Episode 1189 Scott Adams: Fake News Coverage of the Fake Recounts of the Rigged Polls

Hey, everybody, come on in. Come on in. There's still time. Get in here before you miss even one minute of coffee with Scott Adams. The best part of the day. Yeah, you don't want to miss even one second of the best part of the day. And all you need to maximize it would be a copper, a mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jug, or 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous hip, and it happens. Now go. I can feel my vitamin D levels starting to surge. Yes. Yes. Oxytocin up 10%. Things are going well. I think. We're coming online. Gonna have a good day. All right, let me tell you what's going on today. Are you ready? Yeah. We're gonna release the Kraken. We're gonna release the Kraken all over the place. There will be people cleaning up the Kraken for months to come. But let us talk about the news. Jake Tapper was talking to Dr. Fauci on an interview, and it's starting to look like, as Jake Tapper put it, Christmas might be canceled. That's right. There might be no Christmas this year. And the funniest part about this that I've been laughing for 24 hours about is Twitter user John Gabriel retweets that interview in which Jake Tapper was saying, there might not be any Christmas. And John Gabriel tweets, you're a mean one, Mr. Fauci, and I can't get that out of my head now. You're a mean one, Mr. Fauci. If he's never watched the Grinch, that's not hilarious to you, but if you have watched the Grinch, it's pretty good. All right, Trump tweeted that he won the election. So when Trump tweets that he won the election, Twitter puts an official warning on it that says, official sources call this election differently. Now, what are the odds that the only person in the United States who can't speak his opinion would be the president? What's the point of being the president if you're the only one who doesn't have free speech? So I could tweet that, right? Because I saw somebody testing it to see if they could tweet that they're president and see if they'll get a warning. Try it yourself. Try tweeting that you're the elected president. And see if you get a warning or better tweet that Trump was elected. See if you get a warning, because I think he's the only one. I don't believe anybody else would get a warning on that statement. But it's kind of weird that the President's the only one who can't speak freely. Now here's how I take this question of who's the President or who's the President elect? Now you could get technical and you could say, well, nobody's the President elect yet, because technically that's true. Or you could be classic and traditional and say, well, the media has called the race, so there is a President elect. So you can have those dumb conversations which lead to nothing. Right? But here's the more interesting one, and this goes to my thoughts about everything from quantum physics to the simulation. Until you know what the answer is. Let's say there's some question that's a mystery. Until you know the answer, meaning you've observed it or somebody's observed it, it's still undecided. So this is my actual. This will sound like a joke or maybe I'm leading up to some kind of joke or something. I promise I'm not. This is my actual filter on reality that the question of who won the election is undetermined. Meaning that even if you could know all the facts, if you had a God like brain and you knew how many votes were cast, that maybe in that case you would know who the President is. But unless somebody knows, and right now it's unknowable until somebody's really looked in and checked for all the fraud and all that. But until somebody has observed that there either is or is not fraud, it could still exist or not exist for most people. It's a objective fact that somebody got more votes and that therefore somebody is technically the President. In my view of the world, that didn't happen. That there is no fact of who got the most votes. Not because we haven't looked for it. I'm not talking about our own ignorance. I'm talking about a view of reality in which until it's observed, it doesn't actually exist. So you think that it is true that there's a certain number of votes and that's just a fact. We may or may not ever know about it, but it's a fact. And I say nope. I say it's not a fact. It is not determined until it can be observed. And until it's observed, our history is rewritable. You got that? Until we know from direct observation. And all the possibilities have been collapsed, as they say, in that moment of observation. Until then, all histories that are compatible with observation exist simultaneously. So history is not set. History is to be written, meaning that things you think already happened. They haven't, unless they can be observed. And we can't observe the vote count directly. So it hasn't happened yet. So that's my view of the world. Now you say to yourself, well, that's crazy. Well, that's pretty crazy. How many mushrooms did you have to do before you came to that view of the world? And I would offer you just this as my defense. Weak as it is, until that filter on reality can be disproved, it's as valid as every other filter, and I don't think it can be. All right, let's see what else is happening. The President is tweeting that the Georgia recount is useless because they're not checking the signatures, they're only counting. And I don't know if the problem was the counting or the problem was also the quality of the signatures. They might be faked signatures, but we shall see. We shall see. But now we have a situation in which we have probably, in my opinion, although authorities have a different opinion. In my opinion, we have a rigged election, a fake recount, and it's all being covered by the fake news. We have three levels of fakery between you and reality. Fake news, fake recount, fake vote. Maybe I don't know if I'll get banned from Twitter for saying that, but in my opinion, we're going to find out that it's fake. If we look, maybe we won't look. So there's a story out of Detroit. There's a whistleblower who claims to be a Dominion IT worker who claims to have directly witnessed massive fraud in Detroit. And here's the claim. And I'm as interested in whether the claim is even physically possible as I am interested in whether that claim is true. Okay, so there's two things. Is it physically possible? What is being claimed? But then also, did it actually happen? So here's the claim that they took piles of ballots that were all Biden ballots and they fed it into the counting machine, and then when they were done, they took the same pile and they fed it into the machine again. And then when they're done, they fed it into the machine again. So the accusation is that this whistleblower stood there and directly observed piles of ballots being fed into the machine multiple times. First question, is that possible? Is it physically possible in Other words, once you feed in the ballots, do they go somewhere where you can go pick them up, or do they go into some locked place where nobody can get to them? Probably you can get to them, wouldn't you say? Probably you can you physically get to them after they've been counted, what would stop you exactly from just feeding them back into the machine? Would it be that the machine is checking to see if that specific ballot has already been read? I don't know. I don't know. Does the machine have that capability? And if it has that capability, can that capability be turned off temporarily or permanently? I don't know. So I'd certainly like to know the answer to the question. Is that even physically possible to count the same ballot over and over again? Because you know in your mind, don't you think, wait a minute, it can't be that easy. Get it? And if it is that easy, it happened. So let me see if you could, if you agree with the following statement, if it is that easy to just run the same ballots through the machine, again, it happened. Do you agree or disagree that if it's that easy, and I'm quite skeptical that it's that easy, I feel like there should be some kind of barcode, right? Somebody's saying barcode. But just because there's a barcode, does that mean that the counting machine checks the barcode? Maybe not. Maybe the barcode is for the post office or for some other purpose. I don't know. So we have a big unknown here. But that whistleblower is interesting. We don't know. Let me tell you what I think is true. Whether it's true that this specific story is the case that you can just feed ballots through, I believe it's true that it's easy to cheat. You just have to have enough people in on it. So you'd have to have no observers. But if you satisfy this one requirement of no observers, is it easy to cheat one way or another? Is there any mechanism to cheat? If you can solve for one variable, which is get rid of the observers, I feel like almost certainly, yes. Am I being naive? I feel like the odds of that are close to 100% in the real world. I would think if you could get rid of the observers. And what is the biggest reported problem with the election? Got rid of the observers in the key places where the voting was a little suspicious. So Rudy Giuliani tweeted, and coming from him, it has more weight. So this is what Rudy said. The only thing that would have surprised me is If Philly didn't cheat on a big scale in the 2020 election, it would have been the first time they missed such an opportunity in 60 years. Wake up to reality. Now you have two realities, right? So there's the average citizen reality, which is that we've been told by the fake news we've been told by the fake news that election fraud is exceedingly rare, exceedingly rare in this country. Okay? So that's the news. The news is quite uniformly. And even the Department of Homeland Security, right. That's pretty credible source, wouldn't you say? Election commission officials. Credible sources. And what do they say? They say election fraudulence. Election fraud is exceedingly rare. Those are pretty good sources. And I would say that generally speaking, if somebody who is that good of a source and there are multiple of them are saying the same thing, well, you'd have to take that pretty seriously, wouldn't you? Right. Now let's look at the counterclaim. Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani has been a mayor of a big city. If you're the mayor of a big city, do you learn some things that people don't know if they're not mayors of big cities? I think so. I think you learn how things really work. If you are. Also, if you have a background as having prosecuted the Mafia and you've been the mayor of New York City, do you think that Rudy Giuliani has a unique perspective of how much fraud and crime there is in the world that the rest of us maybe don't see? Of course he does. Of course he does. Rudy Giuliani's filter on what happens in a big city is much better than yours. It's much better than mine. It's not even close. If Rudy Giuliani says that Philadelphia has cheated on elections for 60 years, what do you think? Do you think that didn't happen? Do you think Rudy would make such a specific and gigantic claim based on his knowledge of how the world works? All the way from every kind of crime he's prosecuted through taking down the Mafia to some extent, to being a mayor, to working on this campaign, Rudy has seen some stuff, okay? And for him to make a claim this strong, and then you also see Sidney Powell is making similarly strong claims about the election being fraudulent. I feel as if those are people who know how the real world works. They've seen some stuff. And if I had to bet on which side has the more real world opinion, the officials who are saying, everything's right, it's all good, don't worry, nothing to see here, move along or Rudy Giuliani. I feel like I would go with Rudy on this. I feel like that. We'll see. All right, here's a Trump tweet about John Bolton. I guess Bolton thinks that Trump should concede. So here's what Trump says about John Bolton. And, you know, someday we won't have a President Trump. We don't know if it'll happen sooner or later, but someday we won't have him as president. And this is what we're going to miss. I'm speaking for myself here. Mostly. I'm going to miss a tweet like this. Trump says, quote, john Bolton was one of the dumbest people in government. The that I've had the, quote, pleasure to work with a sullen, dull and quiet guy. He added nothing to national security except, quote, gee, let's go to war. Also, illegally released much classified information. A real dope. Now, come on, you're going to miss that level of transparency. The president is so transparent that you're just going to miss it. So you don't realize what you have when you have it, but when you don't have it. I was getting out of bed this morning and I was trying to imagine a world without Trump as president in which I would have to get up and talk about politics. But the only person in the story was Joe Biden. And I thought to myself, how am I going to do that? How am I going to keep talking about politics if it's Joe Biden? There's just nothing to talk about. So we'll miss President Trump someday, whenever it is that he's out of office. Here are two things that the public believes are both true. Number one, I told you that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. So wouldn't you say that the public believes that? I would say most of the public believes that election fraud in this country is exceedingly rare. Here's another thing that citizens believe that whenever fraud has a high payoff and it isn't difficult to do it, it'll happen 100% of the time. Now, our election does seem to be one of those situations. Seems to be one of those situations where the payoff for cheating would be really high. I mean, changing the nature of the government of the United States, that's a pretty high payoff. And is it possible? Yeah, it's possible. Looks like it might not even be hard. Depending on whether that Detroit whistleblower is right or even if she's not, there are probably a dozen other different ways to cheat that are also not that hard, at least for state entities and people who are really determined. So how can it be true that the citizens believe two things that are opposites? They believe that cheating in our elections is exceedingly rare. At the same time, they know that anything that looks like that situation is always full of fraud. Those are opposites. It has to be full of fraud, because it's one of those situations where there's lots to gain and it wouldn't be hard to do under those conditions. It's always full of fraud, and yet we believe it's not. How do you explain that? Well, people are irrational, that's how. If I had to guess, what is a closer description of the world? That our votes have been largely quite good throughout history and including today, or alternately, that all of our elections have been fraudulent? Which is more likely? They're pretty much all good, you know, with some exceptions, and there's always a little mischief, but pretty much all pretty clean elections or pretty much all fraudulent. If you had to pick between those two options, I would pick pretty much fraudulently fraudulent vote every time. Now, I do think that sometimes that that situation can be overcome by an unusually gifted politician. So if you get a Ronald Reagan, you get a Bill Clinton, you get maybe even an Obama or a Trump, you. You can imagine that the personality would be so strong that they could overcome some cheating. But I would say that every election probably is just full of fraud. That's my guess. I think that's the world you're living in. We might find out, we might not. All right. Moderna says that their vaccine is 94.5% effective, which would be in the range of, or as good as the other vaccine that Pfizer was talking about. Now, how proud are you that the two companies we're talking about are American companies? Two American companies did what experts thought was largely impossible. Now, the vaccines would not be available per se, in quantity, but it looks like by the end of the year, the President will have done what he said he was going to do, which I think most people thought was impossible, to get an actual working vaccine, maybe multiple of them, by the end of the year. So the President did that. That's one of the greatest, I think, one of the great accomplishments in politics, assuming things work out. And the experts said it couldn't be done. Now, of course, you have to ask, why is this news coming out two weeks after the election? Is there any chance that the company is new about the good news maybe a few days before the election? Probably. Probably. So, you know, that's certainly political. I would also expect that the reporting about the virus will get worse and worse and it will look more and more dangerous until inauguration. Meaning that the fake news has a motivation to make the virus look as bad as possible while Trump is still in charge. But the day that Biden is inaugurated, it's going to be this flood of good virus news. Now, that probably was going to happen no matter who got inaugurated, because in all likelihood, inauguration is going to be really close to probably the peak of the worst of it. So whoever got to be president would be the president when we got past the coronavirus. So you should expect that it will look much worse until Inauguration day, because that's what the fake news wants it to look like. So there's that. Over at the UK they're getting more serious about vitamin D and they're looking into, you know, having some vitamin D guidelines for the country and trying to get it to the vulnerable people. So we still don't have the world's most solid science on vitamin D, but I really think in the end it's going to be one of the biggest variables. That's just my non scientific, non medical guess is that that's the way it's shaping up. That's good news. Maybe by the spring we'll have some vaccines and we'll have more vitamin D and we'll be in better shape. There's a report the Daily Mail is reporting that the coronavirus was in Italy as early as September of last year. I guess they found some blood samples from that time in which it was present. Now, if that's true, it would mean that maybe China knew about the pandemic or may have detected it even sooner than we knew about. So China's got even more to answer to. And I guess President Trump is looking to turn the screws on China and have some more hardline policies that are hard to reverse for Joe Biden. How would you ever trust Joe Biden to negotiate with China? How are we ever going to be happy with whatever he comes up with? Because no matter what Biden comes up with, it's going to look like it was too nice to China, right? And if he's not too nice, he won't get a deal. So he only has two ways to lose, I think. So if Biden gets a deal with China, he'll be criticized for it being too generous. And if he doesn't get a deal, he's the guy who didn't get a deal. So Biden's got some China problems ahead here's a question for you. Hypothetically, if the President's allegations about the election were true, hypothetically, hypothetically, would it be worse than Watergate? I think it would, right? If the President's accusations were true and we have to wait and see. But if it's true, somebody says, YouTube is messing with my audio, maybe I doubt they're doing it intentionally. But why don't the networks have Carl Bernstein on to ask him, hypothetically? Carl? Because they do hypothetical questions and they say things like, if it's true that there's Russian inclusion, is this worse than Watergate? And Carl Bernstein will say, yes, that would be worse than Watergate. Or if, let's say, the President's perfect letter to the Ukraine, if that was a problem, would it be worse than Watergate? And Carl Bernstein will say, yeah, yeah, that's worse than Watergate. So why don't we ask Carl Bernstein if the President is accurate? Because again, we talk about allegations. We don't just talk about things which are known facts. Carl Bernstein can be asked if it's true, hypothetically, would it be worse than Watergate? Don't you think that's a fair question? Because he's been asking that. He's been asked that question for four years and he's answered it every other time. Why can't he answer it this time? Let's have him on. Would it be worse than Watergate if there's fraud in the election? All right. Trump has confirmed in a tweet what I've been telling you that the legal cases that you know about so far challenging the election result, those legal cases are not the end of their arguments. They're probably more of a stalling action, you know, just to make sure that something's happening. But, you know, get ready. We're looking into more stuff. The more stuff and the good stuff I don't believe has been presented to the courts. So if you're wondering, well, what happens after these lawsuits get worked through and it doesn't look like they have much substance, are we done? And the answer is no, that would be before you started. So Democrats are thinking, we got these lawsuits out there, once they've been taken care of, we're done. Nope. Those lawsuits are signaling the beginning of a process. They're not even close to the end. It's the beginning. So we should see stuff this this week. And let's see if you want to go to and review election irregularities and allegations. Now, there's a website, but it looks like, well, look for Robert Barnes, his tweet he shows you the website, you can report stuff there. All right, I have a legal question for you. Do hate crimes. So in the United States, if you do a crime that is a, quote, hate crime, the penalty is worse. So is there a hate crime? Is there a hate crime that applies to attacking Trump supporters? And if not, why not? Should there not be hate crime laws that apply to attacking people for political views? There should be, right? Because we have protected categories. You know, I think lgbtq, probably racial, I assume religious, maybe gender, I don't know. But whatever the classes are for protected hate crimes. Why would Trump supporters not be in that category? And if it's not true, we should be making it true. Right? I mean, that. I would think that that would be a big step toward making it not a free punch on Trump supporters. We should put a little meat into those laws. And I saw that Don Jr. And Ivanka and the President have all pushed back on the violence against Trump supporters in the recent protests. So the President seems to be going right at that now, as well as his family. So we appreciate that. Speaking on behalf of people who might get punched, there's an article in the the Buffalo Chronicle, which I will tell you before I get to the story that it is a allegedly a fake news publication. So if you see this story, just know it comes from a publication that has a history of just making stuff up. Allegedly. And allegedly, there's a Philadelphia mob boss who admits the whole scheme of fixing the election, but it comes from a source that is not considered credible. So you should not consider it credible either. But maybe. Don't you think there's a pretty good chance that organized crime has a role in fixing elections? Because if you wanted to get somebody to fix an election and you wanted them to stay quiet about it, organized crime would be a good way to go, because everybody involved in organized crime has a really good reason to keep their mouth shut, meaning they would get killed if they open their mouth. That's way better than just getting a bunch of sketchy Democrats to do the cheating for you, because a sketchy Democrat might become a whistleblower, but somebody who's involved with a Mafia crime family, well, they're going to really think pretty hard before they. They turn on the scheme, because, you know, you get killed for that. All right, here's a question for you. Once the vaccines are out there and people are getting vaccinated, if you've had your vaccination and you feel you've got a 95% chance of being safe from the virus, and let's say you're 25 years old, so you have a very low chance of getting the virus. You have a low chance of having a problem with the virus. You also get a vaccination and that takes a 95% chance off of those already low chances. Your odds of having a problem, close to zero. What are you going to do? See, here's the problem. Let's say you go to a public place and you see a bunch of people without masks while most people have them. What would you think of the people who don't have masks? Well, if nobody has a vaccination, you assume that they're violating the rules. Because even though they might be some of the people who recovered and they might have antibodies, they might. You wouldn't assume that. You'd probably assume they're just not following the guidelines. So we're going to have a lot of Karens and what is the other word for it? A lot of Karens complaining about people without masks. And those people saying, I got a vaccination. And then the Karen will say the vaccination isn't 100%. And by the way, even if it's protecting you, maybe you could still be a carrier. So even though you got your vaccination, I think you should wear a mask too. We'll say Karen. Now I don't know what the professionals will say. What will Dr. Fauci say? Will Dr. Fauci say, yeah, even though it's 95% good, you know, you might have some on your clothing or I don't know, there might be some argument that you're still dangerous enough, that's going to be ugly because there's going to be a period of maybe nine months where we would be a mix of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. And I gotta tell you that the people who get vaccinated, especially the ones who go through four days of pain with each of the two vaccinations because apparently there's a little bit of a side effect there. Those people are not going to want to wear a frickin mask. And I don't think there's any chance we're going to get. We'll be able to make them because they're just going to say that's my limit. I'll play with you with the mask if there's a legitimate medical risk. But as soon as you tell me I have to wear a mask just to be a good team player. Is that what you're telling me? You're telling me I Need to wear my mask just so the people who need the masks feel comfortable. That's the only reason I'm wearing a mask. I think that would be a hard limit for most people. People will go along with, protect your fellow people's health. You can get a lot of people to say, all right, I'll take a little bit of risk, etcetera, to help other people. That's what a society is. We take a little risk on ourselves for the benefit of the greater good. But that's not going to work. After the vaccinations, the. That'll be the end of that argument, I think. All right, most of our news has ground to a bit of a halt, I would say, meaning that until the President either starts making more news or we get some big news on the recounts or the election integrity, we're. We're sort of. Sort of in a waiting pattern, and then we'll be into the holiday season when the news slows down. Normally, somebody says medical people give wristbands in hospitals. Yeah, I thought about that. You could have some kind of an indication or a badge you wear that says you got a vaccination and that might help a little bit. But how long would it take for people to get fake badges? You know, anything can go wrong. The sting is coming. Somebody says, all right, let me ask you, since I can see the comments now from Both Periscope and YouTube, how many of you watching this right now believe that there was massive fraud, massive fraud in the election sufficient that it could have changed the outcome? So show me in the comments, how many of you believe, based on what you already know, that fraud was rampant? Looks like we have a lot of yeses. All right, I see one. No, I'm seeing just yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Absolutely, yes. Somebody says, not yet. So we have one cautious skeptic, which is never the wrong answer. Being a cautious skeptic is never wrong. Yeah. So it looks like most of you are convinced. Here's the weird thing, that our system works at all. We have the weirdest system where we can not trust any part of it and yet still trust the whole. You know what I mean? If you looked at any one part of our system, you'd say, all right, you get a politician. Is the politician telling the truth? You'd say, no, no, they don't do that. You'd say, what about the vote count? Is the vote count, you know, credible? You'd say to yourself, apparently, based on your comments, you'd say, no, I don't think the election itself was credible, and I don't think the politicians are telling the truth. And you go right down the line and you say, I don't think the news is real, I think the news is fake. And so we would imagine that every part of our entire process is fraudulent or non credible, but in total, we still think it's okay. It kind of sums up to something pretty good. It's sort of like capitalism. If you look at any one part of capitalism, it's all broken and corrupt and filled with awful things. But capitalism as a whole, we're pretty good with it seems to work. It's just that every part of it is bad. So here's what you should expect. And I'm driving people crazy on Twitter, my critics, quite intentionally, and what I'm doing is I'm telling them that they have to wait for the good stuff, you know, the stronger allegations they have, you know, evidence, etc. And my understanding is that in the next week or two, you're going to see that stuff. But the accusation now is that if I can't personally present the evidence right now, that I'm, you know, I'm lying or it doesn't exist, and we'll find out. Have I ever been further out on a limb? I don't know. You know, when I made the original Trump would win the election in 2016 prediction, I was really far out on a plank. I mean, I was out there, let's say, on a limb to keep my analogies straight. But that worked out for me. And I've made another number of other predictions that were pretty far out there, and many of them have worked out. When I predicted that we would have two presidents at the same time, that seemed pretty crazy, didn't it? And here we are, two presidents at the same time. Now I believe that one of them will have the constitutional power and do the. And do the work of the president. There's only going to be one of those. But I think history will record that Trump won at the same time that the system is treating Biden as the winner. So we have two presidents elect, in my opinion, right now, and they both have an argument that looks pretty solid. Now, we don't know who's got the better argument until Trump has presented his full thing. But now that he said directly that the good stuff hasn't happened yet, you got something to look forward to. So I see in the comments, one of the things that I've invited, because I like trouble, I find myself in this situation where two weeks from now I could look like the biggest jerk and clown in the world. If it turned out that we look at all the elections and they're all perfectly credible and there was no fraud, I would look very foolish under that situation. I think you would agree. Now, keep in mind, I'm not claiming that I know the election is fraudulent and will be overcome. I'm dealing from a statistical perspective, which is this situation, which is there's a lot to gain and it is possible to cheat. Always creates. Always. It always creates fraud. I don't know if it's enough to change the election or if we'd find it if it was enough. But it's there. So I feel pretty confident about that. But will we really find out? So here's the thing that I know that my critics don't know, and it's the biggest difference for why my opinion is differs. If you had people who don't know how to look for problems, would they find them? And the answer is no, probably not. If you had the people who know exactly where problems would be and they are really, really good at looking for stuff and finding problems, then could they find it? Probably, yes. So here's what I think is different. The reason that we think our system is good and has integrity is that no one who has the talent to detect fraud has looked into it. I believe that is what we will ultimately learn, is that there's never been anything like a comprehensive audit of all the parts of our election system. I'll bet it's never happened. It's happening now. Now when I say all the parts, I mean everything that they have access to and everything that has transparency. But the thing I can promise you is that if you're worried that the people looking for the fraud are not talented enough to find it, don't worry about that. So if there's one thing you don't have to worry about is that the people looking for it don't have enough talent to find it. They do. They got enough talent to find it. And if it's there, they found it already. Okay, so do you like that as an optimistic statement? If it's there, they already found it. Think about it. That doesn't mean you've heard it, because I think it's being packaged up for. For the legal cases, probably the first time you'll see it is in the context of the legal documents. It's probably the first time you'll see it. All right. Somebody says, like, where there's lots of money, there's corruption. Exactly, yeah. Wherever there's lots of power or lots of money. There's always corruption. I don't know that there's ever been exception to that. And why would this be the exception? Why was Trump saying mail in ballots are not secure? Well, the example of the Detroit whistleblower is one example. If it were true that the whistleblower is telling the truth, that those ballots were fed into the machine multiple times, that would be unsecure. If it's true that lots of ballots got filled out by, you know, individuals for other people, that would be very unsecure. Let me ask you this. If you fill down a ballot from the same address and you fill down, let's say, 50 ballots with different names, signatures, but the same address, would the voting system catch that? Do you know? Do you know if the voting system would catch it if 50 people said they were. They lived at the same address? You might, you might find out the answer to that pretty quickly. So what I'm saying is that by its nature, the paper ballot system has lots of opportunity for fraud. That's all. All right. That's all I got for you, and I will talk to you tomorrow. All right. YouTubers, got any other questions for me? The periscopers are offline. And there could still be fake IDs, people say. I, I think the only kinds of frauds that you need to worry about are the ones that could be done in bulk. So when I heard the story about feeding the ballots through multiple times, I said to myself, well, there's something you could reproduce in bulk, so that would be promising. Is it the apocalypse? I don't think so. Here's a little tip for you. Imagine whatever the news is telling you is the risk and social media. So if social media and the news are telling you that the risk is, let's say, an 8 out of 10, you should just dial that down to about half of that. More like a 4 out of 10. Because the news business and social media, by its design, are supposed to make you more worried than you should be about things that are not worth that much worry. So you should just dial back everything that you hear about in the news about problems, unless it affects you personally and then you want to look into it. But all the big world stuff, I don't think that you need to worry about them as much as the news tells you in general. Should Trump buy cnn? Maybe. So CNN does appear to be for sale. I can tell you from my own research. See how I made that sound like it's more important than it is? I do have personal information to confirm that CNN is for sale. I don't know if that's been confirmed in the news. News, but I can. I can confirm that. Um, so let's see. Why are you. Comments. Some of your comments go by so fast. I can't see them. Slaughter meter. I'm gonna. I'm gonna crank up the slaughter meter to 97% from 96. So the slaughter meter is at 97%. But there's a caveat. It doesn't mean that Trump will take office for a second term. What it means is that he got the right votes, meaning that the slaughter meter is going to predict that someday, and it might be after the Biden administration, but someday history will record that Trump won. He just may not be able to take office because the society, the civilization, might not let him. I think that the fake news now has enough power that they can just act like he didn't win and he just won't be able to do the job. They'll just act like he didn't win, and that will be. That'll be it. But if the Republicans win the Senate, it would set up a situation where 2022 and 2024 would be Republican landslides, and after that, they would own everything. Thoughts on Trump's legal dream team? You know, I don't know how to analyze that sort of thing. Is it guaranteed to go to the Supreme Court? I don't think anything's guaranteed, but. And I don't know exactly what it is that would go to the Supreme Court, but you have to think something's going to end up there. The. The Supreme Court at least has the advantage that it could add a little bit of credibility to whatever the outcome is. All right, that's all I got for now. I will talk to you tomorrow.