Episode 1199 Scott Adams - Come Join Me For Thanksgiving and Catch up on All the Narrative Crackin'

hey everybody come on in here happy thanksgiving what a great day and to make this the best day of all what could it be oh yeah you know all you need is a couple of margarita glass attacker chelsea's eye and a canteen jug or a flask vessel of any kind you fill that thing with a beverage of your choice and then you can join me for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thanksgiving blessing you've been waiting for it's called the simultaneous sip and watch it happen right now go that is good stuff good stuff well are you prepared for your uh thanksgiving feast today i am you want to see it you want to see my thanksgiving feast i got it right here yeah delicious now i'm what you call a an unorganized person i'm not really good at planning in my social life in my business career i plan 40 years in advance actually literally i plan 40 years in advance for business but for my personal life i plan about 10 minutes in advance so i went to the grocery store yesterday saying to myself looks like i'm going to be socially distancing on thanksgiving i better make sure i have some food in the house so i drove down to my local supermarket put my mask on got out of the car walked over to my grocery store and saw the line going out the door and down the block and i said to myself i think i'm going to eat whatever is already at my house because i didn't want to get in that line and get the coved while i'm getting my my food so it turns out this is the only food i have in the house so this will be my feast tonight oh you think this is sad it's not this is delicious i put it in the convection oven for eight minutes slice it out like a like a surgeon put a little soy sauce and pepper don't forget the pepper and this is a delicious meal you don't even have to peel it just cut it and then eat his little guts out when it's done you want to talk about politics it's a holiday so we don't have to but i feel like there's just so much going on that we sort of want to right so let's dig in so i believe that both iran and china have congratulated joe biden now does that scare you we'll get to the krakens and the pennsylvania hearing and all that stuff but here's here's an out of the box thought could it be that joe biden is actually the perfect president for right now it's possible and here's the argument i've argued many times in the past that there's no such thing as a good president or a bad president the only thing you have is a president who either fits the challenges as they surprisingly pop up or doesn't because one personality could be great for a peace time one could be great for a war one could be great for a pandemic one could be great for the economy but you don't really get all of that in one person so your best case scenario is that the person and the problems match up coincidentally at the same time trump was perfect to goose the economy when it was already recovering perfect i thought obama was actually a good choice for an economy that was teetering on the edge and just needed some confidence he did make you feel confident most people anyway not all of you so here is my thought could iran make any kind of a deal with a president trump think about it was that even a possibility was there any way that iran after being you know slapped for years by trump could iran be bitch-slapped for years and then just say you know hey i got an idea how about we negotiate a piece it's not really possible is it but imagine biden taking over and we still don't know that that's going to happen we'll talk about that a little bit but imagine if he did uh if everybody if the if the consensus majority is right and he takes over could iran do a deal with biden now is biden likely to immediately remove all the sanctions maybe maybe but i feel as if just sort of keeping them on there a little while would be easy for biden because doing nothing is easier than doing something it would be hard to it would be hard for biden to add sanctions but maybe if he goes into office and they're already on he can ride it a little while and maybe maybe iran will say this is our out maybe they'll say this whole war thing wasn't working the supporting terrorism wasn't working and we just need a an exit ramp could trump ever be that exit ramp now he was the perfect exit ramp for kim jong-un wouldn't you say i think trump is actually the perfect exit ramp for that i think trump is the perfect exit ramp for saudi arabia to improve relations with israel because the president you know he backed saudi arabia even when it was hard right so trump backed saudi arabia when that was really hard to do they owe him a favor they owe him a favor period they owe him a favor and so he would be maybe perfect for that but it looks like that might happen so could it be i'm just trying to trying to find the positivity here you don't mind do you we'll be a little bit positive today because it's thanksgiving why not so one possibility is that president trump will have started all of the necessary elements toward peace but it could be it could be you need a finisher could biden be the finisher it's possible it's not impossible and if any of you are saying scott don't be such a naive gullible fool as long as the as long as the leadership of iran is in place they will only lie to you they will never make peace maybe could be but they're also in a nearly impossible situation so that can make you flexible who knows so i'm not going to predict that will happen but i'll just put it out there as maybe anything's possible um biden sent down to thanksgiving tweet reminding us that we are not enemies with each other we americans but we are all enemies with the virus sounds good but you called half the country a racist basically because the way you handled the whole fine people thing i'm not over that and i'm not going to get over that i'm certainly willing to work with whatever administration is in office you know i'm certainly willing to be a you know friendly to everybody that i meet in person but no i'm not really over that and i've got a feeling i'm not ever going to be over that because there are some lines which when crossed you can't you can't go back that was a one-way trip the whole find people hoax thing that was a one-way trip you don't get to come back from that so you can be president perhaps you can even get my support but joe biden i hate your guts for that and that's not going to change um here's uh here's another best case scenario are you ready uh imagine the things that could have happened that didn't one thing that could have happened was that trump won the election narrowly riots right riots you know four more years of antifa black lives matter ruling the streets it could have been bad it could have been bad maybe not you know maybe it had died down but i'm not sure that would have been the best path for the coherence of the country and really there's a mental health question i think the country is suffering from mental health problems like literally not joking not making a political point like in an actual mental health way the the covet stuff is really kicking our kicking our brain's ass and then you add on top of that any division that comes out of politics and your brain is getting quite a workout here in terms of mental health so would a second term of trump if it had sparked even greater violence and unrest been the best thing for the country maybe but let's just walk through the other options okay the other options were that biden wins clean and by clean i mean in such a way that even the people who thought there was massive cheating would be willing to say ah okay but there's no such thing as that much cheating so maybe there was some cheating but he still won because he won by 60 million votes you know hypothetically so i don't think um i don't think that was possible and we didn't get that right so it wasn't possible for biden to win so cleanly that nobody doubted the the process and if trump had won narrowly or even by a lot i think that would have been riots so what would have been if you could have drawn this out on paper what would have been the best outcome i'm going to propose that we might be experiencing it it just doesn't feel like it right if i said to you hey hey guys are you having the best case scenario right now you would look at me like i'm crazy it's like are you kidding the the election process is in question you know the the process has been a mess how is this the best case scenario well let me make my case it goes like this did we avoid the riots in the street so far so far would you say that your assumption about you know what kind of unrest there would be immediately after the election were you not wrong everybody who said there would be massive unrest after the election i think you'd have to say they were wrong that didn't happen so that's good so so far anything that gets us to not rioting in the streets that's better than it was right so let's bank that thought but let's continue suppose what comes out of this is a national understanding that our election system is not is not secure now whether or not there was massive cheating that changed the outcome separately but connected to that question is are our elections secure because you always have to worry about the future as well right suppose the only thing that came out of this was that we learned how to fix our elections and make them secure in the future that would be amazing that would be a really really really good outcome you could even argue it would be the first time that the united states had a true democracy democracy republic you know what i'm talking about don't be pedantic all right we could be heading toward the second american revolution it just happens with software and with our election process we might be learning that for the first time ever we might have the opportunity to let the people pick our politicians i don't know if that's good but it but you do fight revolutions to get that so people obviously want it so if that was the only outcome we moved to let's say a maybe a blockchain system i would guess that in four years we'll probably have a parallel system here's well here's the way i would do it i would build a blockchain based app and i would run one election with parallel systems and i would say for some of you who volunteer do us a favor vote on the app and then separately vote you know the normal way with a ballot or going in person and we won't count the app votes the first time we do it we're just going to run parallel systems and see see if you know we learn anything see if anything breaks then if it works you fix whatever problems and maybe put it into put it into action but i would run them parallel and just do it as an experiment if that's all we got out of this it would be amazing amazing it would might even signal the coming of the golden age now suppose that president trump decides to go george washington on this let's say he pursues the court cases and rudy makes his case now he might not win in court in the sense that the election is reversed and trump is put in office i don't think that's going to happen because i don't just don't think the courts will look at the facts i think they'll look at the big picture you know what's what's going to keep civilization together and so i think that they might go for whatever gives you the most stable situation as opposed to technically what the law would indicate so that's what i think now suppose the president says i'm gonna take i'm gonna take my opportunity i'm going to go george washington and i'm going to say you know according to this process and according to the voters i have convinced you you the voters you are convinced that the election was stolen i could fight and get power back but i'm going to go george washington and i'm going to say let's let's keep the system intact it would look kind of a strong play and then he starts maybe another career as a media news mogul it's a big success it's a lot of fun could be good suppose the republicans do hold the senate which i have a lot of doubts about because if the election was rigged at the presidential level why wouldn't it be rigged at the state level when they do this senate runoff thing what what would possibly stop them at the local level from rigging it again if they rigged it the first time so if you imagine it's true that they rigged it the first time at a national level which means bringing it at the necessary state levels why wouldn't they do it again what possible thing would stop them if it worked so i don't know that we'll get a republican senate but let's say we do that means that maybe biden doesn't overtax me and maybe we get a little relief from the you know the social unrest maybe trump's voice is just as strong but it's external to government could be just as strong um might not be bad stock market's up right i feel like we'll survive this one way or the other all right i also think that if you're a republican the current situation of let's say biden takes office and he does a reasonably moderate job without too many uh super lefty things because the the congress won't let him get away with it what happens in 2022 we're on a path that almost guarantees republican control of congress by 2022 and then what happens in 2024 well well biden won't be running so you don't have an incumbent and if you don't have an incumbent and the last election looks like it was stolen i like the republicans chances whoever that is whether it's trump or somebody else so don't assume that bad news has happened let's talk about the churches i guess the supreme court backed some church in new york the the local government cuomo wanted the churches to close i guess i don't know all the details but uh the supreme court five to four said you are treating the churches unfairly compared to other groups and businesses and organizations so they reversed it now i'm not uh i'm not a believer or religious so i've been kind of staying out of this topic but i want to just throw this notion into the mix what would jesus do let's say jesus was you know came back and and he just became the pastor of your local church and you know you got lucky so you go to your local church and there's actually jesus came back to life what would jesus do in the pandemic okay don't be a wise guy i know he would just heal his heal his people that's too clever yes he would just go out and he would touch the people who had coveted and heal them that's not what i'm talking about what would he do in terms of keeping the church open would he would he say hey let's just wait wait it out and we'll be fine or would he say no religious the religious impulse is too important too important to your souls and even taking one year off is unacceptable because you have rights you know you have a constitutional right plus you know god wants you to worship right but what would jesus do literally literally jesus what would he do would jesus say yeah some of you are gonna die but it's very important that you worship in the same building at the same time does that sound like jesus did that sound like something jesus would say yeah some of you will die but it's very important that you don't worship alone for this one year where we have this medical problem but rather you should do it in person i don't feel like he would say that but again i'm not religious and it's you know my opinion on this is completely irrelevant let me tell you what i would do if i were the church who had won this court case i would say we have won our court case now we're going to close the church that's what i'd do if i were jesus i would fight the government trying to close my church because i would say hey i think i think this is unfair i might fight the case because of the unfairness of it the way it's being implemented but once i won and it was no longer the government's choice whether this church is open or not and now it's more of a jesus question right what would jesus do i feel like jesus would win the court case because he's jesus how does jesus lose a court case i think he'd be pretty good defending his side but i think he might say uh let me give you a parable suppose your local church had a termite problem and your pastor said we're gonna we're gonna miss a week of church because we've gotta attend it and we're gonna do a termite eradication thing so you're just gonna lose one week can't use the building just one week because it wouldn't be healthy would you be okay with that or would you take it to the supreme court well i don't i think you'd be okay with it so it's really sort of a timing thing right the reason you'd be okay with the termite tent is that it's not permanent things that aren't permanent aren't really problems that's sort of my philosophy there's two parts of the philosophy if you can solve it with money i've taken this from my friend jason if you can solve a problem with money it's not that big a problem because there's usually a way to find money you know there are ways to make money somebody says come on man somebody says jesus defeated death you're wrong scott i don't know what that means souls are more important than virus would your soul be damaged if your church is tented for termites would your soul be damaged or would you just say i think i'll pray at home today and hit the church next week when it's safe i don't know so again nothing about my opinion on this should be important uh i'm not part of the question but uh there you go let's talk about the flynn pardon everybody saw that coming i think you all expected that right you all expected flynn to get pardoned i i did and here's the funny part i was uh i was listening to msnbc and flipping back and forth to fox and it is really shocking i don't know how many times you know you've had the experience yourself so it's this is not a new thought but listening to msnbc talk about the same news you're watching on another network is is a really freaky experiment experience according to them a case in which the prosecutor himself wants to drop the charges there they think they act like they're watching a murder that this uh this pardon was so over the line that the president has now destroyed all our norms and and what did i tell you that the prosecutor himself doesn't want to prosecute the case because there's not enough of a case there the prosecutor wants to drop the the charges if the prosecutor wants to drop the charges that's not really watching a murder happen that's more like nothing happening here right so it's really freaky watching the msnbc people think that they're it's just the worst problem in the world um so what about snowden so snowden's name came up i think the president said he doesn't know a whole bunch about the case and but he'll be looking into it so he was neither a yes nor no on that i feel as though every time the president noodles about a pardon it ends up happening is there any exception to that have we seen yet any case where the president has talked in public like well you know i'm thinking about that or i'm looking into it where it didn't happen because i feel as if he wouldn't say that unless he knew he was going to do it right i mean he could always change his mind but i've got a feeling his preliminary thinking and here i'm doing a little mind reading so don't take this too seriously i feel as if he doesn't bring it up unless he is favorably disposed already if i feel that way now of course he was responding to a question but if he were not favorably disposed i feel he would have said well that's a tough one you know i that's that was a very serious crime you know i i think that would be a tough pardon i think if he said that then i'd expect maybe it wouldn't happen but if he just says well i haven't looked into it that feels like he's already decided but we'll see apparently barr is violently opposed to it and a lot of well-meaning patriotic people are also opposed to it i i'm not uh also real steeped in the details i understand that the accusation is that he hurt our national security and may have even gotten people killed that's that's the that's the allegation right but here's my take on this so i just watched an interview with him a fresh interview in which noted was saying that his only condition for returning to the u.s and i guess this has been consistent from the start is that he wants a guarantee that he can tell his story at trial did you know that's all he's asking for the snowden would come back and go to trial he's not saying i need a pardon to return he's not even asking for that apparently not once he's asked for a fair trial in which he gets to tell his story and apparently that's not guaranteed now i don't know what it means to guarantee it i suppose you could put that in writing i don't know what kind of guarantees the justice department can make that are legal but isn't that not asking for much so here's my take on it if it's true that the u.s will not guarantee him a fair trial meaning he's not even asking for a fair trial he's only asking to be able to tell his story if we can't guarantee that he has to be pardoned he has to be because let me put it into a visual argument let's say you are very opposed to the snowden pardon and let's say you took all of your concerns and you translated them into a physical weight and let's say it weighed a ton that's a lot all right that's how much you don't want snowden to be pardoned one ton now let's do the same measurement on this question of how do you deal with somebody who can't get a fair trial well if i were to take the fact that this person a whistleblower can't get a guarantee even to tell his story in public at a trial what weight would you put on that compared to the ton of weight you put on snowden did something bad in your opinion and shouldn't it should not be pardoned that's a ton what weight would you put on protecting the the core system in the united states that most minimal guarantee that you can get a free trial well if if don't pardon him weighs a ton my personal subjective thing is that the other thing weighs a hundred tons because whatever happens to one individual pales in comparison to the integrity of the system and if we can't guarantee an american citizen a whistleblower specifically a fair trial and not even a fair trial he's not even asking for a fair trial he's asking just to tell his story and we can't give him that that's a hundred tons and it's not even close to a decision about whether he should or should not be pardoned under this situation yeah he should be pardoned 100 and i don't care what he did tell me he killed somebody okay still should be pardoned tell me he hurt american security okay still should be pardoned tell me that everybody in the world and in the the legal system hates him and thinks he should die i don't care this reason is way bigger than all of those reasons they're not even close all right um there's a question of whether the president could pardon himself or let's say cleverly with stepping down and having pence pardon him and the question is can you pardon somebody before there's a crime there's a you know a trial and a crime is it possible and legal to pardon somebody generically well uh emily compeno said on the five that it's not that's not a thing you you have to have a crime and then you can pardon it but if you have a well there might have been a crime we might find one later you can't pardon it because there's nothing to pardon thank you you're getting ahead of me in the comments but is that true wasn't true for nixon nixon did get a generic pardon now there is a question whether that would have withstood a supreme court challenge but it wasn't challenged and so it stood now if trump also got a generic pardon and apparently generic still has to have boundaries so in the case of nixon there was a time limited pardon meaning that he couldn't murder somebody tomorrow and get away with it he's only pardoned for a limited period of time maybe the presidency i think and they could do the same thing with trump say well this is the period of time we're talking about maybe including before the presidency if you want to go that way and say you could be generically pardoned without any specific crimes it's just your pardon in advance so i think it's possible but in the case of trump it might go to the supreme court but he's got the supreme court kind of leaning his way at the moment so i'm gonna say that it is possible but not guaranteed meaning the pardon could work but it could get overturned all right let's talk about sydney powell who has filed two big lawsuits late last night and people are pouring over the many many pages of it the lawsuit but one of the things that stands out is in one of the titles there are some really obvious misspellings and people are saying uh what's going on here because that's the one thing you don't expect your high-end lawyers to do wrong misspell things in the title like i think there were two words with look like typos not misspellings and so a lot of people are saying uh what's going on now if i had to guess they were in a hurry something got i don't know maybe there was some ocr thing has been suggested might have been an ocr problem where it and nobody reread it so it could have been just they ran out of time and didn't do as complete a job as they would normally trying to meet a deadline so i don't think that's important in any way but everybody's talking about it i don't have an opinion about how strong that evidence is but let's talk about rudy's uh and jenna ellis and etc were at the pennsylvania hearing yesterday how many of you watched any part of that hearing it was hard to find the networks were not covering it then it was long but here's my take on it the the basic setup is that republicans in pennsylvania held a hearing rudy giuliani and other attorneys gave their evidence of what they have seen but here is the brilliant part about it so i give rudy an a plus and and his his team i give them an a plus for that hearing here's why it wasn't a court of law and therefore obviously nothing binding is going to happen there but if you're watching it on television it looks pretty official doesn't it now it was the opposite of any kind of a uh let's say a process you could trust because it was all just republicans showing one side of the story there were there were nobody on the other side no democrats were arguing the points no lawyers were challenging it was just republicans talking to republicans and making their case but if you turned it on and you're just a low information voter and you happen to see it it kind of looked pretty official looking and all you heard was all this evidence from rudy of allegations of fraud lots of them apparently there were hundreds of affidavits lots of the observations and the affidavits are backed up by multiple witnesses so it's not even like one person saw a ufo it's like one person says they saw a ufo and there are 75 people who say the same thing right so that just changes your your perceived credibility because you got lots of witnesses it's not just one person so uh in terms of the pr battle which is a big part of this you have to convince the public before you could have any chance of getting legislators to do something outside of the normal process meaning to decertify or to overturn the result or to have the house pick the president so if you imagine that uh what rudy was doing is it was providing court-like proof well that didn't happen he did not present anything that if you were in court you would say oh yeah i saw a proof because he showed it to us no that didn't happen we're still into allegations and evidence and affidavits you know we're moving toward toward that but we're not there and i thought the whole thing was brilliantly planned and executed because it was like a mock trial with only one point of view presented which is as good as you can get in engineering a political theater now the people who criticized and said ah that was just political theater it was it was political theater by design and it was really really good so calling something political theater isn't really an insult if what you designed was political theater and you designed your political theater to change public opinion and and you know in a related way change political uh you know people who have been elected change their opinions too it really worked i'm going to tell you that you could not have watched that as an objective citizen and walked away from that thinking there was no massive fraud you if you saw that it wasn't proof and and what i saw at least in there wouldn't hold up in court but man it was persuasive it was really persuasive now will that translate to court unknown we will find out here was one of rudy's best arguments that really really threw me because i didn't see this one coming and maybe maybe you did you're smarter than me and it goes like this we know that the courts don't like to disenfranchise voters so one of the claims is that there were i know 600 700 000 votes that were counted without witnesses being allowed to monitor it now normally let's say you took that to the court and said there were hundreds of thousands of votes which were not monitored but we don't have proof that they're fake it just wasn't monitored in the way we wish it had been monitored that's all we know for sure with the court then throw out those votes no probably not because the court would say yeah technically you made your case you know they're supposed to be watched they were not watched technically that's a violation but it's better to keep the system stable it's better not to disenfranchise those people who thought they were voting what about all the people who voted don't they have rights to have their vote counted how do you throw away a citizen's vote so you can imagine that the court would just say yeah you made your case and we're still going to rule against you because it's just better for the world and then rudy adds this little part which is really good if you don't punish them they'll do it again and i thought to myself that's a pretty good argument because uh if if your concern as the court is the well-being of you know the whole so you're not going to obsess about the technical infraction if you want to keep the whole healthy doesn't it keep the whole healthiest if you punish anybody who tries to cheat in a way that could be corrupted we don't know that the non-observed votes were corrupt we just know that if next time they don't have to worry about observers it's going to be corrupt right so rudy makes the point that if you don't reverse the actual outcome of the election and put trump in office you will have rewarded cheaters in a way that guarantees we'll never have another fair election that's a really strong argument i don't know if that argument will win but don't you feel that's pretty darn strong i had not really thought of the deterrent argument i'd been obsessed on the well i think the court's going to go for whatever keeps the stability even if it means allowing a little bit of fraud that's a strong argument all right um we watched the whole country learning because of that pennsylvania hearing that apparently you can bully and chase away republican observers with no penalty that's what we all learned and if we haven't learned it by watching that you'll probably learn it pretty soon so what happens when the entire country learns that democrats can bully republicans out of the room where they count the votes because if the if the election is not reversed if it's not actually reversed you just taught the country to cheat in the next election guaranteed no no way around it guaranteed the next election is garbage if you don't reverse the result of this one strong argument it's a strong argument i didn't see it coming really so here's how the mainstream narrative is starting to crack i'd say it's i'd say the narrative is dare i say kraken and you can see it in the language and the choice of words let me run you through this do you remember immediately after the election the most common phrase you would hear is there is no evidence of fraud no evidence of fraud and then lots of affidavits you know were surfaced and now it went from there's no evidence of fraud to there's no proof of fraud because evidence doesn't turn into proof until it's presented in court and and judged to be true but did that happen well i don't know that again once you get to the legal stuff i get a little bit lost in that but my understanding is that the court cases that have been lost so far never judged the facts of of the allegation can somebody fact check me on that that the lawsuits so far have been dismissed for a variety of technical reasons and standing and technical stuff but when the democrats say that nothing has been proven in court and indeed also as a separate point the trump people or trump uh leaning people have lost i don't know 26 out of 27 cases your mind connects those right hasn't been proven in court and they've lost 26 out of 27 cases doesn't your mind automatically say well that that's got to be the same thing the reason that they lost all the cases logically duh is because they couldn't prove the facts doesn't your brain do that automatically apparently nothing like that happened apparently they never have looked at the facts and therefore there was never ever any opportunity for them to say they were true or false so but the the narrative gets to use language cleverly to make you think that that's why the case is lost a lack of proof apparently that's not the case so then it became baseless claims they changed no proof into baseless is no proof in court the same as baseless no those words don't mean the same thing but the narrative wants you to nudge you from no proof when in fact there has been no process to decide if proof exists or not we're too early for that um that that that turns into baseless which of course makes you think that no proof could come which is different then of course they inject the word widespread that they all tried this trick right there's no widespread fraud it's not widespread and of course the claim was never widespread the claim was always focused in these key cities so but now there's so much evidence from rudy that even if you imagine that each of the individual pieces of allegations even if they don't add up to something it still looks kind of widespread doesn't it even if you just say it's in those swing state cities rudy has so many examples in different ways different techniques that it's kind of widespread now i didn't see that coming because i think of widespread in terms of geography but if you think of it in terms of these targeted cities it's widespread in terms of thoroughly infiltrating those places that's pretty widespread and so that's now changed to and this is what how twitter put it in one of their headline bullets where they summarize a hashtag that they use this sentence judges have found no evidence of fraud judges have found no evidence of fraud so now you're back to the trick of of thinking well they must have looked at the evidence and then they found there was no fraud but apparently that didn't happen there was no process by which anybody looked at any evidence so if you haven't done the process let me give you an example i'll use my tenting your house for termites example tenting doesn't work because my house still has termites and then the the termite eradicator guy says oh well we haven't put the tent on your house yet you understand that there are termites in your house until you put the termite tent on and then you fumigate and then if we do it right it's only afterwards that your house could have no termites you understand that right that we're now with termites then in the future there's the tenting and then possibly if you do it right you get to a no termite situation and then i say nice try my house is full of termites okay what are you not understanding about the fact that the process hasn't even begun and i say look my house has probably had termites for what six months at least maybe a year are you telling me that in six months to a year your company can't put up a tent and get rid of the termites in my house and the termite goes guy goes i don't know what's happening here you only called me yesterday how could i have put up a tent six months ago when i didn't even know you existed you called me yesterday and i'll say nice try but my house is full of termites you grifter what's happening the tenting is tomorrow it hasn't already happened what's happening and i say yeah six months and you couldn't put up a tent on my house pathetic all right um so that's happening uh i would say that rudy destroyed three narratives from the other team yesterday now when i say he destroyed their narratives what i'm not saying is proved his case all right so can we be all smart enough to know that when i'm saying he destroyed several narratives that's not not in any way saying he proved his case all he did was subtract a few attacks against him that's all that's all but he did it really well okay really well here are the three things that you might have believed a few weeks ago but now maybe you don't number one the claim that there were not enough fraud charges that even if they were fraud and even if it were proven it could change the outcome of the race that's now destroyed because rudy has given us the numbers and we don't know if the case will go his way but the numbers are absolutely unambiguously allegedly and that's all we're dealing with is the allegation big enough so can we stop saying forever that if rudy prevails in his case it would not change the election because clearly it would he has now made the case that it's big enough doesn't mean he wins but it's big enough okay so can we get rid of that narrative forever probably not but we should number two um a lot of smart people told me that there's no real opportunity for anybody to cheat on a scale big enough that it could change the election well if you listen to that three-hour hearing you heard nothing but opportunity for cheating apparently it's not only possible to cheat in an election but the number of ways to do it are so many that you don't have enough time to hear them all now did rudy make the case that there were so many allegations that at the very least it was possible meaning that even if each of these individual allegations you know we found out nobody used those loopholes nobody used those opportunities he still proved the opportunities were there for example he might be able to prove that observers were kept out of the room with the ballots probably very provable with witnesses etc if he proves that people were kept out of that room it doesn't mean there was fraud inside the room it just means you know he's proven that i think i had some other point but i already forgot it oh the point is that he would have proven there was opportunity to cheat behind that closed door but he would not have proven that the cheating actually happened hypothetically so the argument that there wasn't an opportunity i think he slayed there is nothing left of that argument and that is why i say this might be one of the best thing that's ever happened to the country because i think rudy will at the very least be the agent that causes our election system to be improved and hardened if that's all that comes out of it would be great number three the thought that if there was so much cheating scott scott scott scott scott if there was that much cheating there would be witnesses you know because you would need probably multiple people to be in on it you're going to have lots of witnesses so where are all your witnesses scott well i think that question's been asked and answered turns out there are hundreds of them and there are only hundreds of them because if you had uh you know another thousand of them they would be saying the same observations in other words there were multiple witnesses to each alleged fraud or imperfection and so now you can never say that again if you're being honest you can never say that if there was that much cheating you'd have tons of witnesses because there are tons of witnesses that's now a fact i think i mean he says he has these sworn statements if he doesn't show them to us i'd be pretty disappointed but but we assume that that's probably not something he's lying about right that they exist so that doesn't mean he's proven his case but i don't want to hear anybody say the allegations are not large enough to change the result i don't want anybody to say there's no opportunity to cheat in our elections there are tons of them and i don't want to hear anybody say that there are no witnesses and of course if there was that much cheating there'd be witnesses there are tons of them all right here's how cnn confused me about the pennsylvania situation i'm going to read their exact statement and see if you can figure out what the hell this means all right on wednesday the commonwealth court of pennsylvania issued a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking further action in certifying the 2020 election uh pending uh hearing on mail-in ballots scheduled friday all right so that sentence i interpret as uh the con the courts ordered a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking actions to certify the election so i think this told me that it's not certified because the court prevented them from taking further actions to certify okay so the first part of this says it's not certified yet and they're pausing it and then the second part of the same paragraph says pennsylvania state officials filed an appeal blah blah blah and said that the injunction will not impact the uh survey certification process but wasn't it already certified so i'm a little bit i'm completely confused about the certifying situation so i don't know if pennsylvania's in play or not we'll see so twitter suspended uh pennsylvania senator and colonel uh doug mostriano because he was leading the pennsylvania senate hearings i don't know what he tweeted but he got suspended for i don't know 12 hours or something he's back now and i would just add this to that story if twitter suspends you they owe you a reason don't you think don't don't you think they owe you a reason because you would like to know it's i mean it's not a law there's no constitutional right that twitter will tell you why they're suspending you but it seems good form you know they should say oh you you promoted violence or you said something that wasn't true too many times something like that but on top of that if an elected official gets suspended from twitter twitter's obligation again not legal not constitutional obligation but i think an obligation of i don't know members of society let's say a a social obligation a a civilization obligation if a senator gets suspended for something he said on twitter twitter needs to explain that to us right that's not just between twitter and that one senator or other elected official it's not just between them like we're we're part of this fight right like if you suspend somebody i voted for you're with me right you owe me an explanation i didn't see one so this would be my recommendation to jack and to twitter is that you know i don't think that there are no reasons to suspend people and i feel that they're experimenting their way to to maybe a better situation so as long as they're a b testing i'm not going to be too hard on twitter they're testing stuff they're seeing what the response is they're seeing what works so so some of that's fine but you need to explain to the public if you're banning a somebody we voted for that that's on us right that's personal you you i'm not even a you know i'm not even a citizen of pennsylvania right i didn't vote for the senator but it's still personal because this is a senator that you know one of one of my country's states elected they elected him to speak for them and twitter decided that he couldn't why does twitter decide that an illegally elected senator at least in this one limited way can't speak for us can't speak for the people all right enough on that um the daily wire and hank berrien did a story about apparently there was a study to find out how much biden supporters know about the news it went just about the way you think it would go turns out that a survey of 1750 biden supporters in seven swing states so they're looking at the swing states that's what mattered uh found that the news media's suppression of stories now that parts is opinion you know i know you agree with the opinion as do i but that's opinion have heard former vice president joe biden's electoral chances so they go on to talk about the stories that democrats didn't hear i'm not talking about they disagree with the stories they didn't hear them complete blackout all right so listen to this uh 82 percent of biden voters were were unaware of at least one of the following issues the terror reads sexual assault allegations 35 were unaware so think about that 35 percent of the people who voted for biden probably thought they didn't want to support the guy who was an accused sexual molester so they voted for biden instead but 35 percent of them had never heard that he's an accused rapist i feel sorry for the democrats and 8.9 percent said they would have voted for trump if they had known about that these numbers are so big they would you know completely change the election if the news had allowed and social media that allowed people to know about these stories uh the hunter biden scandal 45 of voters biden voters were unaware 45 of biden voters had never heard the hunter biden scandal that is so bad it's just funny uh i really feel sorry for these people and 9.4 said they would have switched their vote all right uh 25 didn't know kamala harris is really really left come on how do you not know that now some of it is just people don't watch the news but these are probably a lot of them are people who did watch the news and still didn't know the news um let's see uh that how many knew there was a huge jump in economic growth so how many people knew that were coming out of the pandemic at least the economic part really strongly 49 percent of democrats didn't know about that they didn't know the econ how do you not know about the economy i mean how do you not pay attention to that and 5.6 percent said they would have changed their vote if maybe if they knew about that how about the historic peace agreements with israel and their arab neighbors now you can't miss that right it's like it's like what probably one of the biggest stories of the year is that the the middle east is finding peace and that trump is a big part of that with jared kushner and how many people in the democrats uh how many do you think hadn't heard about that uh let's see uh let's see i lost that number it's a big number all right so they hadn't heard that uh oh 43 almost 44 had never heard about any of the middle east peace deals 44 oh my god poor democrats how about a number of democrats who are aware the president was behind operation warp speed and that it's a huge success how many didn't know that who voted for biden 36 36 all right now uh of course some of these people might not have necessarily voted for trump but they might have not voted you know if you could have gotten six percent of them to not vote that would have been a pretty big deal now here's here's the the kicker on this because we're spending all our attention talking about fraud or no fraud the social media and the news is getting a pass there's nothing like the will of the people or democracy that happened so this vote wasn't even close to a democratic process within within the context of a republic what not even close the only thing that happened and you can see it really clearly in this survey what happened is the public was brainwashed by social media in the news and that's it every other part of the story is way less important is is the fraud important well it's important for fixing the elections in the future perhaps but even the fraud is smaller than what the social media and and the fake news did for the past year way smaller so because the fraud is the the fun glowing object and it's the thing we're watching and we're sort of bored about talking about media bias they got a total pass the for all practical purposes this was the year we formed a chinese form of government you know the chinese form of government is you've got your supreme leader your president xi but really he has to be backed by the communist party top officials if president xi lost the support hypothetically of all the top officials in the communist party he probably would lose power so the president even though he's sort of dictator-like he's not really because he kind of has to have that lower level agreeing with them similar to iran iran has a process where there's the supreme leader but he's a supreme leader but he needs his your religious counsel to support him or he probably couldn't stay in power what we have just created accidentally is a process by which the social media ceos given that they control what happens in their companies that they've become effectively like the communist party of china now this is an analogy all right so don't get too hung up and hey they're not exact there's a slight difference they're not exact right i'm just making the point that our government is now clearly i mean this survey shows it as clearly as possible that the decision of who is president has been taken out of the hands of the public that statement is very strong let me say it again these social media companies and the heads of the big networks have taken out of the hands of the public the decision of who their government will be that happened there's no story that's bigger than that do you know why that's not a story because we're a communist country now and and the communist party you know and again i'm taking the analogy too far but the the heads of the social media platforms and the heads of the news networks they get to decide who's president if you don't think that's true well i got a survey to show you because it was just shown pretty conclusively if the news can simply disappear stories and you can see that very clearly they did they get to decide who's president it's not you it's not you at all you're not even a little bit involved in picking the president not even you you are simply being assigned an opinion and then like a good little hypnotized zombie you go i have my opinion i'm using my good judgment my free will i will go vote now according to my smart thinking and free will and none of that happened the the public is assigned their opinions and then that's it that's the process you wait for the oligarchs to tell you what your opinion will be they assign it it doesn't affect everybody granted maybe you you are invulnerable maybe their brainwashing doesn't work on you but it works enough on enough people that your vote is irrelevant it doesn't matter if it works on you so people still believe that they look at the information and form relevant opinions that is one of the big reality bending things that you're going to learn that you don't look at data and form opinions it doesn't happen it is purely an illusion you look at the data that the oligarchs show you and you don't see anything else and then you form the opinion that they wanted you to form which they created by deciding what information you see you are not part of the decision-making process even for your own brain that has now gone right again there are exceptions right they don't they don't necessarily brainwash every person the same way and just as effectively but that's what's happening that's the world you live in now um there's another study that showed that the tone of the covid related news articles in the united states 91 of them were negative now you say to yourself uh doesn't that make sense it's a pandemic shouldn't 91 of the coverage if not 100 be leaning a little negative we're sort of in the middle of a pandemic except that if you look at how media outside the united states treats it 54 percent uh given a negative coverage so i suppose you could argue that maybe we got hit worse in the united states maybe that's part of it but it feels as though that was a trump-related problem a little bit right that our oligarchs decided that kovid was going to be the story and it was bad for trump and and there you have it um all right but part of the part of that study said that it didn't matter if things were trending worse or better with the pandemic it didn't affect the coverage being 91 negative so the the the allegation in this study was that uh the news creates a narrative that is in invulnerable to any change in facts chad says you're wrong scotty i'm going to take that as uh as parody all right uh how did you enjoy today's special thanksgiving episode of coffee with scott adams i feel like i was angrier than i wanted to be i ever spoken with martin gettys i have not not even not even sure who that is um i release your mind and you release the kraken somebody says thanks for doing a thanksgiving episode you know somebody asked me if i was going to do this on thanksgiving to which i say two things number one if you sleep in on weekends and holidays you're probably not doing yourself a favor it's a good habit to get into that you keep your sleep schedule similar no matter what's going on because sleep's pretty important even though i hate sleep and try to get as little as possible i do try to keep the same you know approximate schedule so i'm always going to get up early no matter what i enjoy it and then the second thing is why wouldn't i come here i enjoy it i enjoy it so on a holiday i want to do things i enjoy somebody asked me about the great reset which i still call on i believe the great reset is all about uh people confusing the words it feels like word thinking because there's this idea that there's you know the the global elites want to cause this great reset to consolidate power and it's all part of a grand scheme which i don't believe any of and then there's justin trudeau who used the phrase uh you know we have a reset because of the pandemic a completely different use of the word in a whole different context but because people are people they said hey you use that word reset in a completely different context therefore this completely other different story that uses the word reset must be true no the only thing that's in common is that word now is it true that there will be a reset of course the the pandemic makes us rethink everything have to change how we're doing of course it's a reset how could it be anything else of course but it's not that you know weird conspiracy thing where the elites are having a meeting in davos or whatever the hell george soros is behind it's none of that or at least there's no evidence of it that i have seen let me be clear and not and not say what my critics say i'll just say that i am not personally aware of any evidence that would make me think the great reset is anything but ridiculous cue talk doesn't mean it's not true just means i'm not personally aware of any evidence um am i aware of vox day i i'm aware there is somebody with that name that's about what i'm aware of um yes justin trudeau said great reset but words can be used in different contexts and that was a different context that's all it was if you think that you discovered a secret world plot because justin trudeau said it directly on television you really need to check your thinking because if it was really this great clever secret plot i'm pretty sure justin trudeau would not have revealed it in his speech how do we get rid of propaganda and back to truth i would argue that we've never been at truth we just didn't know it so when i talked about trump changing the nature of reality what people thought they are seeing is that he changed the reality now he did change the reality but on top of that he also changed how we see the reality that was already there before trump you probably thought your elections were pretty secure you probably thought your social media was a little biased but how big a deal is that maybe you thought that your news was real trump taught you that your observation of reality is deeply subjective and you're probably getting brainwashed wasn't new it was only new to you it wasn't something that i didn't know and in 2015 when i said i think it was 2015 when i said that trump would change your understanding of reality it was this this is the part i was telling you was coming i could see it as clearly as i could see you know my hand in front of my face you could tell that he was going to mess up what you thought of your own ability to understand your reality in a way that could never be put back in the bottle and the biggest way he did it was by departing from the fact-checking all the time because he realized that the facts are not persuasive and we don't live in a world where facts matter at least you know matter for persuasion they matter for reality but not persuasion i think the president when when people are trying to understand why does he keep saying things that aren't true when he must have figured out by now they're not true somebody who's told them it's not true and i would say that the the big reality mind effort that some of you are already at and some of you are almost there is this he might know that it doesn't matter indeed he was right he became president without paying any attention to the specificity of the fact checking none he he treated it like it literally didn't matter at all and what happened he was right he was 100 right none of the fact checking mattered none of it what did matter is how the networks covered it and social media handled it etc but it didn't matter if it was true and it didn't matter if it wasn't true so long as it was you know well intended to move the country in a good direction that's what mattered um okay that's all for now i will talk to you tomorrow have a great thanksgiving and you youtubers still here for you for a minute but i'm going to sign off in a second um all right can president trump prove election fraud do it george washington and then come back that's my prediction that's my prediction uh my prediction is that he will do it george washington meaning that he will say yeah i won but i'm also going to peacefully transfer whether he runs in again in 2024 i think that's a wait and see you know it does make sense that maybe he would say he's going to maybe he thinks he'd like to but i think age is just too big of a variable and i'd give it a give it a couple years before you take it seriously i'm grateful for you as well so so thank you and i'm grateful to all of you and i mean that quite sincerely this is this is usually the you know one of the highlights of my day except for the time i spend with christina and um i want you to have a great thanksgiving take care

hey everybody

come on in here happy thanksgiving

what a great day and

to make this the best day of all

what could it be oh yeah you know all

you need is a couple of margarita glass

attacker chelsea's eye and a canteen jug

or a flask

vessel of any kind you fill that thing

with

a beverage of your choice and then you

can join me

for the unparalleled pleasure the

dopamine hit of the day the thanksgiving

blessing you've been waiting for it's

called the simultaneous sip

and watch it happen right now go

that is good stuff good stuff well are

you prepared

for your uh thanksgiving feast today

i am you want to see it you want to see

my thanksgiving feast

i got it right here

yeah delicious

now i'm what you call a an

unorganized person i'm not really good

at planning in my social life in my

business career i plan 40 years in

advance

actually literally i plan 40 years in

advance

for business but for my personal life

i plan about 10 minutes in advance

so i went to the grocery store yesterday

saying to myself

looks like i'm going to be socially

distancing on thanksgiving

i better make sure i have some food in

the house

so i drove down to my local supermarket

put my mask on got out of the car

walked over to my grocery store and saw

the line

going out the door and down the block

and i said to myself i think i'm going

to eat

whatever is already at my house

because i didn't want to get in that

line and

get the coved while i'm getting my my

food

so it turns out this is the only food i

have in the house

so this will be my feast tonight oh you

think this is sad

it's not this is delicious i put it in

the convection oven for eight minutes

slice it out like a like a surgeon

put a little soy sauce and pepper don't

forget the pepper

and this is a delicious meal you don't

even have to peel it just

cut it and then eat his little guts out

when it's done

you want to talk about politics it's a

holiday

so we don't have to but i feel like

there's just so much

going on that we sort of want to

right so let's dig in so i believe that

both iran and china have congratulated

joe biden now

does that scare you we'll get to the

krakens and the

pennsylvania hearing and all that stuff

but here's here's an out of the box

thought could it be that joe biden

is actually the perfect president

for right now it's possible

and here's the argument i've argued many

times in the past

that there's no such thing as a good

president or a bad

president the only thing you have is a

president who either

fits the challenges as they surprisingly

pop up

or doesn't because one personality could

be great for a peace time one could be

great

for a war one could be great for a

pandemic

one could be great for the economy but

you don't really get all of that in one

person

so your best case scenario is that the

person and the problems match up

coincidentally

at the same time trump was perfect to

goose the economy when it was already

recovering

perfect i thought obama was actually a

good

choice for an economy that was teetering

on the edge and just needed some

confidence

he did make you feel confident most

people anyway not all of you

so here is my thought

could iran make any kind of a deal

with a president trump think about it

was that even a possibility was there

any way

that iran after being you know

slapped for years by trump

could iran be bitch-slapped for years

and then just say you know

hey i got an idea how about we negotiate

a piece

it's not really possible is it

but imagine biden taking over and we

still don't know that that's going to

happen we'll talk about that a little

bit

but imagine if he did uh if everybody if

the

if the consensus majority is right and

he takes over

could iran do a deal with biden

now is biden likely to immediately

remove all the sanctions

maybe maybe but i feel as if just sort

of keeping them on there a little while

would be easy for biden because

doing nothing is easier than doing

something it would be hard to

it would be hard for biden to add

sanctions

but maybe if he goes into office and

they're already on

he can ride it a little while and maybe

maybe iran will say this is our out

maybe they'll say this whole war thing

wasn't working

the supporting terrorism wasn't working

and we just need a an exit ramp could

trump

ever be that exit ramp now he was the

perfect exit ramp

for kim jong-un wouldn't you say

i think trump is actually the perfect

exit ramp for that

i think trump is the perfect exit ramp

for saudi arabia to improve relations

with israel

because the president you know he backed

saudi arabia even when it was hard

right so trump backed saudi arabia

when that was really hard to do they owe

him a favor

they owe him a favor period they owe him

a favor

and so he would be maybe perfect for

that

but it looks like that might happen so

could it be

i'm just trying to trying to find the

positivity here

you don't mind do you we'll be a little

bit positive today

because it's thanksgiving why not so one

possibility is

that president trump will have started

all of the necessary elements toward

peace but it could

be it could be you need a finisher

could biden be the finisher

it's possible it's not impossible

and if any of you are saying scott

don't be such a naive gullible fool as

long as the

as long as the leadership of iran is in

place

they will only lie to you they will

never make peace

maybe could be but they're also in a

nearly impossible situation so that can

make you flexible

who knows so i'm not going to predict

that will happen but i'll just put it

out there as

maybe anything's possible

um biden sent down to thanksgiving tweet

reminding us that we are not enemies

with each other

we americans but we are all enemies with

the virus

sounds good but you called half the

country a racist

basically because the way you handled

the whole

fine people thing i'm not over that

and i'm not going to get over that i'm

certainly willing to work with whatever

administration is in office you know i'm

certainly willing to be a

you know friendly to everybody that i

meet in person

but no i'm not really over that and

i've got a feeling i'm not ever going to

be over that

because there are some lines which when

crossed

you can't you can't go back that was a

one-way trip

the whole find people hoax thing that

was a one-way

trip you don't get to come back from

that so you can be president

perhaps you can even get my support

but joe biden i hate your guts

for that and that's not going to change

um

here's uh here's another best case

scenario are you ready

uh imagine the things that could have

happened that didn't

one thing that could have happened was

that trump won the election

narrowly riots right

riots you know four more years of

antifa black lives matter ruling the

streets it could have been bad

it could have been bad maybe not you

know maybe it had died down but

i'm not sure that would have been the

best path for the

coherence of the country and really

there's a mental health question

i think the country is suffering from

mental health problems

like literally not joking not making a

political point

like in an actual mental health way

the the covet stuff is really kicking

our kicking our brain's ass

and then you add on top of that any

division that comes out of politics

and your brain is getting quite a

workout here in terms of mental health

so would a second term of trump if it

had sparked

even greater violence and unrest

been the best thing for the country

maybe

but let's just walk through the other

options okay

the other options were that

biden wins clean and by clean i mean

in such a way that even the people who

thought

there was massive cheating would be

willing to say

ah okay but there's no such thing as

that much cheating

so maybe there was some cheating but he

still won

because he won by 60 million votes

you know hypothetically so i don't think

um i don't think that was possible

and we didn't get that right so it

wasn't possible for

biden to win so cleanly that nobody

doubted the

the process and if trump had won

narrowly

or even by a lot i think that would have

been riots

so what would have been if you could

have drawn this out on paper

what would have been the best outcome

i'm going to propose that we might be

experiencing it

it just doesn't feel like it right if i

said to you

hey hey guys are you having the best

case

scenario right now you would look at me

like i'm crazy

it's like are you kidding the the

election process is in question

you know the the process has been a mess

how is this the best case scenario

well let me make my case it goes like

this

did we avoid the riots in the street

so far so far would you say that your

assumption about you know what kind of

unrest

there would be immediately after the

election were you not wrong

everybody who said there would be

massive unrest after the election

i think you'd have to say they were

wrong that didn't happen

so that's good so so far

anything that gets us to not rioting in

the streets

that's better than it was right

so let's bank that thought but let's

continue

suppose what comes out of this

is a national understanding that our

election system is not

is not secure now whether or not

there was massive cheating that changed

the outcome

separately but connected to that

question is

are our elections secure because you

always have to worry about the future as

well right

suppose the only thing that came out of

this

was that we learned how to fix our

elections and make them secure in the

future

that would be amazing that would be a

really really

really good outcome you could even argue

it would be the first

time that the united states had a true

democracy

democracy republic you know what i'm

talking about

don't be pedantic all right we could be

heading toward the second american

revolution

it just happens with software and with

our election process

we might be learning that for the first

time

ever we might have the opportunity

to let the people pick our politicians

i don't know if that's good but it but

you do fight revolutions

to get that so people obviously want it

so if that was the only outcome we moved

to let's say

a maybe a blockchain system

i would guess that in four years we'll

probably have a parallel system

here's well here's the way i would do it

i would build a blockchain based app

and i would run one election with

parallel systems

and i would say for some of you who

volunteer

do us a favor vote on the app and then

separately vote

you know the normal way with a ballot or

going in person

and we won't count the app votes

the first time we do it we're just going

to run parallel systems

and see see if you know we learn

anything see if anything breaks

then if it works you fix whatever

problems and maybe put it into

put it into action but i would run them

parallel and just do it as an experiment

if that's all we got out of this

it would be amazing amazing

it would might even signal the coming of

the golden age

now suppose that president trump

decides to go george washington on this

let's say he pursues the court cases and

rudy

makes his case now he might not win in

court

in the sense that the election is

reversed and trump is put in office i

don't think that's going to happen

because i don't just don't think the

courts will look at the facts

i think they'll look at the big picture

you know what's

what's going to keep civilization

together and so i think that they

might go for whatever gives you the most

stable situation

as opposed to technically what the law

would indicate

so that's what i think now suppose the

president says

i'm gonna take i'm gonna take my

opportunity

i'm going to go george washington and

i'm going to say you know

according to this process and according

to the voters i have convinced you

you the voters you are convinced that

the election was stolen

i could fight and get power back but i'm

going to go george washington

and i'm going to say let's let's

keep the system intact

it would look kind of a strong play and

then he starts maybe

another career as a media news

mogul it's a big success it's a lot of

fun

could be good suppose the republicans do

hold the senate

which i have a lot of doubts about

because if the election was rigged at

the presidential level

why wouldn't it be rigged at the state

level when they do this

senate runoff thing what what would

possibly stop them

at the local level from rigging it again

if they rigged it the first time so if

you imagine

it's true that they rigged it the first

time at a national level

which means bringing it at the necessary

state levels

why wouldn't they do it again what

possible

thing would stop them if it worked

so i don't know that we'll get a

republican senate but let's say we do

that means that maybe biden doesn't

overtax me and maybe we get a little

relief

from the you know the social unrest

maybe trump's voice is just as strong

but it's external to government

could be just as strong um

might not be bad stock market's up

right i feel like we'll survive this

one way or the other all right

i also think that if you're a republican

the current situation

of let's say biden takes office and he

does a reasonably

moderate job without too many uh super

lefty things because the

the congress won't let him get away with

it

what happens in 2022

we're on a path that almost guarantees

republican

control of congress by 2022

and then what happens in 2024

well well biden won't be running so you

don't have an incumbent

and if you don't have an incumbent and

the last election looks like it was

stolen

i like the republicans chances whoever

that is whether it's trump or somebody

else

so don't assume that bad news has

happened let's talk about the

churches i guess the supreme court

backed

some church in new york the the

local government cuomo wanted the

churches to

close i guess i don't know all the

details but uh the supreme court

five to four said you are treating the

churches

unfairly compared to other groups and

businesses and organizations so they

reversed it

now i'm not uh i'm not a believer or

religious

so i've been kind of staying out of this

topic

but i want to just throw this notion

into the mix what would jesus do

let's say jesus was you know came back

and

and he just became the pastor of your

local church

and you know you got lucky so you go to

your local church

and there's actually jesus came back to

life

what would jesus do in the pandemic okay

don't be a wise guy

i know he would just heal his heal his

people

that's too clever yes he would just go

out and he would

touch the people who had coveted and

heal them that's not what i'm talking

about

what would he do in terms of keeping the

church open would he

would he say hey let's just wait

wait it out and we'll be fine or would

he say no

religious the religious

impulse is too important too important

to your souls

and even taking one year off

is unacceptable because you have rights

you know you have a constitutional right

plus

you know god wants you to worship right

but what would jesus do literally

literally jesus what would he do

would jesus say yeah some of you are

gonna die

but it's very important that you worship

in the same building at the same time

does that sound like jesus did that

sound like something jesus would say

yeah some of you will die but it's very

important

that you don't worship alone for this

one year where we have this medical

problem

but rather you should do it in person

i don't feel like he would say that but

again

i'm not religious and it's you know my

opinion on this

is completely irrelevant let me tell you

what i would do if i were the church

who had won this court case i would say

we have won our court case

now we're going to close the church

that's what i'd do

if i were jesus i would fight the

government trying to close my church

because i would say hey i think i think

this is unfair

i might fight the case because of the

unfairness of it the way it's

being implemented but once i won

and it was no longer the government's

choice

whether this church is open or not and

now it's

more of a jesus question right what

would jesus do

i feel like jesus would win the court

case because he's jesus

how does jesus lose a court case i think

he'd be pretty good

defending his side

but i think he might say uh let me give

you a parable

suppose your local church had a termite

problem

and your pastor said we're gonna we're

gonna miss a week of church

because we've gotta attend it and we're

gonna do a

termite eradication thing so you're just

gonna lose one week

can't use the building just one week

because it wouldn't be healthy

would you be okay with that or would you

take it to the supreme court

well i don't i think you'd be okay with

it so it's really sort of a timing thing

right

the reason you'd be okay with the

termite tent

is that it's not permanent

things that aren't permanent aren't

really

problems that's sort of my philosophy

there's two parts of the philosophy if

you can solve it with money i've taken

this from my

friend jason if you can solve a problem

with money

it's not that big a problem because

there's usually a way to find

money you know there are ways to make

money

somebody says come on man

somebody says jesus defeated death

you're wrong scott

i don't know what that means souls are

more important than virus

would your soul be damaged

if your church is tented for termites

would your soul be damaged or would you

just say i think i'll pray at home today

and

hit the church next week when it's safe

i don't know so again nothing about my

opinion on this should be important

uh i'm not part of the question but

uh there you go let's talk about the

flynn pardon everybody saw that coming i

think you all expected that right

you all expected flynn to get pardoned i

i did

and here's the funny part i was uh

i was listening to msnbc and flipping

back and forth to

fox and it is really shocking i don't

know how many times

you know you've had the experience

yourself so it's this is not a new

thought

but listening to msnbc talk about the

same news you're watching

on another network is is a really freaky

experiment

experience according to them

a case in which the prosecutor himself

wants to drop the charges

there they think they act like they're

watching a murder

that this uh this pardon was so over the

line

that the president has now destroyed all

our norms and

and what did i tell you that the

prosecutor himself doesn't want to

prosecute the case

because there's not enough of a case

there the prosecutor wants to drop the

the charges if the prosecutor

wants to drop the charges

that's not really watching a murder

happen

that's more like nothing happening here

right

so it's really freaky watching the msnbc

people think that they're

it's just the worst problem in the world

um

so what about snowden

so snowden's name came up i think the

president said he

doesn't know a whole bunch about the

case and but he'll be looking into it so

he was neither a yes nor no on that i

feel as though every time the president

noodles about a pardon it ends up

happening

is there any exception to that have we

seen yet

any case where the president has talked

in public

like well you know i'm thinking about

that or i'm looking into it

where it didn't happen because i feel as

if he wouldn't say that

unless he knew he was going to do it

right i mean he could always change his

mind

but i've got a feeling his preliminary

thinking

and here i'm doing a little mind reading

so don't take this too seriously

i feel as if he doesn't bring it up

unless he is favorably disposed already

if i feel that way now of course he was

responding to a question

but if he were not favorably disposed i

feel he would have said

well that's a tough one you know i

that's that was a very serious crime you

know i

i think that would be a tough pardon i

think if he said that

then i'd expect maybe it wouldn't happen

but if he just says well i haven't

looked into it

that feels like he's already decided but

we'll see

apparently barr is violently opposed to

it and a lot of

well-meaning patriotic people are also

opposed to it

i i'm not uh also real steeped in the

details i understand that the accusation

is that he hurt our national security

and may have even gotten people

killed that's that's the that's the

allegation right

but here's my take on this so i just

watched an interview with him a fresh

interview in which

noted was saying that his only condition

for returning to the u.s

and i guess this has been consistent

from the start

is that he wants a guarantee that he can

tell his story at trial

did you know that's all he's asking for

the snowden would come back

and go to trial he's not saying

i need a pardon to return he's not even

asking for that

apparently not once he's asked for

a fair trial in which he gets to tell

his story

and apparently that's not guaranteed

now i don't know what it means to

guarantee it i suppose you could put

that in writing

i don't know what kind of guarantees the

justice department can make

that are legal but isn't that not

asking for much so here's my take on it

if it's true that the u.s will not

guarantee him

a fair trial meaning he's not even

asking for a fair trial

he's only asking to be able to tell his

story

if we can't guarantee that

he has to be pardoned he has to be

because let me put it into a visual

argument let's say you are very opposed

to the snowden pardon and let's say you

took all of your concerns

and you translated them into a physical

weight

and let's say it weighed a ton that's a

lot

all right that's how much you don't want

snowden to be pardoned

one ton now let's do the same

measurement

on this question of how do you deal with

somebody who can't get a fair trial

well if i were to take the fact that

this person

a whistleblower can't get a guarantee

even to tell his story in public at a

trial

what weight would you put on that

compared to the

ton of weight you put on snowden

did something bad in your opinion and

shouldn't it should not be pardoned

that's a ton what weight would you put

on

protecting the the core system

in the united states that most minimal

guarantee

that you can get a free trial well if

if don't pardon him weighs a ton my

personal subjective thing is that the

other thing weighs a hundred tons

because whatever happens to one

individual

pales in comparison to the integrity of

the system

and if we can't guarantee an american

citizen

a whistleblower specifically a fair

trial

and not even a fair trial he's not even

asking for a fair trial

he's asking just to tell his story and

we can't give him that

that's a hundred tons and it's not even

close

to a decision about whether he should or

should not be pardoned

under this situation

yeah he should be pardoned 100 and i

don't care what he did

tell me he killed somebody okay still

should be pardoned

tell me he hurt american security okay

still should be pardoned tell me that

everybody in the world and in the

the legal system hates him and thinks he

should die i don't care

this reason is way bigger than all of

those reasons

they're not even close all right

um there's a question of whether the

president could pardon himself or

let's say cleverly with stepping down

and having pence pardon him

and the question is can you pardon

somebody before there's a crime

there's a you know a trial and a crime

is it possible

and legal to pardon somebody generically

well uh emily compeno said on the five

that it's not that's not a thing

you you have to have a crime and then

you can pardon it

but if you have a well there might have

been a crime we might find one later

you can't pardon it because there's

nothing to pardon

thank you you're getting ahead of me in

the comments but

is that true wasn't true for nixon

nixon did get a generic pardon

now there is a question whether that

would have

withstood a supreme court challenge

but it wasn't challenged and so it stood

now if trump also got a generic

pardon and apparently generic still has

to have

boundaries so in the case of nixon there

was a

time limited pardon meaning that he

couldn't murder somebody tomorrow

and get away with it he's only pardoned

for a limited period of time

maybe the presidency i think

and they could do the same thing with

trump say well this is the period of

time we're talking about maybe including

before the presidency if you want to go

that way

and say you could be generically

pardoned without any specific

crimes it's just your pardon in advance

so i think it's possible but in the case

of trump it might go to the supreme

court

but he's got the supreme court kind of

leaning his way at the moment

so i'm gonna say that it is possible

but not guaranteed meaning the pardon

could work

but it could get overturned all right

let's talk about sydney powell

who has filed two big lawsuits

late last night and people are pouring

over the many many pages of it

the lawsuit but one of the things that

stands out is in one of the titles

there are some really obvious

misspellings

and people are saying uh what's going on

here

because that's the one thing you don't

expect your high-end lawyers to do wrong

misspell things in the title like i

think there were two words

with look like typos not misspellings

and

so a lot of people are saying uh what's

going on now

if i had to guess they were in a hurry

something got i don't know maybe there

was some ocr thing

has been suggested might have been an

ocr problem where it

and nobody reread it so it could have

been just they ran out of time and

didn't do as complete a job as they

would normally trying to meet a deadline

so i don't think that's important in any

way

but everybody's talking about it

i don't have an opinion about how strong

that evidence is

but let's talk about rudy's uh and jenna

ellis

and etc were at the pennsylvania hearing

yesterday

how many of you watched any part of that

hearing

it was hard to find the networks were

not covering it

then it was long but here's my take on

it

the the basic setup is that republicans

in pennsylvania held a hearing

rudy giuliani and other attorneys gave

their evidence of

what they have seen but

here is the brilliant part about it so i

give

rudy an a plus and and his

his team i give them an a plus for that

hearing

here's why it wasn't a court of law

and therefore obviously nothing binding

is going to happen there

but if you're watching it on television

it looks pretty official doesn't it

now it was the opposite of any kind of a

uh let's say a process you could trust

because it was all just republicans

showing one side of the story

there were there were nobody on the

other side no democrats were arguing the

points no

lawyers were challenging it was just

republicans

talking to republicans and making their

case but

if you turned it on and you're just a

low information

voter and you happen to see it it kind

of looked pretty official looking

and all you heard was all this evidence

from rudy

of allegations of fraud lots of them

apparently there were hundreds of

affidavits

lots of the observations and the

affidavits are backed up by multiple

witnesses

so it's not even like one person saw a

ufo it's like

one person says they saw a ufo and there

are 75 people who say the same thing

right so that just changes your your

perceived credibility because you got

lots of witnesses it's not just one

person

so uh in terms of the pr

battle which is a big part of this you

have to convince the public

before you could have any chance of

getting legislators

to do something outside of the normal

process

meaning to decertify or to overturn the

result or to have the house

pick the president so if you imagine

that

uh what rudy was doing is it was

providing

court-like proof well that didn't happen

he did not present anything that if you

were in court

you would say oh yeah i saw a proof

because he showed it to us

no that didn't happen we're still into

allegations and evidence and

affidavits you know we're moving toward

toward that but we're not there and i

thought the whole thing was

brilliantly planned and executed because

it was like a mock

trial with only one point of view

presented

which is as good as you can get in

engineering a political theater now the

people who

criticized and said ah that was just

political theater

it was it was political theater by

design

and it was really really good so calling

something political theater

isn't really an insult if what you

designed

was political theater and you designed

your political theater

to change public opinion and and you

know in a related way change political

uh you know people who have been elected

change their opinions too

it really worked i'm going to tell you

that you could not have watched that as

an

objective citizen and walked away from

that

thinking there was no massive fraud you

if you saw that

it wasn't proof and and what i saw at

least in

there wouldn't hold up in court but man

it was persuasive

it was really persuasive now will that

translate to court

unknown we will find out

here was one of rudy's best arguments

that really really threw me

because i didn't see this one coming and

maybe maybe you did you're smarter than

me

and it goes like this we know that the

courts don't like to disenfranchise

voters

so one of the claims is that there were

i know 600 700

000 votes that were counted without

witnesses being allowed

to monitor it now normally

let's say you took that to the court and

said there were hundreds of thousands of

votes which were not monitored

but we don't have proof that they're

fake

it just wasn't monitored in the way we

wish it had been monitored

that's all we know for sure with the

court

then throw out those votes no

probably not because the court would say

yeah technically you made your case

you know they're supposed to be watched

they were not watched

technically that's a violation but

it's better to keep the system stable

it's better not to disenfranchise those

people

who thought they were voting what about

all the people who voted

don't they have rights to have their

vote counted how do you throw away a

citizen's vote

so you can imagine that the court would

just say yeah you made your case

and we're still going to rule against

you because it's just better for the

world

and then rudy adds this little part

which is really good if you don't punish

them

they'll do it again and i thought to

myself

that's a pretty good argument because uh

if

if your concern as the court is the

well-being of you know the whole

so you're not going to obsess about the

technical infraction

if you want to keep the whole healthy

doesn't it keep the whole healthiest

if you punish anybody who tries to cheat

in a way that could be corrupted we

don't know that

the non-observed votes were corrupt we

just know that

if next time they don't have to worry

about observers

it's going to be corrupt right so rudy

makes the point

that if you don't reverse the actual

outcome of the election

and put trump in office you will have

rewarded

cheaters in a way that guarantees we'll

never have another fair election

that's a really strong argument

i don't know if that argument will win

but don't you feel that's pretty darn

strong

i had not really thought of the

deterrent argument i'd been obsessed

on the well i think the court's going to

go for whatever

keeps the stability even if it means

allowing a little bit of fraud

that's a strong argument all right um

we watched the whole country learning

because of that pennsylvania hearing

that apparently you can bully and chase

away

republican observers with no penalty

that's what we all learned and if we

haven't learned it by watching that

you'll probably learn it pretty soon

so what happens when the entire country

learns that democrats can bully

republicans out of the room

where they count the votes because if

the if the election is not reversed

if it's not actually reversed

you just taught the country to cheat in

the next election guaranteed

no no way around it guaranteed

the next election is garbage if you

don't reverse the result of this one

strong argument it's a strong argument

i didn't see it coming really

so here's how the mainstream narrative

is starting to

crack i'd say it's i'd say the narrative

is

dare i say kraken and you can see it in

the language

and the choice of words let me run you

through this do you remember

immediately after the election the most

common

phrase you would hear is there is no

evidence of fraud

no evidence of fraud and then

lots of affidavits you know

were surfaced and now it went from

there's no evidence of fraud

to there's no proof of fraud

because evidence doesn't turn into proof

until it's presented in court and and

judged to be true

but did that happen

well i don't know that again once you

get to the legal stuff i get a little

bit lost

in that but my understanding is that the

court cases that

have been lost so far

never judged the facts of

of the allegation can somebody fact

check me on that

that the lawsuits so far have been

dismissed for a variety of technical

reasons and standing and

technical stuff but when the democrats

say

that nothing has been proven in court

and indeed also as a separate point

the trump people or trump uh leaning

people have lost i don't know 26 out of

27 cases

your mind connects those right hasn't

been proven in court

and they've lost 26 out of 27 cases

doesn't your mind

automatically say well that that's got

to be the same thing

the reason that they lost all the cases

logically duh is because they couldn't

prove

the facts doesn't your brain do that

automatically

apparently nothing like that happened

apparently they never have looked at the

facts and therefore

there was never ever any opportunity for

them to say they were true or false

so but the the narrative gets to use

language cleverly to make you think that

that's why the case is lost

a lack of proof apparently that's not

the case

so then it became baseless claims

they changed no proof into baseless

is no proof in court the same as

baseless

no those words don't mean the same thing

but the narrative wants you to nudge you

from

no proof when in fact there has been no

process

to decide if proof exists or not

we're too early for that um

that that that turns into baseless which

of course makes you think that

no proof could come which is different

then of course they inject the word

widespread

that they all tried this trick right

there's no widespread fraud

it's not widespread and of course the

claim was never widespread

the claim was always focused in these

key cities

so but now there's so much evidence

from rudy that even if you imagine

that each of the individual pieces of

allegations

even if they don't add up to something

it still looks kind of widespread

doesn't it even if you just say it's in

those swing state cities

rudy has so many examples in different

ways

different techniques that it's kind of

widespread now

i didn't see that coming because i think

of widespread in terms of

geography but if you think of it in

terms of these targeted cities

it's widespread in terms of thoroughly

infiltrating those places that's pretty

widespread

and so that's now changed to

and this is what how twitter put it in

one of their headline bullets

where they summarize a hashtag

that they use this sentence judges have

found

no evidence of fraud judges

have found no evidence of fraud so now

you're back to the trick

of of thinking well they must have

looked at the evidence

and then they found there was no fraud

but apparently that didn't happen

there was no process by which anybody

looked at any evidence

so if you haven't done the process

let me give you an example i'll use my

tenting your house

for termites example tenting doesn't

work

because my house still has termites and

then the the termite

eradicator guy says oh well we haven't

put the tent on your house yet

you understand that there are termites

in your house

until you put the termite tent on and

then you fumigate

and then if we do it right it's only

afterwards

that your house could have no termites

you understand that right that we're now

with termites

then in the future there's the tenting

and then possibly if you do it right

you get to a no termite situation

and then i say nice try

my house is full of termites okay what

are you not understanding

about the fact that the process hasn't

even begun

and i say look my house has probably had

termites for what six months

at least maybe a year are you telling me

that in six months to a year your

company can't put up a tent

and get rid of the termites in my house

and the termite goes

guy goes i don't know what's happening

here you only called me yesterday

how could i have put up a tent

six months ago when i didn't even know

you existed

you called me yesterday and i'll say

nice try but

my house is full of termites you grifter

what's happening the tenting is tomorrow

it hasn't already happened what's

happening

and i say yeah six months and you

couldn't put up a tent

on my house pathetic

all right um so that's happening uh

i would say that rudy destroyed three

narratives

from the other team yesterday now when i

say he destroyed their narratives

what i'm not saying is proved his case

all right so can we be all smart enough

to know

that when i'm saying he destroyed

several narratives

that's not not in any way saying he

proved his case

all he did was subtract a few attacks

against him

that's all that's all but he did it

really well okay

really well here are the three things

that

you might have believed a few weeks ago

but now maybe you don't

number one the claim that there were not

enough

fraud charges that even if they were

fraud and even if it were proven

it could change the outcome of the race

that's now destroyed because rudy has

given us the numbers

and we don't know if the case will go

his way but the numbers

are absolutely unambiguously

allegedly and that's all we're dealing

with is the allegation

big enough so can we stop saying forever

that if rudy prevails in his case

it would not change the election because

clearly it would

he has now made the case that it's big

enough

doesn't mean he wins but it's big enough

okay so can we get rid of that narrative

forever

probably not but we should number two

um a lot of smart people

told me that there's no real opportunity

for anybody to cheat on a scale big

enough

that it could change the election well

if you listen to that three-hour hearing

you heard nothing but opportunity for

cheating

apparently it's not only possible

to cheat in an election but the number

of ways to do it are so many

that you don't have enough time to hear

them all

now did rudy make the case that there

were so many allegations

that at the very least it was possible

meaning that even if each of these

individual allegations

you know we found out nobody used those

loopholes

nobody used those opportunities

he still proved the opportunities were

there for example

he might be able to prove that observers

were kept

out of the room with the ballots

probably very provable with witnesses

etc

if he proves that people were kept out

of that room it doesn't mean there was

fraud inside the room

it just means you know he's proven that

i think i had some other point but

i already forgot it oh the point is that

he would have proven there was

opportunity to cheat

behind that closed door but he would not

have proven that the cheating actually

happened hypothetically

so the argument that there wasn't an

opportunity

i think he slayed there is nothing left

of that argument

and that is why i say this might be one

of the best thing that's ever happened

to the country

because i think rudy will at the very

least

be the agent that causes our election

system to be

improved and hardened if that's all that

comes out of it would be great

number three the thought that if there

was so much

cheating scott scott

scott scott scott if there was that much

cheating

there would be witnesses you know

because you would need probably multiple

people to be in on it

you're going to have lots of witnesses

so

where are all your witnesses scott

well i think that question's been asked

and answered

turns out there are hundreds of them and

there are only hundreds of them

because if you had uh you know another

thousand of them they would be saying

the same observations

in other words there were multiple

witnesses to each alleged

fraud or imperfection and

so now you can never say that again if

you're being honest

you can never say that

if there was that much cheating you'd

have tons of witnesses because

there are tons of witnesses that's now a

fact

i think i mean he says he has these

sworn statements

if he doesn't show them to us i'd be

pretty disappointed

but but we assume that that's probably

not something he's lying about right

that they exist

so that doesn't mean he's proven his

case but i don't want to hear anybody

say

the allegations are not large enough to

change the

result i don't want anybody to say

there's no opportunity to cheat

in our elections there are tons of them

and i don't want to hear anybody say

that there are no witnesses and of

course if there was that much cheating

there'd be witnesses there are tons of

them

all right here's how cnn confused me

about

the pennsylvania situation i'm going to

read their exact statement

and see if you can figure out what the

hell this means all right on wednesday

the commonwealth court of pennsylvania

issued a temporary injunction

prohibiting state officials from taking

further action

in certifying the 2020 election

uh pending uh hearing on mail-in ballots

scheduled friday all right

so that sentence i interpret as

uh the con the courts ordered a

temporary injunction

prohibiting state officials from taking

actions to certify

the election so i think this told me

that it's not certified because the

court

prevented them from taking further

actions to certify

okay so the first part of this says it's

not certified yet

and they're pausing it and then the

second part of the same paragraph

says pennsylvania state officials filed

an appeal blah blah blah

and said that the injunction will not

impact

the uh survey certification process

but wasn't it already certified

so i'm a little bit i'm completely

confused

about the certifying situation so i

don't know if pennsylvania's in play or

not

we'll see so twitter suspended uh

pennsylvania senator and colonel

uh doug mostriano because he was leading

the pennsylvania senate hearings

i don't know what he tweeted but he got

suspended for i don't know 12 hours or

something he's back now

and i would just add this to that story

if twitter

suspends you they owe you a reason don't

you think

don't don't you think they owe you a

reason because you would like to know

it's i mean it's not a law

there's no constitutional right that

twitter will tell you why they're

suspending you but it seems good form

you know they should say oh you you

promoted violence or you

said something that wasn't true too many

times something like that

but on top of that

if an elected official gets suspended

from twitter

twitter's obligation again not legal not

constitutional obligation

but i think an obligation of

i don't know members of society let's

say a a social obligation a

a civilization obligation if a senator

gets suspended

for something he said on twitter twitter

needs to explain that to us

right that's not just between twitter

and that one senator or other elected

official

it's not just between them like we're

we're part of this fight right

like if you suspend somebody i voted for

you're with me

right you owe me an explanation

i didn't see one so this would be my

recommendation to

jack and to twitter is that you know i

don't think

that there are no reasons to suspend

people

and i feel that they're experimenting

their way to

to maybe a better situation so as long

as they're a b testing i'm not going to

be too hard on twitter

they're testing stuff they're seeing

what the response is they're seeing what

works

so so some of that's fine but you need

to explain to the public

if you're banning a somebody we voted

for that that's on us

right that's personal you you

i'm not even a you know i'm not even a

citizen of pennsylvania

right i didn't vote for the senator but

it's still personal

because this is a senator that you know

one of

one of my country's states elected

they elected him to speak for them

and twitter decided that he couldn't why

does twitter decide

that an illegally elected senator at

least in this one limited way can't

speak

for us can't speak for the people all

right

enough on that um the daily wire and

hank berrien did a story about

apparently there was a study

to find out how much biden supporters

know about the news

it went just about the way you think it

would go

turns out that a survey of 1750 biden

supporters in seven swing states

so they're looking at the swing states

that's what mattered

uh found that the news media's

suppression of stories now that parts

is opinion you know i know you agree

with the opinion as do i but that's

opinion

have heard former vice president joe

biden's electoral chances

so they go on to talk about the stories

that

democrats didn't hear i'm not talking

about they disagree with the stories

they didn't hear them complete blackout

all right so listen to this uh

82 percent of biden voters were were

unaware of at least

one of the following issues the terror

reads sexual assault allegations 35

were unaware so think about that 35

percent of the people who voted for

biden

probably thought they didn't want to

support the guy who was an accused

sexual molester so they voted for biden

instead

but 35 percent of them had never heard

that he's an accused

rapist i feel sorry for the democrats

and 8.9 percent said they would have

voted for trump

if they had known about that these

numbers are so big they would you know

completely change the election

if the news had allowed and social media

that allowed people to know about these

stories

uh the hunter biden scandal 45

of voters biden voters were unaware

45

of biden voters had never heard

the hunter biden scandal

that is so bad it's just funny

uh i really feel sorry for these people

and 9.4

said they would have switched their vote

all right uh 25 didn't know kamala

harris is

really really left come on how do you

not know that

now some of it is just people don't

watch the news but these are

probably a lot of them are people who

did watch the news and still didn't know

the news um let's see uh

that how many knew there was a huge jump

in economic

growth so how many people knew that were

coming out of the pandemic at least the

economic part

really strongly 49 percent of democrats

didn't know about that they didn't know

the econ how do you not know about the

economy

i mean how do you not pay attention to

that and 5.6 percent said they would

have changed their vote

if maybe if they knew about that how

about the historic peace agreements with

israel

and their arab neighbors now you can't

miss that right

it's like it's like what probably one of

the biggest stories of the year

is that the the middle east is finding

peace and that

trump is a big part of that with jared

kushner

and how many people in the democrats uh

how many

do you think hadn't heard about that

uh let's see uh let's see

i lost that number

it's a big number all right so they

hadn't heard that uh

oh 43 almost 44

had never heard about any of the middle

east peace deals

44 oh my god

poor democrats how about a number of

democrats who are aware

the president was behind operation warp

speed

and that it's a huge success how many

didn't know that

who voted for biden 36

36 all right

now uh of course some of these people

might not have

necessarily voted for trump but they

might have not voted

you know if you could have gotten six

percent of them to not vote

that would have been a pretty big deal

now here's here's the

the kicker on this because we're

spending all our attention talking about

fraud or no fraud the social media

and the news is getting a pass there's

nothing like

the will of the people or democracy that

happened

so this vote wasn't even close

to a democratic process within within

the context of a republic

what not even close the only thing that

happened

and you can see it really clearly in

this survey

what happened is the public was

brainwashed by social media in the news

and that's it every other part of the

story

is way less important is is the fraud

important well it's important for fixing

the elections in the future perhaps

but even the fraud is smaller

than what the social media and and the

fake news did for the past year

way smaller so because the fraud is the

the fun

glowing object and it's the thing we're

watching and we're sort of bored about

talking about media bias

they got a total pass the

for all practical purposes this was the

year

we formed a chinese form of government

you know the chinese form of government

is you've got your supreme leader

your president xi but really he has to

be backed

by the communist party top officials

if president xi lost the support

hypothetically

of all the top officials in the

communist party

he probably would lose power so the

president even though he's sort of

dictator-like he's not really because he

kind of has to have that lower level

agreeing with them similar to iran iran

has a process where there's the supreme

leader

but

he's a supreme leader but he needs his

your religious counsel

to support him or he probably couldn't

stay in power what we have just created

accidentally

is a process by which the social media

ceos given that they control what

happens in their

companies that they've become

effectively like the communist party

of china now this is an analogy

all right so don't get too hung up and

hey they're not exact

there's a slight difference they're not

exact

right i'm just making the point that our

government is now

clearly i mean this survey shows it as

clearly as possible

that the decision of who is president

has been taken out of the hands of the

public

that statement is very strong let me say

it again these social media companies

and

the heads of the big networks have taken

out of the hands of the public

the decision of who their government

will be

that happened there's no story that's

bigger than that

do you know why that's not a story

because we're a communist country now

and

and the communist party you know and

again i'm

taking the analogy too far but the the

heads of the

social media platforms and the heads of

the

news networks they get to decide who's

president

if you don't think that's true well i

got a survey to show you

because it was just shown pretty

conclusively if the news can simply

disappear stories and you can see that

very clearly they did

they get to decide who's president it's

not you it's not you at all

you're not even a little bit involved in

picking the president

not even you you are simply being

assigned an opinion

and then like a good little hypnotized

zombie

you go i have my opinion i'm using my

good judgment

my free will i will go vote now

according to my

smart thinking and free will and none of

that happened

the the public is assigned their

opinions

and then that's it that's the process

you wait for the

oligarchs to tell you what your opinion

will be

they assign it it doesn't affect

everybody

granted maybe you you are invulnerable

maybe their brainwashing doesn't work on

you

but it works enough on enough people

that your vote is irrelevant it doesn't

matter if it works on you

so people still believe that they look

at

the information and form relevant

opinions

that is one of the big reality bending

things that you're going to learn that

you don't

look at data and form opinions

it doesn't happen it is purely an

illusion

you look at the data that the oligarchs

show you

and you don't see anything else and then

you form the opinion

that they wanted you to form which they

created by deciding what information you

see

you are not part of the decision-making

process

even for your own brain that has now

gone

right again there are exceptions right

they don't they don't necessarily

brainwash every person the same way

and just as effectively but that's

what's happening that's the world you

live in now

um there's another study that showed

that the tone of the covid

related news articles in the united

states 91 of them

were negative now you say to yourself uh

doesn't that make sense it's a pandemic

shouldn't 91 of the coverage if not 100

be leaning a little negative we're sort

of in the middle of a pandemic

except that if you look at how media

outside the united states

treats it 54 percent uh given a negative

coverage

so i suppose you could argue that maybe

we got hit worse in the united states

maybe that's part of it but it feels as

though that was a trump-related problem

a little bit right that our oligarchs

decided that kovid was going to be the

story and it was bad for trump and and

there you have it

um all right

but part of the part of that study said

that it didn't matter

if things were trending worse or better

with the pandemic

it didn't affect the coverage being 91

negative so the the the

allegation in this study was that uh

the news creates a narrative

that is in invulnerable to any change in

facts

chad says you're wrong scotty

i'm going to take that as uh as parody

all right uh

how did you enjoy today's special

thanksgiving

episode of coffee with scott adams i

feel like i was angrier than i wanted to

be

i ever spoken with martin gettys i have

not

not even not even sure who that is

um i release your mind and you release

the kraken somebody says

thanks for doing a thanksgiving episode

you know somebody asked me if i was

going to do this on thanksgiving to

which i say

two things number one if you sleep in

on weekends and holidays you're probably

not doing yourself a favor

it's a good habit to get into that you

keep your sleep schedule

similar no matter what's going on

because sleep's pretty important

even though i hate sleep and try to get

as little as possible i do try to keep

the same

you know approximate schedule so i'm

always going to get up early no matter

what

i enjoy it

and then the second thing is why

wouldn't i come here

i enjoy it i enjoy it so

on a holiday i want to do things i enjoy

somebody asked me about the great reset

which i still

call on

i believe the great reset is all about

uh

people confusing the words it feels like

word thinking

because there's this idea that there's

you know the

the global elites want to cause this

great reset to consolidate power and

it's all part of a

grand scheme which i don't believe any

of

and then there's justin trudeau who used

the phrase

uh you know we have a reset because of

the pandemic

a completely different use of the word

in a whole different context but because

people are people they said hey

you use that word reset in a completely

different context

therefore this completely other

different story

that uses the word reset must be true

no the only thing that's in common is

that word

now is it true that there will be a

reset

of course the the pandemic makes us

rethink everything

have to change how we're doing of course

it's a reset

how could it be anything else of course

but it's not that you know weird

conspiracy thing where the elites are

having a meeting in davos or whatever

the hell

george soros is behind it's none of that

or at least there's no evidence of it

that i have seen let me be clear and not

and not say what my critics say i'll

just say that

i am not personally

aware of any evidence that would make me

think the great reset

is anything but ridiculous cue talk

doesn't mean it's not true just means

i'm not personally aware of any evidence

um

am i aware of vox day i i'm aware there

is somebody with that name that's about

what i'm aware of

um yes justin trudeau said great reset

but words can be used in different

contexts

and that was a different context that's

all it was

if you think that you discovered a

secret world plot

because justin trudeau said it directly

on television

you really need to check your thinking

because if it was really this great

clever

secret plot i'm pretty sure justin

trudeau

would not have revealed it in his speech

how do we get rid of propaganda and back

to truth

i would argue that we've never been at

truth we just didn't know it

so when i talked about trump changing

the nature of reality

what people thought they are seeing is

that he changed

the reality now he did change the

reality

but on top of that he also changed how

we see the reality that was already

there

before trump you probably thought your

elections were pretty secure

you probably thought your social media

was a little biased but how big a deal

is that

maybe you thought that your news was

real

trump taught you that your observation

of reality is

deeply subjective and you're probably

getting brainwashed

wasn't new it was only new to you

it wasn't something that i didn't know

and in 2015 when i said i think it was

2015

when i said that trump would change your

understanding of

reality it was this

this is the part i was telling you was

coming i could see it as clearly

as i could see you know my hand in front

of my face

you could tell that he was going to mess

up what you thought of your own ability

to understand your reality

in a way that could never be put back in

the bottle and the biggest way he did it

was by departing from the fact-checking

all the time because he realized

that the facts are not persuasive and we

don't live in a world where facts matter

at least you know matter for persuasion

they matter for reality but not

persuasion

i think the president when when people

are trying to understand

why does he keep saying things that

aren't true when

he must have figured out by now they're

not true

somebody who's told them it's not true

and i would say that the

the big reality mind

effort that some of you are already at

and some of you are almost there is this

he might know that it doesn't matter

indeed he was right he became president

without paying any attention to the

specificity of the fact

checking none he he treated it like it

literally didn't matter

at all and what happened he was right

he was 100 right none of the fact

checking

mattered none of it what did matter

is how the networks covered it and

social media

handled it etc but it didn't matter if

it was true

and it didn't matter if it wasn't true

so long as it was

you know well intended to move the

country in a good direction that's what

mattered

um okay that's all for now

i will talk to you tomorrow have a great

thanksgiving

and you youtubers still here for you for

a minute

but i'm going to sign off in a second um

all right can president trump prove

election fraud

do it george washington and then come

back that's my prediction

that's my prediction uh my prediction is

that he will do it george washington

meaning that he will say yeah i won

but i'm also going to peacefully

transfer

whether he runs in again in 2024

i think that's a wait and see you know

it does make sense

that maybe he would say he's going to

maybe he thinks he'd like to

but i think age is just too big of a

variable

and i'd give it a give it a couple years

before you take it seriously

i'm grateful for you as well so so thank

you

and i'm grateful to all of you and i

mean that quite sincerely

this is this is usually the you know one

of the highlights of my day

except for the time i spend with

christina and

um i want you to have a great

thanksgiving

take care