.
Oh, the bullshit.
Somebody's saying that the bullshit artist was...
The context was that Musk had told Trump that he voted for him, but publicly, Musk said that he only voted Democrat before.
So, who knows?
But the important part is it was a bullshit artist comment.
It really doesn't matter why.
But thank you. Thank you for that correction.
Am I the only...
Show that gets fact-checked in real time.
Does anybody else do that?
I think I am, right?
Now, does that work for you?
Because no doubt you hear me say things that you know are incorrect.
I mean, you know, I wouldn't even pretend that I get all the facts right.
That's not even the standard I would be shooting for.
Because it's not possible.
But I think I'm the only person who does this and gets fact-checked in real time.
And here's the important part.
And I accept the fact-checks.
Nobody else does that.
There's nobody else who will change their mind right in front of you because a fact came in.
But I do it all the time.
And I feel like that's the most valuable thing I do.
I doubt there's anything more valuable that I can do than change my mind in public because the data changed right in front of me.
And you watched it happen in real time.
Might be the most useful thing I ever do.
Anyway, watching Bannon testify, I don't know how expensive the ticket would have to be for that, that I wouldn't buy it.
So if they said to me, well, this is going to be pay-per-view, Bannon's testimony, but it's going to be $100 per person, I'd pay it.
Let's say $500.
A ticket to watch this is $500.
You probably wouldn't pay it.
I'd pay it. I'd pay $500 to watch Bannon testify.
$500. I don't think I'd go up to $1,000.
But I would pay, actually, literally, $500 for that level of entertainment.
Do you think that isn't going to be the best thing you ever saw?
Seriously. Just do a little mental experiment where you put Bannon in your mind...
In front of the January 6th committee, and think of all the things that they've claimed and said and how they've framed things.
Think about the fact that there's been no public pushback within the committee, and that Bannon is not an amateur.
That's what's fun. What's fun is, if you told me Jim Jordan was going to do this, I wouldn't care.
I'd say, oh, okay, Jim Jordan will say all the things Jim Jordan says, and nobody will pay attention.
Right? If you told me, you know, pick any other Republican besides Trump.
Pick anybody besides Trump.
Let's say it's Roger Stone.
Well, you know, Roger Stone will be Roger Stone.
He'll make some news, but maybe the needle won't move.
Any senator, any congressperson.
You know, there are a number of conservatives who are sort of named as part of the plot.
If any of them were going to testify, how interesting would it be?
A little bit. It'd be a little bit interesting.
But... Bannon?
Have you fully wrapped your head around what's in front of us?
Bannon... Is going to dig up your fucking corpse right in front of you on live TV. You're going to watch Bannon, just like figuratively speaking, walk out in front of the whole fucking world with a shovel.
And they're going to say, Mr.
Bannon, can you answer this question?
And he might answer it, he might not.
But in the context of talking, he's going to start digging up a coffin.
Do-do-do-do-do.
Shoop. Yeah, I'll answer that question.
Yeah, January 6th was very unfortunate.
Hey, look what's under there, everybody.
Look, look, there's a dead body right there.
And nobody's talking about it.
But I'm on live TV, assholes.
You put me on live TV. Neener, neener, neener, neener.
It's going to be so much fun.
Bannon is going to take a big old bag of salt and rub it in their wounds right on live TV. Now, it's only because it's Bannon that it's interesting, because he's not going to hold back, and he has the skill to land punches.
There's nobody else I can think of that you would want to even put in that position and trust them To pull it off.
Not Matt Gaetz, because he's got his baggage.
It can't be Rudy Giuliani.
It can't be any of the attorneys.
It's got to be somebody who is close to the situation and really has these skills.
Now, the fact that Bannon is also now a famous podcaster, I can tell you for sure that doing this every day, talking to people live that I do every day, And maybe you can confirm this.
You've seen how it started.
Have you not seen me develop public communication skills while you watched?
I mean, I think. Give me a fact check on that.
Have you not seen me from the beginning of the live streams?
Toward the end, develop a skill of putting a thought together while people are watching.
It's not easy. It's not easy to have complex thoughts while people are watching.
It's tough. It just takes practice like everything else.
So I'm getting confirmation on the locals' platform that I used to suck.
And I think you're right.
That was even my own opinion.
You know, when I started doing this, I thought, wow, I'm really bad at this.
But I also, I'm not embarrassed by things.
So I like doing it, so I kept doing it.
And I think I got better.
I mean, that would be my own opinion.
But Bannon is, he's fight-tested, and he's in top fight shape.
Like, he's ready for the welterweight championship, or whatever it is.
Well, we've got a new poll result.
Rasmussen asked people what they thought about abolishing the Supreme Court.
A majority of Democrats, voters, not just Democrats, but voters, believe the Supreme Court is a racist, sexist institution that ought to be abolished.
And the young people aged 19 to 39 feel the same way.
And let's see, 53% of Democrats are in favor of abolishing the current Supreme Court, but replacing it with a different entity.
So if you only read the headline, it looks crazy.
Abolish the Supreme Court.
So probably nobody's in favor of that.
But even the people who want to abolish it want it replaced with a court that is selected by the public.
So instead of having the elected people nominate the court, usually the party in power, there are a lot of Democrats who say it'd be better if the public at large elected the court.
So in other words, the Democrats want to abolish the Supreme Court and create a system where elected representatives make the decisions.
What's that reminding me of?
An entity within the U.S. government in which elected representatives are making the law.
Oh, yeah, Congress.
That's right. Democrats, by a majority, wanted to just create a second Congress.
But smaller.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen in my life.
So I'm not sure even people answering that question were all on the same page about their assumptions when they answered it.
But I don't know if this means anything, except that it's more proof that Democrats don't know how to design a system.
Remember my theme? So my theme today...
Is that Elon Musk said, look, you're not seeing all the moving parts.
If you're going after Trump, you don't realize that you've backed him into a corner where he has to run for president to protect himself.
Don't see all the moving parts.
It's the reason that they're not bothered by socialism.
Because the Republicans say, wait, I get the part where people get some help in the beginning, but how do all the parts work?
It doesn't work because incentives are wrong and stuff.
It's the same damn thing over and over again.
The Democrats don't seem able to think beyond a single variable.
They seem one-variable thinkers, whereas Republicans are consistently system thinkers.
How does this variable affect this one, etc.?
You see the same thing over and over.
It doesn't matter what topic it is.
And I don't think it's a coincidence.
Because even Democrats, in their quiet moments, will say that Republicans are better at business.
Have you ever heard that? Do you know any Democrats who are definitely Democrats, but in their quiet moments they're like, well, Republicans aren't pretty good at business stuff.
Have you heard that? They'll also say they're liars and cheaters or whatever, but I think they do admit that Republicans have some kind of a weird edge in business.
I don't know if it's true, by the way, but it's sort of a thing people say.
All right. Yesterday, I contacted my Democrat friend.
Now, I've anonymously referred to him over a number of years because he's sort of my example of a real-life person who believes everything that the mainstream media tells him.
Actually, everything. Let me say that again.
I'm talking about a very well-educated, like more educated than I am.
I'm highly educated, and he's a whole other level, right?
If you looked at reputations in schools and stuff.
So he's a whole other level of education.
Almost perfectly informed, meaning that he reads the news every day about politics.
Now when I say perfectly informed, I don't mean he has correct information.
I mean, he has the information from his news sources.
So if I quiz him on any story, which I did, like, do you know about this story?
Do you know about this angle? He knew them all.
So there was nothing I had to say that he hadn't heard of.
But he only heard the left's version of it.
And when I would present him with the alternate context or extra information, I thought by now that the complete...
That the complete destruction of Biden's reputation and the fact that, you know, Trump in some ways looks better but not with the January 6th stuff, I thought this would be a good time to contact him because he would have some humility about his own opinion that Biden would do a good job.
Now, let me tell you what a really smart, honest person...
And also, here's the other thing.
He's very honest.
One of the reasons he was a good friend for years.
He was very honest, to a fault.
He's not going to hold back bad news or good news.
So very smart, very well informed, just on news from the left, and very honest.
And now he's seen everything that you've seen for the last two years with Biden, and so I checked in with him to see if we could find some common ground.
I started with some common ground, which we could find.
Which was, do we both agree that Trump should not be president next time?
I don't know if I've said this directly, but I'm going to say it as directly as I possibly can.
I don't think he should be president again.
I do think he did a good job on the things he cared about in a number of ways in the first term.
I don't think he should be our next president.
So when I said I'm not going to support him for president again, we immediately bonded on that, which was what I hoped.
But then I thought, you know, I think maybe I can get maybe a little flexibility on his side.
And I said, now that you've seen Biden operating for a couple of years, do you think you got what you wanted?
You know, was that the outcome you wanted?
Now, he admitted that maybe some other Democrat might have been a better choice.
But he was willing to give up nothing, nothing, on Biden's performance so far.
Nothing. That has actually been fine, And that there haven't been any problems that there wouldn't have been otherwise.
And by the way, on some of them I agree.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan, he would agree, was botched.
But, unfortunately, I agree with him that it probably would have been botched no matter who the president was.
Because I don't think the president was looking at the military details.
I think the president was simply taking the advice of the people who should have known what they were talking about.
And I think both the presidents would have done that wrong, in my opinion.
Now, if you say...
Yeah, I see a lot of pushback on this.
Your pushback is well-founded.
Your pushback is well-founded.
Meaning, if you thought the odds were good, the odds were good.
Not certainty. But if you thought the odds were good, that Trump would have handled that better?
I actually agree with you.
I would agree with you.
Can he handle that nuance?
If you're just looking at the odds of Biden handling it versus Trump, I think the odds were better.
I think Trump's odds were better.
But I don't think they were good.
Can I shave it that way?
I think his odds were unambiguously better, but not good, because I think they were both operating on terrible information.
And how would Trump have better information?
They're all getting it from the same source.
So I want to be consistent with things I know are true, And things that are just some statistical likelihood.
So I wanted to give some flexibility so it didn't become a fight.
And I wanted to say, you know, there is no evidence that Trump would have done this better.
I have a feeling he would have, but it's just speculation, right?
So would I put my speculation up against this question?
Not really. I don't think my speculation has enough power to do that.
So there were some cases where he defended Biden in a way that I thought was, you know, capable.
Not my opinion, but not terrible.
And thought that...
Now, here's the next thing.
Now, this, I believe, is a pure example of confirmation bias or maybe cognitive dissonance.
And it was that he said that Biden clearly maybe needs more rest because of his age, but there's no evidence of cognitive impairment.
None. At least not in any scary way.
And if you were to compare that to what he believed was Trump's cognitive, let's say, integrity, he says that Trump would be way scarier, way more dangerous because of his mental health than Biden, and that Biden is actually perfectly coherent when he does off-the-cuff answers.
And only when he reads his teleprompter is he not good at it.
So my very smart, very honest, and very informed friend believes that Biden is only bad when he's reading, but when he's talking to you off the cuff, he's completely there.
No problem at all.
As in, not 10% degraded, not 5% degraded, just all there.
He's got it all. Now...
Which one of us is in cognitive dissonance?
Am I, because I predicted it would happen, so therefore I'm just seeing what I predicted?
Duh, of course I would.
Or is he? Is it just obvious to the entire world that Biden has some issues now, and he just won't change his mind?
Here's the answer to that.
I don't know. I don't know.
How would I know? The issue is that one of us clearly is having a perceptual problem, or both.
You can't rule out that we're both wrong and it's some third answer.
But we do know that one of us is having a serious delusion.
Can you ever rule out that it's you?
If you're at a lower level of awareness, you do that.
You say, well, it's the other person who's having the hallucination, because I would know if I was hallucinating.
No, you wouldn't. That's how hallucinations work.
It's not a hallucination if you know it's not real.
It's a hallucination, at least the way I'm using it here, it's a hallucination if you think it's actually real.
So anyway, here's some more things that I learned from my Democrat friend, sort of as a proxy for other people.
That Biden's gaffes don't mean anything.
He's mentally fine, just needs a little more rest.
There's no evidence of him doing a bad job.
There's no evidence of Biden doing a bad job.
It's all fine. And I think you could argue that things might have been pretty bad under any president.
We do have a pandemic and stuff like that.
By the way, if Trump had been president, there was still a pandemic, right?
We don't know what Trump's performance would have been.
Do I think it would have been better?
Yes, I do. And I can give you lots of reasons for it.
But do I know it? No, I don't.
No, I don't. It can't be known.
Nobody knows the future.
If you think you know the future, I don't want to listen to you.
If you think you have a really strong idea, okay, that might be reasonable.
All right, here's some other things.
Yeah, I said he was glad that Trump might be prevented from running again because if Trump became president, he would surely destroy the world in a nuclear blast.
Did it matter that I explained to him that Trump had made North Korea go from looking like a nuclear war any minute to not really worthy of the news?
And I said, you know, that he stopped the only major nuclear confrontation that we've had in decades.
He stopped it.
He stopped it cold.
But my friend still thinks he's the most dangerous.
So by not creating a war and stopping a nuclear escalating confrontation, who knows if it would have been nuclear, but it was escalating, By doing all those things, the most peace-related president, so he withdrew from Afghanistan, stopped a nuclear confrontation, did a trade war with China that didn't start any major war.
It was actually, you know, sort of got away with it.
Every piece of evidence about Trump suggests he would be the safest president in terms of international conflicts.
Everything. But...
But my Democrat friend sees it exactly the opposite.
He is bought completely that you can predict how he would act in the future.
Now, you can tell that somebody mentally incompetent won't do a good job.
I mean, there's some things that are obvious.
But do you think that based on the fact that in Trump's first term, he did the most to create world peace of any president?
That's all we know.
That in his first term, he did more to create world peace than any president.
So what would you think about his second term?
Do you take your first term and all that you've learned in a whole bunch of different categories?
I mean, who saw prison reform coming from Trump?
Who saw that? Trump apparently, as he governed...
Was very much about protecting Americans, whether they were Americans in jail or American military.
He was basically protecting Americans like crazy.
But my Democrat friend thinks he would have recklessly got us killed.
Is he wrong?
I don't know. How would anybody know what the future holds?
It doesn't seem likely.
Based on what we do know about Trump's first term, he was running in the exact opposite direction of getting us in trouble as fast as he could and succeeded.
So here's another thing that my Democrat friend believed.
Because one of the things I like to do is say, if you believe this is true, then you have accepted as an assumption X. And then I'll explain that X couldn't possibly be true.
And therefore, the whole theory must fall apart, because it's based on an assumption that even you don't believe could be true.
All right? Here it is.
My friend believes that Trump was literally trying to take over the country in a coup.
The January 6th was a coup attempt.
Even though we know from the documents and the testimonies, or actually from digital documents, that Don Jr.
was not on board. And I said to him, is it your belief that Trump was trying to run an insurrection, an actual insurrection, and Don Jr.
wasn't on board, and they were still going ahead?
He said, yes. Or I think maybe he didn't answer it directly.
And I said, what about, you know, all of his other advisors who are not lawyers?
I said, was there anybody on the Trump team, anybody, who wasn't a lawyer, who was on his side to, you know, keep this thing going?
And I haven't heard of any, just lawyers, right?
So if you look at what we know now from the January 6th thing, it should have totally cleared him.
Because it showed he had no support for anything like an insurrection.
And then it also showed, and now we've seen more testimony, that Trump simply believed the election was rigged, that it was obviously rigged, according to him.
I don't think it's that obvious.
Or I don't think it's obvious.
Or I don't know if it was rigged or not.
But... So, we have an evidence that Trump probably really believed it was rigged.
Now, I asked my friend, I said, true or false, I mean, I'm paraphrasing a longer conversation, but if Trump actually believed the election was rigged, would you still call it an insurrection?
And that's where it gets real dicey, right?
Because his entire opinion was based on the fact that Trump knew he lost.
And I said, how would you know that?
How could he know it?
And how would you know he secretly knew it when you both know it's unknowable?
And I said to him, your entire opinion about this is based on the assumption that you know can't be known.
Which is, what do you, the voter, think Trump was secretly thinking, even though 100% of his communication was in a different direction?
And then he said, well, no, we have actual a recording of Trump guilty trying to rig the election.
And I said, what?
Yeah, when he talked to Rassenberger, he said, I only need you to find the votes.
It's right there. There's your evidence that he tried to rig the election.
To which I said, you know, the only way that makes sense is if you're using a word in the way it's not used in any real context.
That nobody uses the word find when they mean construct or lie or pretend.
And he said, no, that's your mafia talk.
You know, he's like a mafia guy.
Yeah, he knew people were listening, so he just put it in mafia talk, where he said, fine, yeah, yeah, you just go, you find me those votes.
To which I say, how do you know when somebody's doing mafia talk?
And do you know how? You have to know what they're thinking, and then it would make sense that that's what they mean.
So if you knew somebody was the head of the mafia...
Would you think that what they were saying maybe meant...
If the head of the mafia said, hey, Scott, that guy who's been not paying his blackmail money to us, I want you to take care of him.
And then I murder him.
And there's a court case.
And they say, hey, why'd you do it?
And I say, I was just following orders.
He told me to kill him.
And then he says, no, I've got it in writing.
I told you to take care of it.
There's an actual case where that was real.
It was in World War II. A friend of mine, his father, was captured and beheaded by the Japanese military.
But he was beheaded for entertainment, not for a specific crime.
He was a prisoner of war.
And as it came out in the war trials that came out after that, the prison camp would sometimes entertain the troops by beheading captured Americans.
And so they would bring the captured Americans out and have them dig their own hole where they were going to be pushed into once their head had been chopped off.
And then they would beat them before they took them out, so they had to get them good and beaten.
And then they would tie them to a stake with sort of their head over the hole, And then the Japanese soldiers would gather around and cheer and stuff.
And they had an official executor who had like a, you know, really sharp sword and he'd make sure that it was like ceremonial.
And they'd put the prisoner over there and they'd lop off the prisoner's head, which is what happened to his father.
His father's head was lopped off.
The other prisoners who were next would watch.
And then they would go next.
For entertainment. Now, when the war trials happened, the camp that did this, and the commander of that camp, said that he was just following orders.
And he said that the command came and there was a word that could be interpreted two different ways.
And it was just like that, take care of him.
So there was a Japanese word, shobun, I think.
I forget the word.
But I think it can be interpreted as, you know, kill him or literally take care of him.
And so their defense was, hey, they told us to kill him.
It's right here in writing.
Shobun. There's the word.
It says kill him. And so we kill him.
We're just following orders.
And the jury...
Said, no, in that context, you knew to take care of him and take care of him, and you did what, you know, you knew what you were doing.
Right? So now, in the case of Trump, was he a mafia boss, in which you would definitely interpret it, or, you know, like a prison camp murderer, where you would definitely interpret what he said as the worst version?
Or... Was he an American president with lots of people watching who would have gone to jail, and he would know that, if he asked for an election to be rigged in front of all people?
He would know that. Now, are there any mafia people who do their thing in front of witnesses who are not scared of testifying in the future?
Do you know of any, like, mafia people who put on a hit, but they just do it at Starbucks, where other people can hear them?
Like, you're the mafia boss.
You say in front of the other people at the table, yeah, I want you to take care of that guy.
Take care of it. And then the mafia guy thinks, it's fine, I can say this at Starbucks, because they're just going to think I'm saying, take care of that guy.
No. No, the mafia person, even if they say, take care of them, they don't do it in front of witnesses.
I mean, unless the witnesses are other mafia people.
But they're not going to do it in front of, like, a collection of people who just happen to be on the phone call.
I don't think that happens.
I'm getting a definition of the word showbun.
It means dispose of or punish.
I think dispose of maybe was the one that was the...
Controversy one. Dispose might be get them out of the camps or something.
So I may have some of the details wrong, but that's the general idea.
Here's something else my Democrat friend believes.
He believes that all of the elections were fully audited.
All of the elections were fully audited, and that if there were any errors, we wouldn't know it.
Meaning that even if there was something they didn't check, We would still notice the discrepancy and then we would check it.
So there are no discrepancies which have not been checked.
Do you believe that? There are no election discrepancies alleged that have not been checked.
And then I said, that's not true.
And he said, Scott, Scott, Scott, there have been 60 court cases where it was all shown to be nonsense claims and thrown out.
And I said, but you're well informed and so you know that they were mostly thrown out for standing.
Which he did. He actually knew that they were mostly thrown out for standing.
But he also, and he made a good point, which is if there had been any real ones, it wouldn't matter if they were thrown out for standing.
We'd know about it. We'd at least know about it.
But we don't. So he does make an interesting case, which I committed that I would go fact-check.
And it goes like this.
Is there a way to know that the election was fair?
Because in theory, there could be.
I just don't know if it's designed that way.
I think it's not.
So we're going to talk about that in a second.
How do you know something was fair?
You could say we found no evidence that it wasn't fair, but in order to go all the way to we'd know it was fair because we would have noticed anything that was unfair.
I feel like that is just pure brainwashing.
Do you? And again, I would accept, well, Scott, I think there's a 99% chance it was fair, because we would almost certainly notice any discrepancies.
Had he said 99%, I would have said, I disagree with that, it's too high, but at least you're thinking in percentages.
And so that's good.
But he doesn't say 99%.
He says 100%.
I mean, he didn't use the word 100%.
But his argument was, there's no wiggle room here.
We would notice it if it were big enough to change an election.
So I said, what about those 57 precincts that got zero votes for Trump?
What did he say to that?
So it was in the news recently.
And can somebody give me a fact check?
I think it was in the mainstream news, wasn't it?
I mean, I tweeted it the other day.
Does anybody see it? Can anybody tell me what source it was?
I forget. Oh, was it Romney?
It was Romney, not Trump.
Oh, okay. So the example was from the past, but it demonstrates that an election could be suspicious.
And I don't think anything changed.
So, yeah, so there were allegedly 57 or 59 precincts somewhere where Romney got zero votes.
and statistically, that's sort of impossible.
You're making a terrible point there in that brainwash comment I said.
I see what you're saying, but you need to make a clearer point.
All right. What does my friend do for a living?
He's not an artist. He's in a solid, well-understood business field that's not technical.
So it's not a technical field.
It's just a straight...
And he's very successful.
So he's a business person with a long track record of success.
All right. So that was his argument.
And so I asked you...
I said, but do you understand that the election is not fully auditable?
That you can't get into the digital parts.
And he again kept his argument that if there had been any problems, we'd notice.
And it made me ask this question.
Now we know that the election is designed so that your name and your identifiers are removed from your vote by the time your vote reaches whatever final database.
And I learned that there's a reason for that.
The reason that they anonymize your vote is if they didn't, you could prove who you voted for and then you could sell your vote.
And apparently that was a big problem before that law was enacted.
Rich people would just say, hey, if you can prove you voted for the person I want you to, I'll pay you a dollar or whatever.
So they had to prove it, and then they'd get their money.
But if you can't prove your vote made it into the final database, you can't get paid.
You could just say you voted to get paid, and then the rich person would say, hmm, not so sure.
Prove it. So here's what I don't know about how our election system is designed.
If you make the vote anonymous, does that also make it impossible to audit?
Or do you just do it a different way?
For example, let's say the local voting machines in a precinct got a certain result and it said Trump got X number of votes and Biden got X number of votes.
But then they removed the names from the votes.
If you still have the totals, the subtotals, and then at the final database before it's recorded, They could check back and say, okay, what were your vote totals?
Okay, let's make sure that that's the final vote total.
Wouldn't you, in that case, if it's designed that way, that's my question, if it's designed that way, wouldn't just the raw subtotals be all you needed to know that the digital part worked?
Because every time you checked the raw subtitles, the raw counts, the subtotals, they would be right if the system worked, right?
So am I right that it's not a problem to remove your identifiers as long as the subtotals can be checked all the way to the final destination?
Yes or no? They can audit by the registration and people who signed in.
No, they can't.
I mean, they can't order it all the way to the destination because that's anonymized.
Washington State's process, it works well and you can verify your vote.
Well, that would be illegal.
If you can verify your vote, that would be illegal federally, wouldn't it?
Maybe not. Maybe that's a state thing.
So I have some questions whether there's a state that allows you to verify your vote, because in theory, then you could sell your vote.
That's the whole point. So I think you need a fact check on that, or I do.
I don't know that there's any place you can check your vote all the way to the end.
So it's true about Washington State.
So the state can have something that's out of whack with the federal government, of course they can.
You can verify you voted, just not for who.
Okay, I think I got the explanation.
Washington verifies that your vote was recorded, but not for whom.
Right? Is that it?
Because that would satisfy everything.
Right. Same in Santa Claus.
Okay, I think we solved that.
So you can tell you voted, but it won't determine who you voted for in the final thing.
So that should leave some room for fraud.
Now, what about the people who say the voting machines were all tested and they were found not to have any problems?
Are you comfortable?
Let's say there were, I don't know, 100,000 voting machines from different companies and you took 10 from each of them and you test them.
You randomly selected 10.
Would you feel comfortable that if you tested 10 of them and they checked out that the ones you didn't test would be good?
And who would be the one who told you which ones to test?
Would that be the company that makes them?
Who is it who decides which ones get tested?
Now, maybe it's the people who own them, because they bought them from the company, and they just say, oh, just test these ones, maybe.
Here's the thing. Have you ever heard of the Volkswagen case?
It was not too long ago, where Volkswagen got caught writing some software for their emissions control, where if you tested it, it tested perfectly, because the software said, just show it's good.
But when you actually ran the car, the software changed into an operating mode and polluted like crazy, but helped the performance of the car.
It was called Dieselgate, right?
And Volkswagen lied about it, right, and it became a big thing.
But once they discovered it, they found it.
So let me ask you this.
Could a hacker, theoretically, create a system where when you tested the voting machine, it tested right, but when you used it, it didn't?
Is that possible? Let me tell you how I would do it if I were a hacker.
And I'm not suggesting this happened.
I just want to know what would stop it from hacking.
So let's say I work for the company that makes the machines, so I have access.
And so I put some code in there.
And the code says, if it's an election day 2020, you will run this program that will move some votes around illegally.
And then when you're done, you will delete yourself.
Or go dormant. Forever.
And nothing can wake you up again once you've operated once.
Now, you've got to test it.
It was a one-time operation.
It was designed to only work once and then disappear.
So they test it and they say, did the votes we put in equal the votes that came out?
And they do. So, just like Volkswagen hid the emission control by coding it to test correctly but operate it incorrectly, could they not hide a hack?
I mean, I'm not a hacker, but I have programmed, and I don't see why you couldn't.
And then somebody said, but wait.
It would be obvious because something would be missing.
Like, the deleted code, you'd notice it was missing.
How would you notice something was missing?
It just wouldn't be there.
How do you notice it's not there?
All you know is it's not there.
You don't know it disappeared.
So, you know, one can imagine ways that you could catch these things.
But what I don't know is if...
Yeah, one can imagine a way that you would catch that kind of crime.
You can imagine it.
But do you know if the system is designed that way?
I don't. Maybe it is.
I know you can do the checksums, etc., but there still has to be a way to fudge it after it leaves the voting machine.
What is the point that we don't know anything, we have damn friends?
The point is that the mainstream media has convinced Democrats that there is 100% knowability about whether our systems were good.
And to me, that seems like such a naive assumption that it has to be cognitive dissonance.
Because I can't imagine a reasonable person looking at such a complex system run by 50 different entities, different laws, different software, different machines, and that all of them were fine.
It's perfectly fine to say it works well enough, but I don't know.
All right. So my friend thinks that everything was audited.
There's no way to fake it.
We would know it by now if anybody did anything big.
Courts rejected all the cases, and therefore we know that election was fair.
And if that wasn't enough, the word fine, as in fine votes, is proof that Trump had intention to lie and therefore knows that it was a faked vote.
To which I say, no.
Every one of those words is consistent with, he believed the election was rigged, and if you did a better job of counting, you'd know it too.
How does somebody see the opposite of that?
Remember I told you that we've reached a new level, where we can't tell the difference between a thing and the opposite of a thing?
It's another example.
But then I finally realized why Democrats were so easily misled, into thinking that the word find means go do something illegal and lie and manufacture.
Do you know why Democrats think that the word find votes is equal to manufacture votes?
Do you know why? It's because they're socialists.
They don't know what it means to manufacture something.
They just find it.
Do you know where socialists get money?
They find it in the banks of rich people.
That's how they make money.
The way socialists acquire assets is they find it.
Did they earn it? Did they make something?
No. They found it. A rich person made something.
A rich person manufactured.
And they made money. And then the socialists said, I don't have any money.
What am I going to do?
Because I need food.
I need some money. I don't have any money.
What do people do to get money?
I guess I'm going to have to find some.
Where's some money? Wait a minute.
Found the money. It's in the banks of the rich people.
I found it.
Now, do you think I'm joking?
I'm not. I'm not.
This is an entire political movement that thinks that money is something you find because other people have it.
And all you need is a rule that says, once we've found it, we can take it from you.
That is socialism.
We found it.
It's not a joke. If you're a Republican and you think that the way you make money is by manufacturing stuff, The word find means exactly what it means in English.
You found it. It doesn't mean you created it.
It doesn't mean you manufactured it.
Manufacturing is a whole different thing than finding.
But if you live on the left, they can't tell the difference.
Their entire philosophy depends on not knowing the difference between making stuff and finding it when somebody else made it.
Am I wrong? Excuse me.
How many of you are having like a moment right now where you just realize that that's true?
I don't think anybody's mentioned that before, but I realized that yesterday.
All right. Let's see.
Did everybody see Tucker Carlson's monologue about the Biden family?
Stealing millions, well, actually not stealing, but the Biden family making millions by selling access to the government to China.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the facts are in evidence now, right?
Am I wrong that there's nothing that Tucker Carlson says about this case, nothing, that isn't in evidence and generally agreed by all of us?
Right? And what he's describing is something that's clearly illegal, or at the very least is disqualifying for office.
And we all know it, and we all see it, and we're just simply not doing anything about it.
Right? We're simply not doing anything about it.
Please read the James Bond comment, somebody says.
Was it a comment about James Bond, or was James Bond the commenter?
All right, well, let me know.
If I miss it, I don't know what yes means.
If I miss it, let me know.
But here's the weird thing about this story.
We've reached a point where if a Democrat murdered somebody on Fifth Avenue, Their supporters wouldn't care.
Bond is a commenter.
Alright, what did James Bond say?
Colonialism was capitalism.
No, that's not it. Alright.
Yeah, if somebody would want to tell me that, you seem to care about it, but if you can't tell me what it is, I can't deal with it.
Alright. So watching Tucker lay that all out, again, I think Tucker has reached national treasurer status for doing the things that nobody else is doing.
And the way he frames things, I think, is just brilliant most of the time.
I don't know what to do with the fact that he just described a president clearly breaking the law and nothing's happening about it.
Now, is the thing that's going to happen, you have to wait for a Republican to get in office and investigate it?
And then it won't matter, because Biden won't be president.
And I don't really care if China gives money to the Biden family, as long as they're not buying access.
So once Biden's out of office, I guess we're just going to not care anymore, right?
We'll just stop caring.
So I think that they literally are breaking the law in front of everybody, and nobody cares.
Biden's approval has reached crazy levels of lowness now.
Biden's approval in the 18 to 29-year-old, according to a New York Times Siena poll, was 19% approved.
So young people, fewer than 20% approved of it.
Wow. And then Guy Benson was tweeting today about the same poll, but I guess it was about the pessimism about the direction.
Americans are more pessimistic about the direction of the country now than they were in the COVID shutdown and after the COVID riots.
Basically, people are super pessimistic now.
Do you think that's right, that they should be?
Pessimistic? I'm not pessimistic.
I believe that we're being fooled by relentless, you know, illegitimate reporting.
And that things are actually in pretty good shape.
Now, inflation still scares me, but a lot of things scare me that get fixed.
I'm just not the one who knows how to fix it.
Yeah, Biden, I think, just served his purpose and we'll be gone and he'll just shuffle off.
All right.
I think things are fine, actually, believe it or not. .
I think if you were to look at, not the pandemic, I mean, the pandemic was a mess, but at the moment, I don't think we've ever been in better shape.
Isn't that weird? With all of the problems that are completely real.
You respectfully disagree.
I'll tell you the part that worries me the most is our mental health.
Our mental health. I think in terms of our physical well-being, we're probably in pretty good shape.
But our mental health is just shit.
And social media is doing that to us, clearly.
Jordan Peterson had a video in which he was talking about the research, you know, Jonathan Haidt and others, showing that social media is basically ruining our brains.
We're just not...
We didn't evolve to be able to handle social media.
It's showing. All right.
That is all I wanted to talk about today.
And so I would like, if anybody has a source that would tell us how much of our election system is audited, or even how much is vulnerable.
Because let me tell you what the...
Let me end on an interesting note.
Let me tell you two things that Democrats have told us, and Republicans too, but Democrats mostly, since 2015.
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats tried to pass an election integrity kind of a bill, and the idea was to have the federal government enforce some standards on the states, so that the state elections would have to be at least up to the standard of the national requirement.
And I think there was a Almost $700 million of funding.
So there's real money to fix the security of the system and to fix the integrity.
Now, that bill was defeated by the Republicans, and I believe a Democrat it was probably, pointed out that, no, that's a Republican problem.
Because the Democrats tried to fix the election.
The Republicans wouldn't vote for it, so it didn't happen.
Therefore, if there's any problem with the election, well, talk to the Republicans.
They had a chance to fix it, and they didn't.
But the bill had a poison pill in it.
Poison for Republicans.
It was taking away state rights.
That's what it was. They were taking the state's ability to do the election any damn way they want, and they were saying, how about we'll alter the Constitution without altering the Constitution and suddenly make the federal government get in the pants of the states.
Now, if you make a bill like that, have you not...
Made a poison pill that you know the Republicans can't vote for.
Is that not a bill that's designed to fail?
Because name one other bill that succeeded when it took power from the states and gave it to the federal government.
Have Republicans ever voted for that?
Maybe. Can somebody give me an example?
Have Republicans ever voted for anything that was clearly moving...
Rights from the states that were granted those rights by the Constitution to the federal government.
When have Republicans ever voted for that?
Brady Bill, Patriot Act, red flag laws.
Interesting. So, there are several examples here.
But the reason it was...
That's good context.
That's good to know. So there are examples when that's happened.
At least you say.
I'll take your word for it.
Oh, Raskin will be recorded behind closed doors.
Thank you.
Are you saying that Bannon will not be live?
So maybe there's something in that Trump letter that I didn't see.
Anyway, so here's our situation.
The Democrats themselves have tried to fix the election systems in the states because the Democrats say, we're going to put $700 million beyond it because it's a real big problem that our elections are not secure.
So far, everybody would agree that that's a fact.
I mean, you could Google it. I think it was 2015 or so.
Democrats tried to fix the elections because they believed they were not secure, they were vulnerable, and they did not get it through because the Republicans said, you know, don't mess with the states.
Now, so the Republicans have told us that they needed to fix the system because it's clearly broken, and so clearly broken that you would put $700 million toward fixing it.
You have to be pretty sure, don't you, that it's broken?
Broken in the sense that there are obvious vulnerabilities.
Now they're telling us that the current election was definitely good, So, were they proposing to waste the $700 million because apparently we can tell if an election was good just by looking at it?
They were either going to waste $700 million or they're lying to you and they know the election cannot be guaranteed that it was fair.
They can't both be true.
So who in the media has asked a Democrat that question, who was, let's say, involved in the 2015 thing?
In 2015, you were so sure that the elections were not secure enough that you were willing to vote for almost a billion dollars to fix it.
So if you were going to spend a billion dollars to fix something, but now you say that it's so perfect that you would be able to spot any cheating already, Which is all you really need, right?
If you can spot the cheating, that's probably good enough.
So they've actually told us that the election is broken and perfect at the same time.
And we accepted it.
Remember I told you that we've reached a place where the thing and the opposite are...
You can't tell them apart.
Democrats have told us two messages.
The election is broken, and it's going to take a billion dollars to fix it, and they produce perfect results with no question about the outcome.
They're broken and have to be fixed, but they give you results you can trust.
At the same time.
At the same time. And by the way, who besides me even said that?
I don't think there's anything that you can't fact check in what I just said.
It's pretty right out there.
So, the amazing ability of the news to misdirect you, because isn't that the most important question?
Let me tell you, here's a dog not barking or a thing you didn't see.
If I could do this, and I can't do this because I don't have the knowledge, if I could draw a picture of our election system, like a graphic that says, you know, here's a little picture of a voting booth, and here's the digital trail, and here's where the ballot goes, if I could draw that for,
let's say, one representative state, and then I could say to you, all right, here are all the parts of our system, from the first part to the final database and all the things in between, and then I say to you, we can or cannot audit Which of these boxes?
Now, I'd start with the voting machine, and I'd say, well, you can recount the ballots, because you have the physical ballot, and then you can see if the machine counted it right.
Yes. So that would be something, in most or all cases, where you definitely could audit that, and you might even notice if there was a problem in the first place.
I don't know how. Like, maybe zero votes for one person.
But, in theory, you could do that.
But I don't understand enough about the other boxes in what would be the entire election system to be able to tell you, all right, so this first part is really you don't have to worry about it.
Because that part we can check completely.
But what about this second part?
And the third part, the fourth part, the fifth part, the fact that, you know, the employees of companies that make these things have access to it.
What about all that? If I ask you, how do we know no insider has ever changed anything?
If somebody really understood the system, could they say, oh, don't worry about it.
Of course we thought of that when we designed the system.
No, you'd never get away with that.
It would be so obvious.
Would they say that? Do you know?
I don't know. So here's the thing that's missing.
Where's the graphic?
A picture that shows all the parts of the election system, and then where's the labeling of each part, fully auditable, could be audited under some circumstances, cannot be audited.
Where's that? Do you feel informed if you don't know that?
The single most important question to the United States is, are elections working?
Because if you get that right, that's the self-correcting part that you'd fix everything else.
But if you can't get a working election, you've got problems.
So why, on the most important question in the country, has nobody learned enough about it that they can just stand in front of you and say, here are all the parts of an election, this box, this box, this box, and here's our assessment of whether this can be judged as 100% or less than that in credibility.
If this were a corporation, and I were the CEO, and there was any question about auditing and election integrity, I would say, bring me a PowerPoint slide with pictures of all the parts, and then boxes pointing to them, tell me if you've got that covered or there's a vulnerability there.
And then I'd make a decision.
Nobody's doing that, right?
Who's doing that? Just the most basic things you would do to manage anything.
Who's doing that? Nobody.
And if they did that, they would certainly want to show it to the public because it would be the biggest story out there.
Actually, here's my challenge to you.
If you want to be absolutely viral, if you want to make some content that absolutely will just be everywhere, do that.
But do it well. You'd have to be somebody who knows what they're talking about, like an expert.
But if you're an expert, just give me one PowerPoint slide.
Show all the pieces of the system, and then just label them auditable or not auditable, and with whatever notes you need.
That's all. Just do that for me.
You do that for me, and let other people look at it, you know, who are also experts, not me.
And then if the experts who look at it say, yeah, it looks about right.
That is what we can audit, and that's what we can't audit.
Now, what if it turned out that you could audit all of it?
Because that's what my Democrat friend says.
That effectively you can audit all of it because you wouldn't notice any big problems and then you could look into them and you'd find the shenanigans.
Maybe. So the reason that I'm even talking about it is that he might be right.
I might be the one who's hypnotized.
That's hard to do, by the way.
I'm trying to model that for you.
I am accepting that it's possible that I'm hypnotized.
And I'm trying to find out.
Because one of us is.
Right? One of us is.
One of us is hypnotized.
Or deluded, or something like that.
Or both. And it's actually very important to know.
Because I'm talking about this in public all the time.
I'd certainly like to know if I'm completely wrong.
Wouldn't you? But the fact that we don't even have an expert explaining it to us, It seems missing.
All right. So if anybody has that expertise, come find me.
And if you've already explained it, please do it again.
It was a very fine election, yes.
You think I'm under the influence?
Not right now. Michael Lesson, to deprogram kids brainwashed and...
I don't know. That's more of an individual thing.
Scott, will Russia bring Nordstrom II back from today's maintenance shutdowns?
I don't know. That one's hard to predict.
Did you see that Chris Cuomo is apparently trying to rehabilitate his career?
He's in Ukraine.
I'm going to give him credit.
Chris Cuomo is a complicated guy.
On one hand, he deserves a lot of the brutal criticisms he got.
And I won't defend him on that.
On the other hand, he does have some skills.
He has some skills.
And going to Ukraine, basically, it's almost like penance.
It's like he's paying penance.
Like, can I do this dangerous thing that nobody's doing but needs to be done?
If I do this, will you forgive me?
Basically. And I think...
I'm really in favor of redemption.
Now, maybe he's just another bullshit artist.
And it's not redemption. He's just playing the game to look redeemed.
But I don't care.
I think you should be allowed to do that.
Even if you're being disingenuous.
If you're willing to do something useful...
But even if the only reason you're doing it is for your self-interest, I'm on board.
Our whole system is designed for that.
Capitalism is about you doing something that's good for you, but we all get some benefit if you're part of the system.
So I am a plus And I will compliment him.
I would say that Cuomo is taking on probably an expensive and huge physical risk, and he's doing it to rebuild, and he knows that he has to add value to the public to do it, so he's adding value.
Do you have a problem with that?
Does anybody have a problem with him trying to redeem himself by doing dangerous things that would add value and you'd be happy if he did it?
I'm okay with it. I'm going to actually give him a total pass.
Now, it might be bullshit and his own reasons, but I don't care.
I don't care what the reasons are, as long as he's really giving us useful information.
So, I think everybody should have that same standard.
Don't you want to live in a world where you can redeem yourself?
Don't you? Wouldn't you want that option for yourself?
Wouldn't you want the Chris Cuomo option?
Yeah, you've got to eat a lot of crow, you've got to take the humiliation for a certain amount of time.
But if you want to make the world a better place, and that's your mechanism for recovery, please do.
I like that. But one of the things he's showing is that it looks like the Ukrainians don't have enough firepower.
And they're being ground down.
But we did hear a story also that Iran is looking to sell maybe 100 armed drones to Russia.
So what does it mean if Russia is trying to buy military equipment from Iran?
What's that tell you?
Anything? I mean, it could be just they can, you know, whatever they can get, they just go and get it.
So it might have nothing to do with anything except...
The reason you rob banks is because that's where the money is.
The reason you buy UAVs from Iran is because that's where they are.
It could be just, that's where they are.
That's all there is. But it feels to me like maybe Ukraine is making a dent in their munitions.
It could be that Ukraine has identified enough of the munitions and blown it up that they actually are running out of weapons and they have to get weapons that can't be blown up in a depot because the UAVs don't have to be stored in a weapons depot or a munitions depot.
So they would be safer from attack in theory.
But hundreds, quite a lot if they're reusable.
And I think they're all reusable.
So, Here's one thing I learned about Russian logistics.
Apparently the way they get new ammo to the front lines to be used is they use trains, which apparently is sort of a backwards way to do it.
So they have to put their weapons depots near trains because they're actually unloaded by hand.
People actually just carry the boxes of ammunition from the train to wherever they're going to take it.
Onto trucks, and then trucks onto the munition base, and then from the munition base onto trucks, blah, blah.
Now, Russia has two problems.
One is they do a bad job of maintaining trucks.
So if you need trucks to move your ammo around, and they do, because the munitions are heavy and they don't go further than the railroad area, and your trucks are breaking down, you don't have munitions.
So that's one big problem the Russians are probably having, just trucks not working.
But the other thing is that if you have to put your munitions depot near a railroad station, we can find all of them.
Am I wrong? If you're limited to being really close to the railway station, how in the world can we not find all of them pretty quickly?
And that's probably exactly what's happening, because Ukraine is blowing up one munitions depot after another.
Probably it's easy to find them.
Probably. Probably they watch the munitions being unloaded every day.
Probably we've got some kind of eyes in the sky that watches the stuff being loaded into the depots.
I'll bet we know where every one of them is by now.
So you should be seeing entire units being shut down pretty soon.
If Ukraine's strategy is working, You would see entire parts of the Russian artillery go quiet for part of a day, at least.
So look for that. The first time you see that their artillery in one area goes quiet for part of the day, it's because they're running out of ammo.
And blowing up the munitions depot works.
And I don't know that they have a workaround for it.
I don't know that Russia could use, you know, trucks or airplanes or...
Boats or scooters to get them munitions anywhere.
It's starting to look...
Yeah, I mean, they can use the trucks, but then they have the maintenance problem and not enough of them, and they're more vulnerable, and they travel longer distances.
I think the Russian trucks are not built for that much load as well.
So there's a weight capacity problem.
So they couldn't have full trucks.
Yeah.
So...
It's entirely possible that Ukraine can keep Russia from advancing just by killing all their ammo depots until Russia figures out another way.
And I guess these UAVs might be one of the other ways.
All right. I'm seeing a lot of comments that the real problem is the Russian army is drunk.
That's not totally wrong, is it?
How many military people in the Russian army do you think are drunk on the job in a given day?
I don't know how many it would take before they're completely unable to function, but it's at least 10%, don't you think?
At least 10%? I don't know how much bigger, but it's probably at least 10% are actually drunk during the day.
Russia still hasn't used strategic bombers.
I think they don't feel they control the airspace.
Alright. I should stay away from the Ukraine topic because there's too much mind reading and sources cannot be trusted.
Well, I would rather give you a warning on that.
Because that's a fair warning.
None of the sources for Ukraine information are useful.
None of them. But usually what I'm talking about is how we're thinking about stuff.
And for that, the incorrect information is the right topic, because it's how we're thinking about it.
If you think I'm giving you some kind of military advice or something, it's not that.
Because I take it as a given that we don't know what's going on over there.
Would you accept that? I just assume everybody thinks that, that we don't actually know what's going on over there.
And so the reports, the Chris Cuomo reports, the other reports, probably are missing a lot of context, I would think.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I wanted to talk about today.
I believe that you've got your money's worth from this.
I'm ignoring a lot of great questions.
Here's what I'll do. I was going to turn off the YouTube feed, but I see a lot of people over there saying that I'm missing questions.
So let me do what some of you asked me to do.
Sometimes you ask me to pause during the topics to look at questions.
Dean Davis says, Would you rather elections have more votes and more fraud or less votes and less fraud?
Why does that have to be the choice?
Why am I presented with a false choice?
Why can't I have more votes and less fraud?
All you'd have to do is design the system that way.
How do you spy illegal votes?
The only way to spy illegal votes is before voting.
For illegal votes, that's true.
Yeah, the only way to spot the illegal votes would be before they get into the system.
Because once they're anonymized, that's it, right?
My friend's take on the 12 hoaxes.
I haven't showed it to him, but he would believe all of them are true.
Did your friend believe in the...
I haven't showed him the 12 hoaxes.
But I can tell you in advance he would think all of them are true.
I feel confident in that.
Alright, was there anything else that you wanted to ask me?
Rent-first wages.
Rent's going up more than wages?
Is that what you wanted me to say? There's not much to say about that.
Why don't we have live feeds from Ukraine?
Probably lots of reasons. You know, it's hard to get a good picture of a war.
Because a lot of the fighting is sort of over the horizon stuff, isn't it?
NATO, somebody says that NATO would lose badly against Russia?
You think that? Maybe.
Do you still think the border being open is a good thing?
I never thought that. You know, so many people criticize me for things they've just imagined.
How many people watching this think I'm in favor of an open border?
I mean, seriously.
It's one of the things I say the most, that I'm opposed to an open border.
I want the whole system changed, but the first thing you need to change is to control your border.
So step one, control it, and then let the economists tell you who to let in and when.
But that's not open.
That's so opposite of my opinion.
All right. It looks like we don't have any good questions left on YouTube.
Let's see.
Well, thank you.
Redacted News has reporters on the ground.
Okay, Redacted News.
Haven't heard of them. Controlled immigration, right?
Poland built a wall.
Kim says, if we had good pictures of war, the public would want us stopped.
Yeah. What kind of liberal are you?
Can you see my superchats?
I'm seeing you, P-Dub.
So, yes, I do see you.
Hello, Muneeb.
I see you, too. Lex Friedmans in Ukraine.
Scott, would you agree more election security usually means less votes?
That's the point of it, isn't it?
Isn't the point of election security to get rid of illegal votes?
But what's your point, Dean?
You're making statements of fact, but I don't know what the point is.
Oh, on Telegram there's lots of war pictures.
Most of the war pictures tend to be the aftermath, like here's a dead body, here's a burned-out building.
But you usually don't see much of the war.
So Patrick Lancaster is another one on the ground there in Ukraine.
All right.
It looks like we're done with questions.
And, ladies and gentlemen, I will talk to you later on YouTube.
