Episode 1187 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About Finding Election Fraud Without Actually Looking For it

Hey everybody, come on in here. It's time. It's time again for the best part of your day. Yeah. And every time I say it, it's true. And in order to enjoy the best part of the day in the best possible way, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker, gels or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. You fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the unparalleled pleasure. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens. Now go. Siptastic. Sibilacious sip, Credible. That's how good it was. Well, here's a positive thought of the day. You ready? The positive thought of the day. You know how whenever there's a war, nobody wants the war. But wars have a way of creating innovation. So you get a lot of inventions that come out of the fact that you have wars. And one of the things that I'm just going to put out, one example, it's not that this particular one is the one that's going to happen, but there are a few things that are probably being worked on right now that could turn into something big. For example, you know that dogs apparently can be trained to sniff out coronavirus. How many other viruses would dogs be able to sniff out? Probably some other ones right now. If a dog can sniff out coronavirus and other viruses, perhaps could you create a chip or a device, some kind of hardware, software situation that could be as sensitive as the dog, which is hard. I realize the, the dog's sense of smell is ridiculously good, but do you think it's impossible that we could ever make an artificial nose that could smell at least as well as the dog can smell to find a virus? Because we might be at a point where we just have public sniffers and they find everything while it's new. And we just don't have pandemics anymore because we can just literally sniff them out. Now all the attention, of course, is on the near term stuff like the therapeutics of the vaccines. But I'll bet you somebody somewhere in the world is in the laboratory working on an artificial sniffing machine. If anybody's watching this, who knows anybody who's doing that, let me know, because I would put a very large bet on somebody trying to invent that right now. And I believe that there have been earlier versions of sniffing machines that actually were good, but not as good as dogs. Maybe we can get there. Here's another one. What about some kind of UV light that doesn't hurt humans but it's bad for viruses put in lots of public areas and I think that's being worked on, too. It would be easy for me to imagine that this project Warp Speed, which caused all the vaccine making companies to work at super pace. They probably in the process of working as fast as they can. They probably invented all new processes. They probably figured out whole new ways to do things. My guess is that our ability to create vaccines in the future is going to be way better. Probably because didn't you think that it was impossible to create a coronavirus vaccine? We heard that six months ago. Six months ago, the top experts were saying nobody has ever made a coronavirus vaccine that works and now we have it. That's probably a big deal. Have we come close to the point where. Where we could pick off any virus and do what we just did? Because we just. It looks like, I mean, we're on the border of. I'm optimistic of curing an incurable virus. What would that do to the world if we learn how to consistently cure incurable viruses? I don't know that this is the one incurable virus that will ever be able to get on top of. I've got a feeling we invented processes along the way that would allow us to maybe take on other viruses that we couldn't take on before. So that's the good news. All right, here's a little update. Fact check. There's a lot of rumors going around and I like to clear up the rumors. And if you've fallen for any of the fake news I like to clear it up. So here's a little fact check. The Dominion voting systems did not kill Epstein. So if you're seeing anything, anything else, it's fake news, right? So the voting software did not kill Epstein. That's fake news. The President retweeted me again, I guess, last night and I didn't realize it when I woke up this morning and I looked at one of my tweets and I thought, well, I guess that was a pretty good tweet. Look at the retweets on that baby. 15,000 retweets. Don't see that a lot. At least at my level. And I'm feeling pretty good about my tweeting ability until somebody else tweeted that the President had retweeted me and then I thought, oh, well, that would be a reason why there'd be so many retweets. Here is the tweet that the President retweeted you may have seen this. I said, the most corrupt institutions and individuals in America have declared that the election was free of fraud. That's good enough for me. What's wrong with the rest of you? So the President retweeted that. Now, the funny part about this is that he retweeted me. Was it earlier this week or was it last week? A few days ago, he retweeted me. And the thing that that creates is it paints a target on my back. If you get retweeted by the President, you end up in a lot of articles where they'll show the retweet and they'll say, crazy thing the President's thinking and crazy thing the President's doing. And now he's being supported by other crazy people. So apparently my Twitter followers have reached a level where if I tweet something, just the fact that I tweeted something can become national news, which is the damnedest thing. It just sort of happened in the last few months. That. That's especially true. So the President retweets me, and if it's exactly like the last week, all these minor publications and other bloggers and stuff are going to start, you know, shooting me in the back because I'm just in the story. That's all it takes. You just have to be in the story and you're. You're a target. So that'll start all, all up again. Can we confirm yet? Do you feel that this is fair for me to make this claim that my prediction that the world's greatest dad joke actually happened, meaning that there were tons of people who were lying to pollsters intentionally, and that that would be the big reason that the poll numbers were way off. So the existence of, quote, shy Trump supporters. I've seen it confirmed in two places, Breitbart and someplace else. Do you think that that's confirmed? Do you think that the news has accepted that the reason the polls were so off is because people intentionally were pranking them? Because they don't say that. Right. You know, you've heard it from me, but you don't hear the actual legitimate, if you can call them that news business. You don't say them saying. And the reason is people were pranking them. They don't say that. But I feel like that is the reason, because so many people said they were. And then it turns out that the category that the pollsters most got wrong, according to Breitbart, is the thing they got wrong was they. They failed to detect Trump support from, quote, educated whites who Tells dad jokes. Okay, who is it? Who is it, you know, you know, who tells dad jokes? Educated white people. Now also uneducated or white people and other people as well. It's not, we're not the, it's not the only group that tells dad jokes. But what is the biggest group in America that tells dad jokes? I'm not bragging about it. I'm just saying, you know, and I, you know, I don't have science to back me up. But don't you think, wouldn't you, wouldn't you go with this gross stereotype that is educated older white guys that tell the dad jokes? Right. Would you agree with that or not? I'm not saying that there's, you know, no educated black guy who ever told a dad joke. I'm just saying it's sort of concentrated in one demographic group. Now, is it a coincidence that that's the same demographic group that was under polled? What would be the other reason that the pollsters can't find educated white people? What would be the other reason? Are you saying that educated white people don't have cell phones or phones? What would be the other reason? There's no other reason. Educated white people are probably pretty easy to reach. They have phones. They answer them. They have opinions. So I feel as if that prediction was 100% correct and one of my greatest predictions, but not like I was the only one who predicted it or anything like that. But it was certainly one that lots of people doubted. There were lots of people on the other side saying, I think those poll numbers are right, but they were not. However, it was all overshadowed by the temporary situation that, that it looks like Biden won. Emphasis on temporary. We'll talk about that. Cnn, in one of their news stories on their site said spoke about the claims of election fraud and they include this sentence, claims are all false. Now, do you think CNN can report that as a fact that all of the election fraud claims are false? Does that sound like a fact to you? Now here's the thing. It could be a fact, right? Has anybody. We have not conclusively ruled out that 100% of the fraud claims turn out to be false. Hasn't been ruled out. But you know what? It also hasn't been ruled in. It's definitely not a fact. It is something that could be true if anybody looked into it in any depth. It's something that could be false if somebody looked into it in any depth. But what it surely isn't is a current fact that can be reported as a fact. Let Me ask you this. So it's also been reported by PolitiFact and lead stories and the AP and more, quote, that there's no credible evidence that Dominion voting system software impacted any vote tallies during the election, according to the Associated Press, New York Times and PolitiFact. Now let me ask you this question. So speaking of the Associated Press, New York Times and PolitiFact, which one of those organizations got a court order to do a line by line code review of Dominion's voting systems along with an audit of all their processes and interviews with their employees? Which one of them did that? I don't hear anything. Yeah, none of them. How in the world could anybody conclude that this vote software didn't impact anything? How the hell would they know? The fact that they think you're so frickin dumb that you would take their denial of any evidence as proof of no evidence. They're really playing you for suckers here in a really big way. Now, to be fair. So I'm gonna be a little bit fair and balanced here if I can. If you were in charge the world, you would probably, you know, I'm speaking hypothetically. If you were in charge of the world, there might be times you didn't want to give people the full technical truth because it might be bad. In other words, people might take the truth and act in the wrong way, misinterpret it, get too worried about it for no good reason, etc. And, and so I have some empathy for major news organizations and the people in them who probably are feeling the weight of responsibility of keeping the Republic together, because that's real. The news business could tear apart the Republic or they could hold it together. It appears that the major media is trying very hard to hold the Republic together. I like that. All right. I want to dislike it because it feels like it's working against what I think is true, which is that there was some fraud in the election. I think we'll find that. But I also appreciate that there is a higher responsibility than the truth. I hate to say it, but there is a higher responsibility than the truth. The higher responsibility is to take care of your fellow human beings. And if a little bit of a lie, a little bit of a shading of the truth gets that done, I'm not really going to be the one who says, well, that was unethical or immoral or impractical or illegal or anything. If the intention is to protect the Republic, I can't hate that. Even if I wouldn't have played it the same way. All right. But I feel as if it is a direct lie to say that nothing's been proven in the context of nothing being searched for. And the complexity is such that you couldn't possibly know if anything happened or didn't happen. It is unknowable by its nature until you do a deep dive. And short of doing that deep dive to, to declare that it didn't happen, when all of the requirements for it to happen are in place. So the place that you would look for a crime is where there are 100% of all the variables that would suggest, oh, there definitely was a crime. We haven't looked into it, but we're pretty sure. Let me give you an example. If you took a high end automobile and, and parked it in a dangerous crime filled neighborhood and left it unlocked with the keys and the ignition and then you wait, let's say you wait a year, do you need to go back and check to find out if the car was stolen? You don't really have to check. If you leave it there for a year and it's unlocked in a bad neighborhood, a high end car with the keys clearly in the ignition, it's stolen. All right. Do you need to do a deep dive? You don't even have to go back and look, that car is gone. Likewise, if you have an election system that is deeply complicated and you waited long enough, somebody will find a way to take advantage of that complication. Not once in a while. Not. We're worried that it will happen. Not. It happens often. Not. There's a bias in that direction. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying just like the high end car parked in the dangerous neighborhood with high crime, it's definitely going to be corrupted. Not a little bit. Not sometimes, not once in a while. Every single time. You just have to wait long enough. Now, have we waited long enough? Meaning have there been enough elections and enough years have gone by that anybody who could find weaknesses to exploit would have by now found those weaknesses and exploited them? Of course somebody says, this is interesting, but disingenuous. What the fuck do you know about my inner thoughts? Seriously, what do you know? Whoever said that? What do you know about my inner thoughts? And why would I even lie about this? What would even be my motivation for being disingenuous on this topic right now? Can you think of one? Did I run for fucking election? Nope. Would I, I don't know, make money somehow? Nope. My, my traffic is higher today after Trump has allegedly lost than it's ever been. I don't have anything to gain. The only thing that I have a benefit for is telling you the closest thing to a useful filter on reality that I can. I don't have an incentive that's outside of any ethical bounds, because everything that I want and need is well within those bounds. I either have to do a good, credible job at doing this or nobody watches. What fucking reason would I have to lie to you? Really? Seriously, what fucking reason would I have to lie to you? Think about that. Because people need a reason. You need a fucking reason. All right? And if you think it's because I would be, let's say, embarrassed if I predicted Trump and he didn't win, then you really don't know me. Because I don't get embarrassed by mistakes. I wrote a whole fucking book about it about how I don't get embarrassed by mistakes is right over my shoulder right there. So I wouldn't care about getting embarrassed. I wouldn't care about failing. I wouldn't care about being wrong. None of it would have much effect on me at all. And what reason would I have to lie to you? Really? Can you think of one? Because I can't think of one. All right, triggered. Here's another fake news from cnn. Their headline says, Trump threatens to deny New York a vaccine. Did you see Trump's press event there? And did you see him threaten to deny New York the vaccine? Nope, Nope, that didn't happen at all. Do you know what did happen? The opposite of this headline. That's what actually happened. So CNN says Trump threatens to deny New York a vaccine. Here's what really happened. Trump said, I sure wish we could get you that vaccine, but New York won't take it because they're going to do their own testing, etc. But I would sure like to give it to you. Can you let me give it to you? Is there anything I can do to please let me give you this vaccine? Because I would like to give you this vaccine and if you'll let me. That's what happened. That's what happened. And then CNN reversed it and makes a headline. Trump threatens to deny New York a vaccine. Didn't happen. It just didn't happen. All right, here is the most interesting persuasion thing that happened. That is being reported incorrectly, of course. And it goes like this. And you probably saw this story that I need to give you. Trump's quote, because the. The way he chose his words is the story. And it goes like this. Trump said, I will not. This administration will not be Doing a lockdown, Trump said, speaking for the first time, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then he went on and said, hopefully, whatever happens in the future, who knows which administration it will be? I guess time will tell, but I can tell you this administration will not go to a lockdown. Now, the way it was reported is that the president has doubts about his own claims that there is fraud and that the election went his way. And so it's been reported as that even he doesn't think he won necessarily. Here's the story that they missed. Are you ready? What is Trump's biggest risk or the claim against him at the moment? There are lots of claims against the president all the time, but the biggest one, the hottest one at the moment, is that he's going to try to become a dictator and not leave the office. Even if the election is certified to be Biden's. That's his biggest problem. Right. People think he might literally just try to cling to the office in his statement where he talks about, I guess time will tell and who knows which administration it will be. He is signaling as clearly as you could possibly signal that he's not going to keep the office no matter what. Right. Did you see anybody report what I just said? The biggest story completely ignored. That the president has pretty much confirmed that in his own opinion, he's not going to be fighting to cling to the office if it goes against him. I feel like that's as clearly as you could say that. Completely ignored. And then they turned that into, I guess he thinks he didn't really win the vote. That's not exactly what I'm seeing. I mean, that's also true, but I feel like what we're really seeing is him giving no seriousness whatsoever to the ridiculous thought that he's going to turn dictator and try to cling to office. There's no indication of that. Now, did you see there was some kind of weird statement that General is it Milley, the Joint Chief of Staff made, and it was reported that it was a sort of a broadside to the President and that really he was sending a message to the President that the military is, you know, is not going to get involved in the transition or whatever. And I thought this General Milley guy, I don't have much confidence in him, frankly, from just the little bit I've seen is only about his gaffes. So I'm sure he's done great things or he wouldn't be in that job. But what the public sees is not terribly encouraging. Here's what I think that the head of the Joint Chiefs should have done. So the way he played it was like it was really serious and there was some real risk that the President would try to get the military involved. That was really the wrong way to play it. Really the wrong way to play it. Here's how he should have played it. Let's say I'm General Milley, I'm the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The press says, will you get involved if the, you know, if there's some dispute about who the real President is? Here's, here's how you answer that. You laugh at it. You say that's not the job of the military. Ha ha. No, we wouldn't get involved in that in any way. Civilians need to work that out. But if you need, if you need somebody killed, you know, come see us. But we don't get involved in this stuff and just treat it like it's not even serious. Because that's the way I want to think about it as a citizen. I don't want to hear that the military is mulling it. Do you want to hear that the military treated the question like it was even serious? I don't even want to go that far. I don't even want to hear the Joint Chief of Staff deny that they would get involved. I want them to think that is such a stupid frickin question that they're not even going to answer it. It's like, oh come on, that's not what we do. Ridiculous. No, it's funny that you would even ask that question. Do you know the military? No, we don't do that. That's just not what we do. And everybody who thought this was going to happen, I guess they could still say, well, it still might happen. But anybody who had this thought and really, really thought that the President would try to cling to power with a military intervention, that is really crazy. I mean, that's different from just having a wrong opinion. That's a little bit crazy. I think. The press continues to do their trick of debunking the weakest claims. So if you're a low information voter, you think they debunked all of the claims because what they're saying is there are no credible claims. Now what they usually mean is that the courts have not seen credible claims of fraud yet that might be true. I don't know what the courts have or have not seen. I'm not sure anybody knows. Do we? Have we all seen the claims? But whether or not the ones that have been submitted as claims are valid or supported by the courts or not, I would see them as a stalling action. In other words, you want to get the public a little bit pregnant with the idea that you're looking for fraud and it might be there. So you want to get that idea in the public's head. So this first flurry of lawsuits probably were just a stalling action to keep that idea in the public's head and say, we're working on it actively, which would sound way better than, we think there's fraud. We're not doing anything about it. Right. Imagine if the Trump administration had said, we think there's massive fraud. And then people would say, all right, what lawsuits are you filing? And they'd say, well, we're, you know, we're thinking about getting some together at some point. Don't have all the data. What would that look like? It would look like there's nothing there. Right. But by filing a bunch of lawsuits on things which may be just the first things they could think of or the first indications that there might be a problem, they just get the. They get the system going. They get something that looks like momentum. Momentum is everything. I'm going to be talking about that later as well. If you get the momentum looking like there's something your team is doing that's moving forward, then everybody's minds can get in that mode. It's like, whoa, okay, there might be something coming, and then you can be ready for it. So I think that's all that's happened. The good stuff is still to come on the evidence, but you'll see the debunking, going after the weak stuff. And here's the easiest one to debunk. So easy that I wouldn't even make this claim. Even if you thought it was true. Here's a claim that even if you think it's true, it's the worst one, that dead people voted. Now, do you think any dead people voted in this election? I do, yeah. In the whole United States, you're telling me that there wasn't one ballot filled out by a relative, you know, for their dead. Dead grandfather or something? Oh, yeah. There's a hundred percent chance somewhere in America a dead person voted at least once. Right? Now, how does the media debunk it? What they do is they'll go to find one person who is on a list that is claimed to be dead people voting, and then they'll find that that person is actually alive, and they'll say, look, Ha, ha, ha. These idiots. They're Claiming that all these dead people voted. But we picked this one name off the list. We found him. He's live. Here's a video of us talking to him. Ha ha ha. Dead people don't vote. But of course, that's the selective debunk. It's easy to find people who were mistakenly on the list of dead voters. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Now, if I had to bet, I would think that the total number of dead people voting will not rise to the level that that would change the election result. But certainly not the only claim is it. Did you see Matt Gaetz tweet? I retweeted it. He retweeted a graph that shows that historically you can tell how many people in each age group have registered to vote. You can see this year the graph shows this many registered and the following election, this many. Then you get to 2020. And. And in 2020, the number of people over the age of 90 who registered to vote just went off the charts. Went off the charts. Now could it be a coincidence or could not coincidence? But could it be the result of really good Democrat get out the vote, do you think? The Democrats were so good at getting out the vote, but it mostly worked for people over 90 because the data suggests that even if the Democrats were excellent in their get out the vote that it really only worked for people over 90. That's interesting, isn't it? Why wouldn't their get out the vote work for everybody? Why would it work really, really well for people over 90? But it works about the same as it worked in prior elections, Maybe a little bit better, but about the same as prior elections for everybody else. What could it be now? Could there be any legal explanation for this? I think so. I think so. There could be, right? I can't think of one. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Right? So you never want to think that your own inability to imagine alternative explanations means they don't exist. It might be. Maybe there's some reason for this. Maybe they did a. Maybe. You know, let me give you an example. Let's say that the get out the vote was sort of separated in different teams and the teams that worked on young people didn't have much luck, but the teams that worked on the older people were just really good at what they did. That could be possible, couldn't it? But is it likely? Probably not. So that's the sort of thing in the data that's going to make a lot of eyebrows go up. All right. Correct me if I'm wrong. I tweeted this this morning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 100% of the press and pundits who have not personally analyzed the voting data say there's no fraud. Right? So everybody who didn't look into it did not personally research everything from counting the ballots themselves to auditing every line of code and every part of the system for the voting system. Private companies, all the people who did none of that, say there's no fraud there. Does that pass the fact check that all the people who are saying there's no fraud have also not looked into it personally? Now, how many people have looked into it personally and really dug into the data and concluded after looking at all the voting data in the relevant places, how many people who know how to do that have dug into the data, have concluded, hey, folks, I looked at all the data and it looks good to me. I don't see any problems. How many of them are there still? Zero, I think. Zero, right? How many people looked into the data and then concluded there was a problem? Or at least your eyebrows are going crazy because it sure looks like there's a problem. How many people like that? Quite a few. Quite a few. So, again, I'm open to a fact check, but I believe all the people who haven't looked into anything say that they haven't found anything. No surprise, because when you don't look for things, it's easy to not find them. All the people who, who could have looked into it and found that there were no problems, it seems like I've heard no reports of that. But all of the people who have looked into it and really dug into it have found problems or alleged problems or the appearance of problems. Fact check me. Are all those statements true? Does it mean anything? Well, it might. We'll find out. Here's my current best guess of where this is going. There are deadlines in terms of when you have to put in your claims of election misconduct. Do you think that we'll get past those deadlines before any good information comes out about at least that proves there's some problem with the vote? Very likely. Very likely that we will learn more and more as time goes by. We'll learn more and more and we might find more and more fraud. So here is my belief about the world. My belief about the world is this, that in any complicated system you end up with fraud. Whether it's the stock market or the voting system, they're all complicated systems and over time they all become subject to Fraud, no exceptions. So given that it's just a big, complicated system, the voting system, the odds of it being full of fraud are really 100%. It's not even any chance. There's no. There's no chance of no fraud. The question is how much. Right. I think we're all on the same page, even Democrats, that, yeah, there's always a little fraud, always a little bit, but not necessarily enough to change an election with a 5 million vote difference. So that's the first thing I think we agree on, that there's got to be a little bit. Now, if there's a little bit of fraud, a baseline fraud, that also tells you that fraud is possible. Right? Fraud is possible because it happens. And I tweeted some stories about specific ballot stuffing, prosecutions, etcetera, where we know it's. We know it's possible, and we know it's done. So then the question is, what is the extent of it? And again, this gets back to the press, creating an image, at least in Democrats, that Trump was actually literally Hitler. Now, if you know how to cheat and it's possible, and you could do it to stop who you believe you've been brainwashed to believe is Hitler, how much fraud would you get in that year compared to all the past years when the only thing you were trying to do is win the election versus stop the end of the world? Well, every bit of your common sense and logic and reason says that whatever amount of fraud there had been in the past would not even be close to what you should expect in this election. Again, I'm not saying I personally saw it. I said that this setup of thinking that Hitler is running and having decades of knowing that fraud is possible, it pretty much guarantees massive fraud. So if you ask me, Scott, what would you bet that massive fraud, massive being more than ever before? Let me just define it as more than ever before as opposed to enough to change the election. What are the odds that we've had more than ever before and that it's widespread fraud this time? 100%. There isn't any chance that didn't happen. There really isn't. Now, the second question still matters a lot. Was it enough? That's what you will learn in the coming days. So far, I don't think, even in my own opinion, I don't think I've seen enough in the public to say, oh, yeah, that's it right there. But the time that you would see the stuff that's good is sort of next week. All right, so we don't have to argue about who will be right. We could just wait, just get back to me in next week. And if nothing happens next week, maybe it's the week after, but in two weeks, you don't have to wonder if they're going to be strong claims. Let me put that out there. I've seen a little bit more than you've seen, and I think they're going to be strong claims. So. But here's how I think this is going to go. It's based on the fact that the media has proven they can disappear entire stories and create narratives that are just not true and make that the truth that the public sees. Now, they've demonstrated that in the past several years, and I don't have to give you all the examples of things they've disappeared and things they've created out of nothing. So they do have the power now that even if Trump and his legal team can prove that the election was stolen and that reversing the fraudulent votes would be enough to give him the reelection, even under those conditions where the court can see it, the public can see it, the data is right in front of you. Even in all of that proof, I don't think it's enough because reality is not based on votes. Reality is a collective agreement of what is real. And I believe that the news media is so strong now, they can create a big enough consensus that Biden won anyway that Trump won't be able to keep the office even with proof that he won. Now, is that the most out of the box prediction you've ever heard? Probably, but I actually don't see how it could go any other way. Let me give you the other possibilities. So one possibility is that Trump proves he won, and then it's just reversed. And then the court says, yeah, okay, you made your case, you proved you won, we threw out a bunch of fraudulent votes, and so it's President Trump reelect. What would happen? Do you think that Joe Biden would just say, oh, okay, all right, good. Well, I guess that's the way it goes. Well, I guess I'm not president. And then his, his supporters would say, oh, darn, darn it. Darn it all to pieces. We sure wish we won, but I guess we didn't, so better luck next time. Guess we'll try harder next time? No, nothing like that would happen. So the path in which Biden just says, okay, the data was not what we thought. I changed my mind. We'll get rid of our transition team, forget about those cabinet appointments, and we'll I'll just go back to my basement. I don't think it can happen. I think we've passed the point where reality can be adjusted that much. In other words, people, the people who think Biden won, are so firm in that belief that I don't think there's any amount of counter evidence that will change it. And I think that President Trump is going to be faced with this decision, the George Washington decision, which is sort of perfect, and the George Washington decision is this. I could take power because he probably could, but would it be best for the country? And I think he would have to think seriously about his lifelong instinct, you know, to win. This would put that all, all into focus. The most, you know, competitive personality we've ever seen in the public domain. The person who wins, wins, wins, never quits. Wins, wins, wins, never quits. Could he say, you know, I've proven I got more votes and I'm going to step down? Could he? If he did, it's George Washington time, because he would do it for the love of the country. It would certainly not be a personal. Personal preference. You know, it wouldn't be a personal preference. You could be sure that he doesn't personally want to step down. I feel confident about that. But if he did, it would be a completely selfless act, except that you would get Joe Biden as a president, which would be a problem. Now, he might negotiate something for that. But imagine if he did and then started his own media company. Here is the beauty of this play. If Trump stepped down even after winning the technical vote, the Electoral College, because the country's mood just couldn't handle him, he would know that the real power in this country is not the elected people. That would prove that the real power in this country is the press and who can create the narrative. And he might create his own press. So imagine a President Trump being essentially driven out of office by a news press, fake news bubble, and then saying, oh, it looks like the real power is not politics. It looks like the real power is to own a media platform and then having him start one. Would you watch it? You know you would. Of course you'd watch it. So I think the most likely path is that President Trump will show he won and still not be able to take the office for reelection. And he'll start a media platform because that's where real power is. Real power is in the media. It's not in the government anymore. What were the odds that the Republicans would pick up a bunch of House seats but lose the presidency by 5 million votes. Do you think that that happened? Do you think that Republicans picked up substantial seats in the House while the president in the same party lost by 5 million votes? I don't feel like that happened. Could happen, right? Can't rule down. It's not impossible, but I just don't feel like that happened. I also don't feel like Joe Biden got more votes than anybody's ever gotten. There's just a lot of stuff here that just doesn't look quite, quite right. Now, our new hobby for the next several days will be picking out social distancing hypocrites. Because instead of Thanksgiving, I guess this year will be zoomsgiving. And zoom giving as a holiday is the most empty holiday of all time. At least Thanksgiving has some real meaning. But zoomsgiving is just an annoying call with your relatives. And so far, the following social distancing hypocrites alleged Nancy Pelosi. She just had to cancel a thing. Governor Newsom was apologizing for going to a dinner party. The Chicago mayor was partying with the celebrants over the election. And then Chris Cuomo caught on camera at some someplace without his mask. So I don't care about any of that stuff, really. None of it is. I don't know, it just doesn't have any weight. But you'll see a lot of it. It's sort of a fun hobby finding all the. Finding all the people who are cheating. All right. There isn't much new news now, and part of it is because the President has decided to starve the news media. I don't know what his thinking is on this. He might just not want to be in public because the vote didn't go his way so far. And maybe he just doesn't want to be in public for a while and he can be forgiven for that. But I feel as though the President staying away from the press is punishing the press isn't. Feels like he's punishing them on the bottom line by taking away their click bait, by taking away their. All their footage and everything that gets them clicks and revenue. So he's really handicapping them by just staying out of the news. Now, I also think that if he believes he can win, and it's pretty clear that he has that belief at this point, if he believes he can win in these challenges, the best way he could play it would be to stay low. Would you agree? Now, it doesn't seem in character. You, you expect him to be out front, you know, in front of the army, fighting Hard all the time. It's just his personality. But the best strategy, if that's what's happening, and I don't know that that's what's happening, but the best strategy would be to quiet down all of the fire that he normally brings to every situation. And it looked to me like at that little press conference he gave, which was just on the topic of coronavirus, it looked to me like he was really trying to tamp down the fire and the gasoline. And if he does that enough and a little time goes by, maybe the public will start to get these little indications that there was something wrong with the election. But Trump himself, maybe just some tweets about it, but not too much to flame things up. His best play is to let it play out. Because if the process plays out and then the process says you're the president, then maybe, just maybe he can avoid huge riots. There'll always be a little bit of a rioting. But if he goes in like the 500 pound gorilla, he says, I'm going to change this election. You know, I'm telling you that it's wrong. I'm going to do this, I'm going to make this result overturned. That would not be a good look because then that looks, that plays into the dictator thing and he can't accept the election and all that stuff. But if he just steps back and starves the media so that they don't have any good stories to get your blood boiling, what would happen? I think you just, your tensions go down, the election starts to feel like old news because things move so fast and you can get used to anything. So the best strategy might be to dribble out. You know, these numbers look a little sketchy. You know, it's not just these few numbers. We found some other numbers that look a little sketchy too. We'll let the press deal with that and maybe some of the senators will weigh in and we'll see how it plays out. So I don't know if it is strategy or not for him to stay out of the, out of the public. He might just not feel like it. And that would be perfectly appropriate, right? If you, if you have this election outcome, you are entitled to a little bit of golf, right? I mean, nobody would begrudge him or Biden taking some time off. And by the way, the fact that Biden took some, he's taking a few days off to recover from his campaign. I swear to God, it would almost be more fun to have a President Biden just to see him struggle to do the job. And I'm not proud of that, but it would be interesting to see. All right. Yeah. So there's some I'm seeing in the comments that Elon Musk took four coronavirus tests with the same test and the same nurse. Two of them said he had coronavirus and two of them said he did not. And he's asking the question, are these tests even real? I'm paraphrasing. And I guess there's some question about the sensitivity of the tests. If they do, I don't know, 35 cycles, whatever that means, they're good. If they do less than that, they're not. So there's some question about whether the tests that we're using are even tests or is it just a coin flip? I don't know. Yeah, it's a coin flip test. All right. That's all I got for now. I will talk to you tomorrow. All right. Periscope is off. And YouTube still on. He took the antigen test. You know, I keep getting confused by the whole antigen versus finding the virus test. Somebody says Scott is not MAGA because he operates according to the media rules. I don't know what that means. Get a grip. Okay. How's your health? Never better. My health is great, by the way. Maybe the best it's ever been in my life, weirdly enough. Wow, your questions are going by so quickly it's hard to even see them. Your thoughts on online hypnosis training? I don't think it works. My experience is that if you don't do it in person, it probably doesn't work. I can't guarantee it doesn't work, but I wouldn't bother trying it. Slaughter meter. I'm going to bump it up to 96%. 96%. What about Biden's anti fraud organization? Well, haven't heard from them. How to find a good hypnotist? People ask me all the time, how could you find a good hypnosis instructor or a good hypnotist? And it's really hard to answer that question because usually the only way you can do it is from reviews or personal recommendations. But if somebody is a good hypnotist, they could certainly get somebody to give them a good recommendation. So hypnosis is the one service where you should really not trust the reviews on reviews because it wouldn't be hard to get people to give you good reviews even if you didn't help them. Do you really think he'll do a George Washington? I don't know that I could predict. He will do that. Here's what I do predict. I do predict that we will know there was massive fraud in the election and that we'll know that before inauguration. I don't know if we will agree that it was massive enough that he should be the president. And if there's any gray area, I think he won't become the president, but I think historians may very well say, you know, he was the president, but he just didn't take the office. It says, Scott, they are deleting evidence. Well, I don't know who they are or what evidence. Somebody says Dan Bongino owns Parlor. I think he was. Wasn't he an investor or something? I don't know that he owns it. He will have to stay to preserve integrity. I don't know about that. Maybe. Oh, yeah. It does look like Trump let his hair go gray. I don't know. Was that a coronavirus thing? Did he do what everybody else did? And, you know, he couldn't do as much hair care. Ann Coulter thinks that Trumpism trumps Trump. Well, Trumpism was sort of a reflection of the voters, so in that sense, yes. Get Kraken. There was some kind of tweet about release the Kraken that was deleted before I could see it. So I don't know what that Kraken is all about, but it's in the. It's on Twitter. Seidel is the name of the company that all the votes go to, and apparently they have offices in Germany. Why do any of our votes go overseas? Don't you think that if we could do one thing to protect our votes of this country, the one thing would be to make sure that the data on the voting never left the country? I feel like that would be basic now. It's not that you can't hack it remotely, but if you put the server in another country, I feel like that's just asking for trouble. Why is the stock market going up? People are saying. I think people are optimistic about the vaccine and that's mostly it. What if they delete the Dominion evidence? How would they delete it? If Dominion deleted their records and their logs, they would never work again. So if they were to delete that, they would also be out of business. I don't think that'll happen. Could happen, but that would also be an admission of guilt. Somebody says voting is not transparent. You are correct. It's not. What if they delete the Dominion evidence? Well, so I've answered that if they delete it, it would be an admission of guilt. Thoughts on rallies today versus Antifa. So is there going to be big mix up with Trump supporters and Antifa today? I don't know if Antifa wants to fight because they, they think they got Joe Biden. Right? And do they want Joe Biden? I don't even know if Antifa wants a real president or they just want the end of society. I don't even know what they want. All right, that's all I got for now and I will talk to you tomorrow.