Episode 1219 Scott Adams - Forensic Audit of Voting Systems, The Great Reset
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Biden's throat clearing (a cold?) during speech - Liability issues for small businesses if customer gets COVID? - Rapid, cheap home COVID tests...why not? - The Great Reset...global desire for more socialism - Dominion forensic audit results...68% adjudicated - Solarwinds hack, who did it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day for most of you. And if you'd like to enjoy it to its fullest exten
View segment →t — I mean really, really enjoy it — all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, a jelly stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes ever…
View segment →ter than mine. If I seem a little down, I'm not having the best week, to say the least. But I'm going to try to raise my spirits for you. So there's a story that there's a filter that's made for astronaut urine that could soon be providing drinking water to Earth. That was the headline in CNN. So i…
View segment →seen a lot of colds in your house since the coronavirus started? I believe I haven't seen any. I've seen some allergies. Yeah, somebody says you got it from sniffing hair. In the big news, you may have heard that Pornhub is deleting all of its unverified content. I think the idea there is that they…
View segment →e answer is it's over the biggest issue seems to be the question of whether businesses would receive some protection from being sued should they not do things right with coronavirus. The Democrats want to change nothing and allow people to be sued. The Republicans say you can't ask people to open up…
View segment →sion. But the public isn't. The public, if we had a let's say a 75% opinion that businesses should be held faultless, I think Congress would have to do it, right? So have you seen any polls on whether Congress should go with the limiting the liability or not? Have you seen a poll on that? I don't k…
View segment →ety of ways. So it feels as though the Trump administration — assuming Trump is still there to sign off on this thing — was doing maybe some good stuff on advanced nuclear power at least funding the research. And maybe Biden will do more of it. But it looks like here's the biggest news in the world…
View segment →and once you catch it the people who might do it next time are going to say, wow they always catch this. Why would I do it again? But we've designed a system with a compressed window and our courts don't want to get involved because our system keeps the courts a little bit of a distance from what t…
View segment →ave it. Jim Cramer of CNBC — you all know Jim Cramer, Mad Money — and I guess he's gonna have a guest on his show or if unless it already happened, Michael Mina, who is the biggest name talking about these rapid cheap coronavirus tests. The part that the public and maybe the government fails to und…
View segment →e if you're in the administration and you see Michael Mina talking by himself you might say to yourself, well I don't know, nobody's mentioning it lately, maybe it's not a thing. But if you see Jim Cramer talk to him and endorse it — I don't know if he will but let's say he does — you'd say to yours…
View segment →ead that I retweeted and you should look at it. And it starts out by saying the biggest real problem with their voting system is not only that we've got these voting machines in almost all of our states but with relatively few exceptions I guess. But we have a system that's not only universally simi…
View segment →10. That's all you would need to know really. You wouldn't even need to know if it happened. You would only need to know this is a thing. If this is a thing that the adjudicators are getting tons of votes and nobody watches what they changed them to, if that's real the election is just garbage. But…
View segment →telligence professionals also said the Hunter Biden story was Russian information. I guess I was informed that they didn't use the word disinformation but they're saying it's Russian information, sort of assuming that they're playing fast and loose with what information means. Do you believe that t…
View segment →d us that even though I wanted to know, even though it would have changed the result. I feel like there are some lines that you just don't cross and that feels like one that should not have been crossed. And I would respect him for not crossing it. I respect him for being good with working for the p…
View segment →me? Some of you trust Barr, some of you don't like him. What's your one sentence explanation for socialism? Sharing versus competition. That's it. Why was my week so bad? Well you might find out someday but today's not the day. Oh I'm feeling well. I mean I'm healthy. I just you know there are some…
View segment →e an unbelievably bad week. Like so bad you can't even believe it. It's one of those. But I'll get over it and I will talk to you tomorrow.
View segment →Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day for most of you. And if you'd like to enjoy it to its fullest extent — I mean really, really enjoy it — all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, a jelly stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything except SolarWinds software better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now.
Somebody says, "Where is YouTube?" YouTube is live. It's live at the same time. So I hope your week is going better than mine. If I seem a little down, I'm not having the best week, to say the least. But I'm going to try to raise my spirits for you.
So there's a story that there's a filter that's made for astronaut urine that could soon be providing drinking water to Earth. That was the headline in CNN. So it's some kind of amazing filter that you can put urine into. Astronauts have been using it and it just turns it into clean drinking water. But I have some questions. When it rains, will you be able to tell how much is the regular rain and how much is coming from the International Space Station, if you know what I mean? I feel like we need to know that.
Sweden has disappointed us quite a bit. Poor little Sweden. Early on in the coronavirus, it seemed to be some kind of a weird exception that made it look as though all of our worst fears were exaggerated because Sweden didn't lock down as aggressively as other places. And even though their death rate was high, they seemed to have gotten through the first wave not too badly. But it turns out that the second wave, not so good. And Sweden is getting crushed in terms of rate of infections compared to Europe. So can we say now that Sweden was a mistake? Are we at a point where even the skeptics will say, okay, lockdowns work, and okay, I guess the social distancing and the masks might make a difference?
I'm looking at the comments. Not yet. We're not ready to cave on that yet. Well, how about the fact that nearly 300,000 Americans will die from coronavirus? Are you willing to give me that it's not just the flu? Anybody who thought it was just the flu, any revised opinions after 300,000 people dead? Or are you still on the view that they were all misdiagnosed and they died of something else?
Well, we know that if you've seen around on Twitter there were some tweets going around saying that the net death rate was actually down. And it turns out that the way you arrive at that conclusion that the net death rate is down is by using the wrong data in the wrong way. But if you don't do that, the death rate's way up and it's coronavirus. But you've probably seen that tweet. It did not pass the fact-checking. Took about a minute to get debunked.
President-elect Joe Biden gave a speech. Was there anybody dumb enough to watch it? Imagine the last time you heard, you know, President Trump was going to give a speech. Didn't you automatically say to yourself, oh, I wonder where I'll be. Maybe I'll listen to that. It could be interesting. But what did you say when you heard that Biden was going to give a speech? Did you say to yourself, well that's appointment TV. I'd better set my alarm. I better get over there and listen to that.
Well, I do this every day, talk about politics, and even I couldn't get interested in his speech. I thought, well, if anything happens I'll see it on the highlight clip. But apparently one of the things that happened is he was clearing his throat a lot and he said that he's battling a slight cold. Now does that sound true in the age of coronavirus and in the age of everything else? Well let me ask you this. Joe Biden has been socially distancing and wearing masks. How did he get a cold? Where'd the cold come from?
I might — I mean I'm just kidding — but if he was really socially distancing, does Jill Biden have a cold? Because if he didn't get it from Jill Biden, what's he doing when we're not watching? Maybe he only goes down into the basement for his videos. I don't know. But I'm glad he doesn't have coronavirus. But how do you catch anything if you're socially distancing? You'd have to work at it, I think. But he pulled it off.
And when I say that Joe Biden has a bit of a cold, I mean possibly dying. Same thing. You give a guy that age a bit of a cold, you know, start writing the obituary because he's at that age where he could be taken out by normal respiratory problems. But we hope it's just a cold. Quite a coincidence he has a raspy throat during a coronavirus situation. I gotta say, I don't know. I've met anybody who's had a cold since the coronavirus started. Let me ask you, have you seen a lot of colds in your house since the coronavirus started? I believe I haven't seen any. I've seen some allergies.
Yeah, somebody says you got it from sniffing hair. In the big news, you may have heard that Pornhub is deleting all of its unverified content. I think the idea there is that they're cracking down on sex trafficking and underage stuff, so there's probably a good basis for that. But there was a tweet on this topic from Steve Hassan, PhD, and he's an expert on cults. He writes books on cults. And he said this about Pornhub. He says, I hope they are deleting all hypnosis videos. What I watched, two videos, says Steve Hassan, to convince people they were another gender. What I saw was highly sophisticated mind control. De-transitioners pointed me to them.
So according to Steve, there are videos on Pornhub — or unless they've been taken down — that would convince people they were another gender. Now the first thing you have to ask is Steve Hassan is an expert. He's written books. He's a PhD, written books on cults and cult indoctrination and getting out of cults. But is he a hypnotist? I don't know. I don't believe he's a trained hypnotist. But I am. So if I were wondering about this question, I would ask me, is that possible? Can you change somebody's gender with hypnosis? And if you could, could you put it in a video and put it online and it just changes people's genders?
The answer to that is nope. No, you can't change people's gender, or in other words you can't change people's mind about what their gender is. That's not a thing. What you can do is if somebody was interested in doing that, those videos would probably make a difference. But you have to start out wanting to do it. Nobody wanders into the site and says, hey I wonder what this is. Let me click on this and just sample a few minutes. I'm just curious. I certainly don't want to change my — I am now a woman. Okay, that's not happening.
But it is true that people who might want to fantasize about that or make it happen anyway, those videos might make a difference. But no, you will not be accidentally hypnotized to be another gender. Let me say that with complete certainty. That's not a thing. Now you can change people's preferences. So if they wanted to indulge in this content they could change their preference and then anything's possible. But the nuance of knowing that it can't change you unless you wanted that change is pretty important.
All right. I saw online that the New York Times has not covered the story of Representative Swalwell and the alleged Chinese spy that he allegedly had a close relationship with. And I'm thinking to myself, how in the world does the New York Times just not cover it? Maybe that's it. Could be not true. So somebody might fact-check that and say oh they covered it. So I guess I shouldn't assume that's true just because I saw it on Twitter.
Here's something you don't see in the news. What is the thing that's most holding up the coronavirus relief kind of packages in Congress? And the answer is it's over the biggest issue seems to be the question of whether businesses would receive some protection from being sued should they not do things right with coronavirus. The Democrats want to change nothing and allow people to be sued. The Republicans say you can't ask people to open up business in a pandemic at the same time they can be sued if anybody gets a virus.
So here's what's missing. Where are the news programs where people who understand both sides of that issue, just the liability issue, where are the news programs where those people are on and they're being interviewed? And the person interviewing them, let's say on CNN or even Fox, here's the argument. Because I keep waiting to hear the argument. I have a bias because I used to own small businesses, so my bias is I'd like to see protection so they can't get sued. To me it makes perfect sense. But if there's some gigantic problem with that that's holding things up, my question is this: why are we not seeing that debate? Why are we just saying it exists? Well that's what's happening. Congress is having that debate. It exists that they disagree.
I feel like we need to get involved with this, right? Are you telling me that the public should not be pushing Congress for this? Because here's the problem. I don't think Congress is the right entity to make that decision. Congress is the right entity to make lots of decisions. It's designed that way. But when it comes down to this question of personal risk, I just don't know that Congress can do it because they don't want to make a mistake, right?
So it's a situation where whichever way you go it's going to be a mistake. If you say that the small businesses are protected, it's going to look like a mistake because sooner or later somebody's going to do something so egregious that you wish they had been sued. But if you go the other way and say all right you can sue, it's gonna happen and then small businesses will be put out of business for largely things that they probably couldn't control. So you've got two ways to lose and there are only two options.
So how can we expect Congress, who needs to get reelected, to sign up for either thing? Either to keep it the way it is or to sign up and put their name on changing it? Because both of those things could cost them their job. So it turns out that Congress is just the worst tool for this decision. But the public isn't. The public, if we had a let's say a 75% opinion that businesses should be held faultless, I think Congress would have to do it, right?
So have you seen any polls on whether Congress should go with the limiting the liability or not? Have you seen a poll on that? I don't know if there have been polls on that but I haven't seen one. Wouldn't you like to know if 75% of the country was on one side or the other? Because if 75% of the country is on one side — I don't know which side it would be actually — then we should be pushing Congress to just do what we need them to do instead of having them try to make that decision. Never work.
So Amazon turns out they bought a startup with a self-driving car. I don't know why Amazon's getting into the self-driving car business but I'm sure it's strategically smart because they tend to be. And this one's different because it won't have steering wheels and it won't have any way for a human being to control it. It'll just be a pure self-driving car. So if it goes where it's not supposed to be you can't take the steering wheel. It would be like a taxi. The company name is Zoox. And here's what's interesting about this.
If you told me that Amazon should stay out of the hardware business I would have said yes about that. I would have said yeah Amazon, stick to your selling stuff online. You're pretty good at that. But then they invented their digital assistant, the A-L-E-X-A that I won't say out loud because I have them in the house. That piece of hardware impresses me every single day. It is sensational compared to let's say S-I-R-I on your phone. That's just sort of a novelty or a toy. But Amazon's version of the digital assistant — and maybe Google's too, I haven't used that — but Amazon's version is really, really good. So much so it's like having a Star Trek computer in your home. I talk to it all day long. I order things through it. It's transformational.
So if you tell me that Amazon isn't the right company to make a self-driving car, I say to you they might be. They might be. I mean I wouldn't bet against them after seeing the Alexa. And maybe their play here is that if the car is self-driving you need to do something while the car is moving. And what are you going to do while the car is doing its thing? Well you're going to read, right? You're going to look at some content. You're going to watch a movie. Maybe you get it from Amazon. So there's probably some way for them to tie this car to their service.
And this is why I predict that inevitably you're going to see these big companies building homes. Because if a big company such as an Apple or Google could build a home and they only catch — let's say it's free. They'll build you a home and it doesn't even cost you anything. It's just free. And the only catch is that all of the services that support the home have to be bought from them. So you'd have to get your energy from them, your Wi-Fi, your insurance maybe. So you just have to get all your services from whoever gave you the shell of a home and then they could give it to you for free. And I think that might be what's happening with this taxi thing.
Rasmussen is reporting they did a survey and they found that 52% of likely U.S. voters think that many news organizations ignored the Hunter Biden story to help his father's campaign. So that's over half of the likely voters believe that the media rigged the vote by what coverage they did, especially on the Hunter Biden thing. Over half of the country thinks that the media rigged the election. Think about that. And only 32% disagree with that.
So here's a — I don't know if this is new or a story or not — but a bipartisan, and the bipartisan part is important, energy package just got attached to the omnibus spending bill. So omnibus means it's a big comprehensive spending bill and they attach to it this little energy package that has provisions to boost — and here's the fun part, I'm just quoting from this tweet — to boost green technologies such as advanced nuclear power. So with no caveats people are talking about green technology being advanced nuclear power.
So the administration is putting this in the bill that will probably get passed and they're also looking at energy storage and carbon capture. Now if you read my book Loserthink you know that carbon capture is a big deal and there are a whole bunch of ways to do it where you can turn it into products and goods so you don't just capture and bury it. You can capture it and use it in a variety of ways. So it feels as though the Trump administration — assuming Trump is still there to sign off on this thing — was doing maybe some good stuff on advanced nuclear power at least funding the research. And maybe Biden will do more of it.
But it looks like here's the biggest news in the world. The biggest news in the world is that you can write a tweet and say "green technology such as advanced nuclear power." You can write that sentence in a tweet in public: green technologies such as advanced nuclear power. And people will just read it and go, yeah that sounds about right. Do you know how big a deal that is? That's the bigger deal than anything in the news today. You know even if our elections were stolen — and I don't know — this is like the biggest deal in the world. Because the climate change, Green New Deal thing, even if you don't think it's exactly as scary as the proponents of that, if you do you'd have to admit it's a gigantic issue. Whatever you think of it, it's gigantic. It's going to determine the fate of the Earth, etc.
Now the biggest problem looks like it's solved. The biggest problem was psychological. Simply understanding that advanced nuclear energy was a green technology. And what else? It's a green nuclear technology. And the only technology that a lot of smart people say could do anything about climate change in the long run because the other technologies have their hiccups and problems and limitations. It's a big deal.
All right. I would say the most impressive thing about our election system is how amazingly poorly designed it is. Because think about a system where the system you know by its nature is subject to massive different ways to do fraud. So it's not even like there's just one way to do it. There might be a dozen or 25 different ways to cheat in an election. So you've got a system that's like amazingly transparent — I'm sorry, it's amazingly got holes in it everywhere. So it would be easy to cheat if that's what you wanted to do. You might get caught but it would be easy to do the cheating.
And at the same time we have a system which guarantees there'll never be enough time to look into any allegations of cheating. So this is by design. Our system, including the Constitution and all the ways we vote, these are systems. And by design — this is the freaky part — it's not an accident. Meaning that we know we did it. It's an accidental outcome but we designed it and it's doing exactly what anybody who looked at this design would say, oh yeah that's guaranteed to happen.
And here's what it is. We're guaranteed to have fraud because there are so many ways it's possible and the upside potential for getting away with cheating on election is gigantic. So if you have a situation where it's possible and the upside potential is through the roof, it's going to happen every time, guaranteed. But normally you'd still be okay because eventually you're going to catch it and once you catch it the people who might do it next time are going to say, wow they always catch this. Why would I do it again?
But we've designed a system with a compressed window and our courts don't want to get involved because our system keeps the courts a little bit of a distance from what the states want to do in their own state. So you don't really have a court that's designed to handle the problem. You don't have a timeline that's long enough for the judicial system to handle it and produce a penalty that would make a difference for the next time. And it's guaranteed fraud. It's really a perfect design if you didn't want to have a fair election.
Let me say it in a different way. If you were going to start from scratch to design a system that is guaranteed to have massive fraud — guaranteed, no way around it, guaranteed — how would you design it? Just like this. You'd make it complicated. You'd make sure that there were a lot of ways that you could not be detected if you cheated. And you would make sure that it's not transparent so you don't have witnesses and all the different places that you could cheat. And then you'd make sure that there was not enough time to find fraud. That's how you design it. You would make it like that from scratch exactly like the system we have. It's designed — maybe accidentally — but I'll say the design is such that the fraud is essentially guaranteed by the design. You couldn't not have it.
Jim Cramer of CNBC — you all know Jim Cramer, Mad Money — and I guess he's gonna have a guest on his show or if unless it already happened, Michael Mina, who is the biggest name talking about these rapid cheap coronavirus tests. The part that the public and maybe the government fails to understand is how less sensitive tests or less specific tests could get you a better result than more accurate tests. And the reason that people can't understand it is that people are not good with statistics and probability and risk management, right? We're just not good at it.
So if I say to you why don't we introduce these tests, they're less accurate than the other tests we already have, you're kind of done with the conversation aren't you? We have good tests and you're saying you'd like to introduce some tests that would be widespread and not accurate. Isn't that the worst of everything? It's widespread and not accurate. I mean what could be worse than that? And the answer is you don't understand risk management or statistics or decision making if that's your view.
Because here's the real reason that the less sensitive tests are the way to go. You could test yourself every day. If it misses it once it picks it up the next day. You spent five dollars instead of two dollars and fifty cents. People who wanted to test could do as much as they want. Eighty percent of the time they'd get the right result. Although I've heard some rapid tests that might be in the high 90s accuracy. Don't know about that yet. And the point is if you have enough inaccurate tests it's way better than having not enough, wait three days for your response accurate tests.
Now why is it — and this is the mystery that I've been wondering — why is it that the administration has not — they of course know about the idea because I can vouch for the fact that the idea has reached the administration. I guarantee that. So they've heard the idea. What they haven't done is said we don't like the idea because of X. Apparently the FDA has some problem with these tests that I don't quite understand. Maybe has something to do with reporting requirements, etc. Not a good reason. But if the government knows about these tests, what are the two possible reasons that they are not implementing them?
Number one, that this Harvard-trained expert and all the people he's talked to are wrong about their thinking. That would be one reason not to do it, right? That Michael Mina is just wrong. He's thought of it wrong. He did the risk management wrong. He's not wrong about how accurate the tests are or how much they would cost. But one reason not to do it is he got something wrong. What is it that we haven't even seen a counter-argument? There has never been a counter-argument to my understanding. There are simply people who don't understand it.
Now here's the powerful part of this. Jim Cramer is not normal people. The reason he has this gigantically successful show is that Jim Cramer has a special skill that he brings to the show, which is risk management, statistical understanding on top of lots of financial and TV things. He's got an amazing talent stack. But a big part of the talent stack is that he can look at a complicated situation with lots of risks and possibilities and he can analyze that better than you can. That's why you watch him for his stock picks.
And I think he's probably the exact right person on the exact right topic. Because if you're in the administration and you see Michael Mina talking by himself you might say to yourself, well I don't know, nobody's mentioning it lately, maybe it's not a thing. But if you see Jim Cramer talk to him and endorse it — I don't know if he will but let's say he does — you'd say to yourself, oh I don't know much about Michael Mina but I've been watching Jim Cramer forever and if he says this is the way to go logically, just common sense, logically, risk management, statistically, if he says this makes sense, suddenly I take it seriously.
So there might be something very important happening here. It has to do with the fact that Cramer can put a seal of credibility on exactly this kind of thing even though he's not a medical guy because it's not really a medical question ultimately. So we'll see if that makes a difference. I don't know. Maybe he's already been on the show. Could have already happened.
Let's talk about the Great Reset. I didn't want to do it but I decided to Google it this morning and look into it. And the Great Reset is basically two words for what people already wanted to do. And what people already wanted to do — and of course not all people but the people who use this phrase — what a lot of people wanted to do globally, not just in this country, is have more socialism. So if I could simplify the Great Reset it is, hey let's introduce more socialism in more countries. The idea being to help the people at the bottom strata. That might require taking money from the richest.
But there are a number of ways to do the Great Reset. The details of the Great Reset are less important than the fact that the people who want more socialism are saying, hey let's use this as a crisis, as an opportunity. Now there are two things that they want to use as their opportunity. Hey it's a coronavirus, let's do more socialism. But also, hey it's a climate change, let's do more socialism.
Now the coronavirus did cause more socialism in the United States, right? We just printed money and started sending it out. So that's as socialist as you can get in my opinion. But let me ask you this. If you take away the words Great Reset, just the words, what's different? Do you think that the people who wanted socialism were not looking for every excuse to say, well we got a solar flare so I think we need more socialism. Looks like there's going to be a war so a little more socialism. It's going to be a virus, how about some more socialism? Climate change, I want a little socialism.
So I don't think there's anything different. It's just a word put to what people wanted. Now is it true that the coronavirus will accelerate that? Yeah, because it happened already. We saw people just checks being mailed out and people getting free healthcare at least in part, free vaccinations. So yeah we're way more socialist than we were a year ago. So saying that there's something that will cause more socialism is different from saying I've got a plan. Watch me release this virus so I can have some socialism.
But it's not really the socialism I want. It's really the power. But here's the problem with the theory that the real point of the Great Reset is power. Yes socialism consolidates power. It does have that element to it. It gives the government more power. But for whom? If there were somebody running for office and also wanted the Great Reset you could say, ah they're saying it because if that Great Reset happens you know they're going to get elected because they're associated with it. But how would Klaus Schwab benefit? You know one of the guys pushing the Great Reset. How would somebody who's not running for the highest office benefit? Yes there might be more control but the people who would have the control are not the people promoting it. So why are people promoting more control for other people? That doesn't even make sense.
So if you dig even this much into the Great Reset it looks like they're just putting words on things that are going to happen anyway because society changes.
All right. Here's Banzai Sharma. Had a long tweet thread that I retweeted and you should look at it. And it starts out by saying the biggest real problem with their voting system is not only that we've got these voting machines in almost all of our states but with relatively few exceptions I guess. But we have a system that's not only universally similar in states but it rigorously defies fraud detection. I love that phrase. Our election system rigorously defies fraud detection. It does. It looks like it was designed to not show you the fraud if it happened. It looks like it was built that way. It's so bad.
Yeah but here's some things going on. The Georgia secretary of state announced that an audit of voter signatures on absentee ballots will happen in Cobb County. Now of course everybody said why Cobb County? That's not the bad one. Why don't you do the ballot count in a county that there are allegations there was misbehavior? I don't know if Cobb County was even one of the ones somebody had a question about. But anyway, so all they're going to do is check signatures. I assume they'll find some amount of fraud. I assume that they won't be able to prove how much it is because they're only looking at a sample and therefore you can't always generalize that sample. And therefore the courts will say so what? Yeah you found a bunch of fraud. So the courts don't care. So does it matter that there's going to be an audit of voter signatures? I mean maybe for your curiosity but whatever.
All right. Here's the good story. It's the one you're waiting for. There was a forensic audit of Dominion voting machines in Michigan in one county. And here's the result of the audit. All right now I'm just reporting what I heard, okay? That's it. I'm just reporting it. Remind me to talk about Patrick Byrne in a minute. Somebody's prompting me.
So what they find is that 68% of the votes that went through the voting machine went to adjudication. So that means that they feed a bunch of votes into the machine and 68% of them were bounced as it needs a person to review them. 68%. Do you know what is the allowed error? Way less than one percent. So the amount that would be acceptable given that nothing is perfect by contract, way less than one percent would be acceptable. They had 68%. Way, way less than one percent. Not even close to one percent. They had 68% allegedly. All right we'll get to that.
Now what happens when a ballot is adjudicated? Well we found out because we saw a video on it. So what happens is a separate machine lights up if something was not proper in the vote counting and then you can see the ballot and it comes up and the operator can put anything they want on that ballot. Yeah I really said that. The operator who sees the adjudicated ballots, the ones that have some question about what the voter intended, all of those votes go to somebody who sits at another computer, a separate computer. It comes up on screen and then they can change the votes to whatever they want and nobody's watching. Just whatever they want.
So they could take all 68 of those votes, just change them all to Biden. And do you know how easy it would be to get away with it? It's 100% easy. Nobody's watching. And do you know what happens when they look for the logs and so that they could look at the actual record of what happened in 2020? The 2020 log is missing. Oh they've got the 2018 log still in the machine. Oh yeah they have the 2016 log still complete, still in the machine. Only the 2020 log was deleted and it was deleted the day after the election.
And every vote in there that went through adjudication allegedly was unmonitored. Now these are the same machines that allegedly are in widespread use. And one of the things that disappeared with the log that would have told you what happened with this machine was the indication of whether the internet had connected to the machine at any point. So the thing that would have told them if the internet had ever been connected to that machine at least during the voting process, that log was missing. Wasn't missing in 2018. In fact it's still there right on the disk. Wasn't missing in 2016.
Now what do you think about this? And then the analyst who looks at it, he says that this is not an error. So it's not a bug. He said he can look at the code and he can see that the code was written to create 68% errors. It wasn't a mistake. It's right there in the code to create the errors that aren't real errors.
So let me say this. If this is true this is Kraken times 10. That's all you would need to know really. You wouldn't even need to know if it happened. You would only need to know this is a thing. If this is a thing that the adjudicators are getting tons of votes and nobody watches what they changed them to, if that's real the election is just garbage.
But is it real? Is there anything about this story that you find unsettling? So turn on your skeptic mode now, right? I know you want to believe this is true. You do don't you? You want to believe this is the Kraken. You want to believe this forensic analyst nailed it. You want to believe badly if you're a Trump supporter. But just work with me a little bit and turn on your skeptical filter and tell me is there anything wrong with this story?
There we go. Somebody nailed it a little too on the nose, right? A little bit too on the nose. The story is a little bit too good. And by a little bit too good I mean way too good. Way too good to be true. Now that doesn't mean it's not true. But if you had to place a really big bet on this one you should bet against it. Sorry that doesn't mean it's false. I can't tell. I don't really have any independent way to know if it's true or false. I'm just telling you that if you ever hear a story that sounds like this one and you don't know anything yourself, you've just heard this story, if it sounds like this one bet against it.
Like you I join you in saying I would love to know if this is true because if it is there's one other tell here that the analyst says the code is intentional. Do you think that these voting systems would include intentional code that was obvious when you just looked at it for fraud? Or in this case obvious code for creating adjudicated ballots for no reason. Do you believe that that's really there? That you could just look at the code and you could see a cheat code and you could tell their intentions just by looking at the code?
Well maybe. Maybe there's nothing that would rule that out that I'm aware of. But you've got a story that's really a little too perfect. A little too perfect. And you've got somebody who might be doing a little bit of mind reading because you can tell what the code does. You can't tell the intention of the person who wrote it. You think you can but you can't always. No you could be speculating correctly. It could be speculating that that's the reason the code is there and maybe it is. Maybe that's exactly why it's there. But I'll betcha, I'll betcha that when the makers of this software respond they will tell you a story of a reason that that code exists that will be plausible probably. Now that doesn't mean their plausible explanation is true but I'll bet you're gonna hear a plausible explanation. I'll bet you will. So wait for that.
We'd like this to be true because it'd be fun but who knows.
Correct me if I'm wrong but as of this morning Google has not told us what caused the massive outage. Is that true? Still true as of this time of day. It was true when I woke up. So I think if Google does not tell you what caused their outage you have to assume it's probably this hack, this SolarWinds thing.
Here's a question for you. I've read stories that associated the hack with China but those were not credible. And now it sounds like the New York Times is saying that the hack is Russian. Does that feel a little bit convenient that it's a Russian hack? Here's my question. Is Russia the only country that's good at it? Are you telling me that China isn't good at hacking? Because why is it that Russia is the only one who breaks through? It feels a little too neat to me.
So then here's the question. How do we know? How do our intelligence people know? Because that's who we're — telling us. So I guess the U.S. intelligence people are saying they think it's Russia. Keep in mind that 50 U.S. past and present intelligence professionals also said the Hunter Biden story was Russian information. I guess I was informed that they didn't use the word disinformation but they're saying it's Russian information, sort of assuming that they're playing fast and loose with what information means.
Do you believe that the same intelligence agencies who 50 of them believe that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian information, do you believe that the same class of people can tell you who hacked the software? I don't think that's a thing. Now if there is a hacker out there who actually has experience like a real super experienced hacker who wants to disagree with me I will listen to that. But I'm not going to listen to ordinary people who don't know more than I do, which is not a lot about hacking, tell me that we can always tell where a hack comes from. Because I don't think we can. I don't think that's a thing.
I think that often you can tell. I wouldn't rule out the fact that it's you know there are times when you can tell. That seems reasonable. But are you telling me that Russia, Russia or China, you tell me they don't have the ability to hide the source of the hack? I'm not a hacker but I don't believe that things can't be hidden. Prove me wrong.
There's a story out of Great Britain where unconscious bias training is being scrapped for civil servants. So I guess in England — or just England I guess — you had to take unconscious bias training to find out how much bias you had that you didn't even know about. And apparently after doing it for a while they decided there is no evidence that this makes a difference and there's a little bit of evidence that it makes things worse. So that's in England. I don't know that — I don't think that's gonna happen here. I think over here we'll be doing more of this not less of it. But England decided to go without.
Scott why aren't you talking about Russell Ramsland Jr.? Remind me who Russell Ramsland was. I did read him. I think that's another Russell Ramsland. Who is he? Ramsa? Because I know that's a real story. That's and I remember seeing it and ignoring it. Oh that's a state official. Oh he slams a report on the votes. So is he the one who did the — yeah I just talked about that. Why are you asking me to talk about that? I just got done with that.
Oh Patrick Byrne. So Patrick Byrne who had been the CEO of Overstock — he's no longer I think — but he has a story that the FBI asked him to work on a sting for a bribery of Hillary Clinton. The credibility you should put on that story is zero. Zero unfortunately. Patrick Byrne has a credibility problem. Yeah zero. Now again people can be non-credible but they can be right sometimes. So I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying that if that's your only source, zero zero.
All right. Talk about Barr. You know I haven't talked a lot about Barr but I'll give you my layperson's opinion. I think he was great honestly. I was looking at the comments from Democrats who were saying that he lied to the country about the Mueller report to which I say did he? Did he lie about the Mueller report? Because I don't think so. I think he handled the Mueller report just right.
Now did he — should he have told us more about Hunter Biden's laptop before the election? Not if he's doing his job. I feel like he should not have told us that even though I wanted to know, even though it would have changed the result. I feel like there are some lines that you just don't cross and that feels like one that should not have been crossed. And I would respect him for not crossing it. I respect him for being good with working for the president. And if there are people not being prosecuted for I don't know the Mueller report origins or whatever it's probably because they don't have the goods yet. So I don't have any problem with Barr at all. That's just me.
But he didn't tell the president or Congress. Well that's to keep it from leaking. It's the same issue. And if he had told Congress it would have leaked and I don't think that would be fair. He quit before he could be fired possibly. Thank you.
All right. The child of a candy did blah blah blah. All right look them up when you have time. Somebody says I don't know what you're talking about.
All right I think we've covered everything haven't we? I think we have. That's all for today. I will talk to you tomorrow. And you YouTubers, all right you got any questions for me? Some of you trust Barr, some of you don't like him. What's your one sentence explanation for socialism? Sharing versus competition. That's it.
Why was my week so bad? Well you might find out someday but today's not the day. Oh I'm feeling well. I mean I'm healthy. I just you know there are some times when you have an unbelievably bad week. Like so bad you can't even believe it. It's one of those. But I'll get over it and I will talk to you tomorrow.
hey everybody come on in come on in it's time for coffee with scott adams best time of the day for most of you and if you'd like to enjoy it to its fullest extent i mean really really enjoy it all you need is a copper mug or a glass a tanker jealousy stein a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day the thing that makes everything except solar wind software better it's called the simultaneous it happens now go somebody says where is youtube uh youtube is live it's live at the same time so uh i hope your week is going better than mine uh if if i seem a little down i'm not having the best week to say the least but i'm gonna try to raise my spirits for you so there's a story that there's a filter that's made for astronaut urine that could soon be providing drinking water to earth that was the headline in cnn so it's some kind of a amazing filter that you can put urine into it astronauts have been using it and it just turns it into clean drinking water um but i have some questions when it rains will you be able to tell how much is the regular rain and how much is coming from the international space station if you know what i mean i feel like we need to know that um sweden has uh disappointed us quite a bit poor little sweden early on in the coronavirus seemed to be some kind of a weird exception that made it look as though all of our worst fears were exaggerated because sweden didn't lock down as aggressively as other places and even though their death rate was high they seemed to have gotten through the first wave not too badly but it turns out that the second wave not so good and sweden is getting crushed in terms of rate of infections compared to europe so can we say now that sweden was a mistake is it are we at a point where even the skeptics will say okay lockdowns work and okay i guess the i guess the social distancing and the masks might make a difference i'm looking at the comments not yet we're not ready to not ready to you're not ready to cave on that yet well how about the fact that nearly 300 000 americans will die from coronavirus are you willing to give me that it's not just the flu anybody anybody who thought it was just the flu any revised opinions after 300 000 people dead or are you still on the view that they were all misdiagnosed and they died of something else well we know that the if you've seen around on twitter there were some tweets going around saying that the net death rate was actually down and it turns out that the way you arrive at that at that conclusion that the net death rate is down is by using the wrong data in the wrong way but if you don't do that the death rate's way up and it's coronavirus but you've probably seen that tweet did not pass the fact-checking took about a minute to get debunked um president-elect joe biden gave a speech was there anybody dumb enough to watch it imagine the last time you heard you know president trump was going to give a speech didn't you automatically say to yourself oh i wonder where i'll be maybe i'll maybe i'll listen to that it could be interesting but what did you say when you heard that biden was going to give a speech did you say to yourself well that's a that's appointment tv i'd better set my alarm i better get over there and listen to that well i do this every day talk about politics and even i couldn't get interested in his speech i thought well if anything happens i'll see it on the highlight clip but apparently one of the things that happened is he was clearing his throat a lot and he said that he's battling a slight cold uh now does that sound true in the in the age of uh coronavirus and in the age of everything else well let me ask you this uh joe biden has been socially distancing and wearing masks how did he get a cold where'd the cold come from i might i mean i'm just kidding but if he was really socially distancing does jill biden have a cold because if he didn't get it from jill biden what's he doing when we're not watching maybe he only goes down into the basement for his videos i don't know but i'm glad he doesn't have coronavirus but how do you catch anything if you're socially distancing you'd have to work at it i think but he pulled it off and uh when i say that joe biden has a bit of a cold i mean possibly dying same thing you you give a guy that age a a bit of a cold you know start writing the obituary because he's at that age where he could be taken out by normal respiratory problems but we hope it's just a cold quite a coincidence he has a he has a raspy throat during a coronavirus situation i gotta say i don't know i've met anybody who's had a cold since the coronavirus started let me ask you have you seen a lot of colds in your house since the coronavirus started i believe i haven't seen any i've seen some allergies yeah somebody says you got it from sniffing hair in the big news you may have heard that pornhub is deleting all of its unverified content i think the idea there is that they're cracking down on sex trafficking and underage stuff so there's probably a good base for that but there was a tweet on this topic from steve hassan phd and he's an expert on cults he writes books on cults and he said this about pornhub he says i hope they are deleting all hypnosis videos what i watched two videos says steve hassan to convince people they were they were another gender what i saw was highly sophisticated mind control d transitioners pointed me to them so according to steve there are videos on pornhub or unless they've been taken down that would convince people they were another gender do you think now the first the first thing you have to ask is steve hassan is an expert he's written books he's a phd written books on cults and cult indoctrination and getting out of cults but is he a hypnotist yes i don't know i don't believe he's a trained hypnotist but i am so if i were wondering about this question i would ask me is that possible can you change somebody's gender with hypnosis and if you could could you put it in a video and put it online and it just changes people's genders the answer to that is nope no you know you can't you can't change people's gender or in other words you can't change people's mind about what their gender is that's not a thing what you can do is if somebody was interested in doing that those videos would probably make a difference but you have to start out wanting to do it you know nobody nobody wanders into the site and says hey i wonder what this is let's let me click on this and just sample a few minutes i'm just curious i certainly don't want to change my i am now a woman okay that's not happening but it is true that people who might want to fantasize about that or make it happen anyway those videos might make a difference but no you will not be accidentally hypnotized to be another gender let me say that with complete certainty that's not a thing now you can change people's preferences so if they wanted to indulge in this content they could change their preference and then anything's possible but the the nuance of knowing that it can't change you unless you wanted that change is pretty important all right uh i saw online that the new york times has not covered the story of uh representative swalwell and the uh the alleged chinese spy that he allegedly had a close relationship with and i'm thinking to myself how in the world does the new york times just not cover it maybe that's it could be not true so somebody might fact check that and say oh they covered it so i guess i shouldn't assume that's true just because i saw it on twitter um here's something you don't see in the news what is the thing that's most holding up the coronavirus relief kind of packages in congress and the answer is it's over the biggest issue seems to be the question of whether businesses would receive some protection from being sued should they not do things right with coronavirus the democrats want to change nothing and allow people to be sued the republicans say you can't ask people to open up business in a pandemic at the same time they can be sued if anybody gets a virus so here's what's missing where are the news programs where people who understand both sides of that issue just the liability issue where are the news programs where those people are on and they're being interviewed and the and the person interviewing them let's say on cnn or even fox here's the argument because i keep waiting to hear the argument i have a bias because i used to own small businesses so my bias is i'd like to see protection so they can't get sued to me it makes perfect sense but if there's some gigantic problem with that that's holding things up my question is this why are we not seeing that debate why are we just we're just saying it exists well that's what's happening congress is having that debate it exists that they disagree i feel like we need to get involved with this right are you telling me that the public should not be pushing congress for this because here's the problem i don't think congress is the right entity to make that decision congress is the right entity to make lots of decisions it's designed that way but when it comes down to this question of personal risk i just don't know that congress can do it because they don't want to make a mistake right so it's a situation where whichever way you go it's going to be a mistake if you say that the small businesses are protected it's going to look like a mistake because sooner or later somebody's going to do something so egregious that you wish they had been sued but if you go the other way and say all right you can sue it's gonna happen and then small businesses will be put out of business for largely things that they probably couldn't control so you've got two ways to lose and there are only two options so how can we expect congress who needs to get reelected to sign up for either thing either to keep it the way it is or to sign up and put their name on changing it because both of those things could cost them their job so it turns out the congress is just the worst tool for this decision but the public isn't the public if we had a let's say a 75 opinion that businesses should be uh you know held uh faultless i think congress would have to do it right so have you seen any polls on whether whether congress should go with the limiting the liability or not have you seen a poll on that i don't know if there have been polls on that but i haven't seen one wouldn't you like to know if 75 of the country was on one side or the other because if 75 of the country is on one side i don't know which side it would be actually then we should be pushing congress to just do what we need them to do instead of having them try to make that decision never work um so amazon turns out they bought a startup with a self-driving car i don't know why amazon's getting into these self-driving car business but i'm sure it's strategically smart because they tend to be and this one's different because it won't have steering wheels and it won't have any way for a human being to control it it'll just be a pure self-driving driving car so if it goes where it's not supposed to be you can't take the steering wheel it would be like a taxi uh the company name is zoox zoox and here's what's interesting about this if you told me that amazon should stay under the hardware business i would have said yes about that i would have said yeah amazon stick to your selling stuff online you're pretty good at that but then they invented their digital assistant the a-l-e-x-a that i won't say out loud because i have them in the house that piece of hardware impresses me every single day it is sensational compared to let's say uh s-i-r-i on your phone that's just sort of a i don't know a novelty or a toy but amazon's version of the digital assistant and maybe google's too i haven't used that but amazon's version is really really good so much so it's like having a star trek computer in your home i talk to it all day long i order things through it it's it's transformational so if you tell me that amazon isn't the right company to make a self-driving car i say to you they might be they might be i mean i wouldn't bet against them after seeing the alexa and maybe their play here is that if the car is self-driving you need to do something while the car is moving and what are you going to do while the car is doing its thing well you're going to read right you're going to look at some content you're going to watch a movie maybe you get it from amazon so there's probably some way for them to tie this car to their service and this is why i predict that inevitably you're going to see these big companies building homes because if a big company such as an apple or google could build a home and they only catch let's say it's free they'll build you a home and it doesn't even cost you anything it's just free and the only catch is that all of the services that support the home have to be bought from them so you'd have to get your your energy from your wi-fi your insurance maybe you know so you just have to get all your services from whoever gave you the shell of a home and then they could give it to you for free and i think that might be what's happening with this taxi thing uh rasmussen is reporting they did a survey and they found the 52 percent of likely u.s voters think that many news organizations ignored the hunter biden's story to help his father's campaign so that's over half of the likely voters believe that the media rigged the vote by what what coverage they they did especially on the hunter buying thing over half of the country thinks that the media rigged the election think about that um and only 32 percent disagree with that so here's a uh i don't know if this is new or a story or not but a bipartisan and that the bipartisan part is important energy package uh just got attached to the omnibus spending bill so omnibus means it's a big comprehensive spending bill and they attach to it this little energy package that has provisions to boost and here's the fun part i'm just quoting from this tweet to boost green technologies such as advanced nuclear power so with no no caveats people are talking about green technology being advanced nuclear power so the administration uh is putting this in the bill that will probably get passed and they're also looking at energy storage and carbon capture now if you read my book loser think you know that carbon capture is a big deal and there are a whole bunch of ways to do it where you can turn it into products and and goods so you don't just capture and bury it you can capture it and use it in a variety of ways so it feels as though the trump administration assuming trump is still there to sign off on this thing uh was doing maybe some good stuff on advanced nuclear power at least funding the research and maybe biden will do more of it but it looks like here's the biggest news in the world the biggest news in the world is that you can write a tweet and say green technology such as advanced nuclear power you can you can write that sentence in a tweet in public green technologies such as advanced nuclear power and people will just read it and go yeah that sounds about right do you know how big a deal that is that that's that's the bigger deal than anything in the news today you know even if our elections were stolen and i don't know this is like the biggest deal in the world because the climate change green new deal thing even if you don't think it's exactly as scary as the proponents of that if you do you'd have to admit it's a gigantic issue whatever you think of it it's gigantic it's going to determine the fate of the earth etc now the biggest problem looks like it's solved the biggest problem was psychological simply simply understanding that advanced nuclear energy was a green technology and and what else it's a green neck nuclear technology and the only technology that a lot of smart people say could do anything about climate change in the long run because the other the other technologies have their hiccups and problems and limitations it's a big deal all right um i would say the most impressive thing about our election system is how amazingly poorly designed it is because think about a system where the system you know by its nature is subject to massive different ways to do fraud so it's not even like there's just one way to do it there might be a dozen or 25 different ways to to cheat in an election so you've got a system that's like amazingly transparent i'm sorry it's amazingly go it's got holes in it everywhere so it would be easy to cheat if that's what you wanted to do you might get caught but it would be easy to do the cheating and at the same time we have a system which guarantees there'll never be enough time to look into any allegations of cheating so this is by design you know our system including the constitution and all the ways we vote these are systems and by design this is the the freaky part it's not an accident but meaning that we know we did it it's it's an accidental outcome but we designed it and it's doing exactly what anybody who looked at this design would say oh yeah that's that's guaranteed to happen and here's here's what it is we're guaranteed to have fraud because there are so many ways it's possible and the the upside potential for getting away with cheating on election is gigantic so if you have a situation where it's possible and the upside potential is through the roof it's going to happen every time guaranteed but normally you'd still be okay because eventually you're going to catch it and once you catch it the people who might do it next time are going to say wow they always catch this why would i do it again but we've designed a system with a compressed window and our courts don't want to get involved because our system keeps the courts a little bit of a distance from what the states want to do in their own state so you don't really have a court that's designed to handle the problem you don't have a timeline that's long enough for the judicial system to handle it and produce a penalty that would make a difference for the next time and it's guaranteed fraud it's really a perfect design if you didn't want to have a fair election let me say it in a different way if you were going to start from scratch to design a system that is guaranteed to have a massive fraud guaranteed no way around it guaranteed how would you design it just like this you'd make it complicated you'd make sure that there were not lots of uh there were a lot not lots of ways that you could be detected if you cheated and you would make sure that uh it's not transparent so you don't have witnesses and all the different places that you could cheat and then you'd make sure that there wer there was not enough time to find fraud that's how you design it you would make it like that from scratch exactly like the system we have it's designed maybe accidentally but i'll say the design is such that the fraud is essentially guaranteed by the design you couldn't not have it um jim cramer of cnbc you all know jim craver kramer mad money and i guess he's gonna have a guest on his show or if unless it already happened michael mina who is the biggest name talking about these rapid cheap coronavirus tests the part that the public and maybe the government fails to understand is how less sensitive tests or less specific tests could get you a better result than more accurate tests and the reason that people can't understand it is that people are not good with statistics and probability and risk management right we're just not good at it so if i say to you why don't we introduce these tests they're less less accurate than the other tests we already have you're kind of done with the conversation aren't you we have good tests and you're saying you'd like to introduce some tests that would be widespread and not accurate isn't that the worst of everything it's widespread and not accurate i mean i what could be worse than that and the answer is you don't understand risk management or statistics or decision making if that's your view because here's the real the real reason that the less sensitive tests are the way to go you could you could test yourself every day if it misses it once it picks it up the next day you spent uh five dollars instead of two dollars and fifty cents people who wanted to test could do as much as they want eighty percent of the t at the time they'd get the right result although i've heard some rapid tests that might be in the high 90s accuracy don't know about that yet and the point is if you have enough inaccurate tests it's way better than having not enough wait three days for your response accurate tests now why is it and this is the mystery that i've been uh wondering why is it that the administration has not they of course know about the idea because i i can i can vouch for the fact that the idea has reached the administration i guarantee that so they've heard the idea what they haven't done is said we don't like the idea because of x apparently the fda has some problem with these tests that i don't quite understand maybe has something to do with reporting requirements etc not not a good reason uh but if the government knows about these tests what are the two possible reasons that they are not implementing them number one that this harvard trained expert and all the people he's talked to are wrong about their thinking that would be one reason not to do it right that michael meena is just wrong he's thought of it wrong he did the risk management wrong he's not wrong about how accurate the tests are or how much they would cost but one reason not to do it is he got something wrong what is it that we haven't even seen a counter argument there's never to to my understanding there has never been a counter-argument there are simply people who don't understand it now here's the powerful part of this jim cramer is not normal people the reason he has this gigantically successful show is that jim cramer has a special skill that he brings to the show which is risk management statistical understanding on top of you know lots of financial and tv things he's got an amazing talent stack but a big part of the telestack is that he can look at a complicated situation with lots of risks and possibilities and he can analyze that better than you can that's why you watch him for his stock picks and i think he's probably the exact right person on the exact right topic because if you're in the administration and you see michael meena talking by himself you might say to yourself well i don't know nobody's mentioning it lately maybe it's not a thing but if you see jim cramer talk to him and endorse it i don't know if he will but let's say he does you'd say to yourself oh i don't know much about michael mina but i've been watching jim cramer forever and if he says this is the way to go logically just common sense logically risk management statistically if he says this makes sense suddenly i take it seriously so there might be something very important happening here it has to do with the fact that cramer can put a seal of uh credibility on exactly this kind of thing even though he's not a medical guy because it's not really a medical question ultimately so we'll see if that makes a difference i don't know maybe he's already been on the show could have already happened um let's see let's talk about the great reset i i didn't want to do it but i decided to google it this morning and look into it and the great reset is basically two words for what people already wanted to do and what what people already wanted to do and of course not all people but the people who use this phrase what a lot of people wanted to do globally not just in this country is have more socialism so if i could simplify the great reset it is hey let's introduce more socialism in more countries the idea being to help the people at the bottom strata that might require taking money from the richest but there are a number of ways to do the great reset the the details of the great reset are less important than the fact that the people who want more socialism are saying hey let's use this as a this crisis as an opportunity now there are two things that they want to use as their opportunity hey it's a coronavirus let's do more socialism but also hey it's a climate change let's do more socialism now the uh the coronavirus did cause more socialism in the united states right we just printed money and started sending it out so that's as socialist as you can get uh in my opinion but let me ask you this if you take away the words great reset just the words what's different do you think that the people who wanted socialism were not looking for every excuse to say well we got a solar flare so i think we need more socialism we looks like there's going to be a war so a little more socialism it's going to be a virus how about some more socialism climate change i want a little socialism so i don't think there's anything different it's just a word put to what people wanted now is it true that the coronavirus will accelerate that yeah because it happened already we saw people just checks being mailed out and people getting free healthcare at least in part free free vaccinations so yeah we're way more socialist than we were a year ago so saying that there's something that will cause more socialism is different from saying i've got a plan watch me release this virus so i can have some socialism but it's not really the socialism i want it's really the power but here's the problem with the theory that the real point of the great reset is power yes socialism consolidates power it does have that element to it it gives the government more power but for whom if there were somebody running for office and also wanted the great reset you could say ah they're saying it because if that great reset happens you know they're going to get elected because they're associated with it but how would klaus schwab benefit from you know one of the guys pushing the great reset how would somebody who's not running for the highest office benefit yes there might be more control but the people who would have the control are not the people promoting it so why are people promoting more control for other people that doesn't even make sense so if you if you dig even this much into the great reset it looks like they're just putting words on things that are going to happen anyway because society changes all right here's banzai sharma had a long tweet thread that i retweeted and you should look at it and it starts out by saying the biggest real problem with their voting system is not only that we've got these voting machines in uh in almost all of our states but with relatively few exceptions i guess but we have a system that's not only universally you know similar in states but it rigorously defies a fraud detection i love that phrase our election system rigorously defies fraud detection it does it looks like it was designed to not show you the fraud if it happened it looks like it was built that way it's so bad yeah but here's some things going on the georgia secretary of state announced that an audit of voter signatures on absentee ballot ballots will happen in cobb county now of course everybody said why cobb county that's not the bad one why don't you do the ballot count in a county that there are allegations there were there was misbehavior i don't know if cobb county was even the one one of the ones somebody had a question about but anyway so all they're going to do is check signatures i assume they'll find some amount of fraud i assume that they won't be able to prove how much it is because they're only looking at a sample and therefore you can't always generalize that sample and therefore the courts will say so what yeah you found you found a bunch of fraud so the courts don't care so does it matter that there's going to be an audit of voter signatures i mean maybe for your curiosity but whatever all right here's the good story it's the one you're waiting for there was a forensic audit of dominion voting machines in michigan in one county and uh here's the result of the audit all right now i'm just reporting a reporting what i heard okay that's it i'm just reporting it uh remind me to talk about patrick byrne in a minute somebody's somebody's prompting me so what they find is that 68 of the votes that went through the voting machine went to adjudication so that means that they they feed a bunch of votes into the machine and 68 of them were bounced as it needs a person to review them 68 percent do you know what is the allowed error way less than one percent so the amount that would be acceptable given that nothing is perfect by contract way less than one percent would be acceptable they had 68 way way less than one percent not even close to one percent they had 68 percent okay 68 allegedly all right we'll get to that now what happens when a ballot is adjudicated well we found out because we saw a video on it so what happens is a separate machine lights up if something was not proper in the vote counting and then you can see the ballot and it comes up and the operator can put anything they want on that ballot yeah i really said that the operator who sees the adjudicated ballots the ones that have some question about what the voter intended all of those votes go to somebody who sits at another computer a separate computer it comes up on screen and then they can change the votes to whatever they want and nobody's watching just whatever they want so they could take all 68 of those votes just change of all the biden and do you know uh how easy it would be to get away with it it's 100 easy nobody's watching and do you know what happens when they look for the the logs and so that they could look at the the actual uh the record of what happened in 2020 the 2020 log is missing oh they've got the 2018 log still in the machine oh yeah they have the 2016 log still complete still in the machine only the 2020 log was deleted and it was deleted the day after the election and every vote in there that went through adjudication allegedly was unmonitored now these are the same machines that allegedly are in widespread use and one of the things that disappeared with the log that would have told you what happened with this machine was the indication of whether the internet had connected to the machine at any point so the thing that would have told them if the internet had ever been connected to that machine at least during the voting process that log was missing wasn't missing in 2018 in fact it's still there right on the disk wasn't missing in 2016.
now what do you think about this and then the the analyst who looks at it he says that this is not an error so it's not a bug he said he can look at the code and he can see that the code was written to create 68 errors it wasn't a mistake it's right there in the code to create the errors that aren't real errors so so let me say this if this is true this is you know kraken times 10 that's all you would need to know really you wouldn't even need to know if it happened you would only need to know this is a thing if this is a thing that the adjudicators are getting tons of votes and nobody watches what they changed them to if that's real the election is just garbage but is it real is there anything about this story that you find unsettling so turn on your your your skeptic mode now right i know you want to believe this is true you do don't you you want to believe this is the kraken you want to believe this forensic analyst nailed it you want to believe badly if you're a trump supporter but just work with me a little bit and turn on your skeptical your skeptical filter and tell me is there anything wrong with this story for the sk there we go somebody somebody nailed it a little too on the nose right a little bit too on the nose the story is a little bit too good and by a little bit too good i mean way too good way too good to be true now that doesn't mean it's not true but if you had to place a really big bet on this one you should bet against it sorry that doesn't mean it's false i can't tell i don't i don't really have any independent way to know if it's true or false i'm just telling you that if you ever hear a story that sounds like this one and you don't know anything yourself you've just heard this story if it sounds like this one bet against it like you i join you in saying i would love to know if this is true because if it is there's one other tell here that the analyst says the the code is intentional do you think that these voting systems would include intentional code that was obvious when you just looked at it for fraud or in this case obvious code for creating adjudicated ballots for no reason do you believe that that's really there that you could just look at the code and you could see a cheat code and you could tell their intentions just by looking at the code well maybe maybe there's nothing that would rule that out that i'm aware of but you've got a story that's really a little too perfect a little too perfect and you've got somebody who might be doing a little bit of mind reading because you can tell what the code does you can't tell the intention of the person who wrote it you think you can but you can't always no you could be speculating correctly it could be speculating that that's the reason the code is there and maybe it is maybe that's exactly why it's there but i'll betcha i'll betcha that when the makers of this software respond they will tell you a story of a reason that that code exists that will be plausible probably now that doesn't mean their plausible explanation is true but i'll bet you're gonna hear a plausible explanation i'll bet you will so wait for that um we'd like this to be true because it'd be fun but who knows correct me if i'm wrong but as of this morning google has not told us what caused the massive outage is that true still true as of this time of day it was true when i woke up so i think if if google does not tell you what caused their outage you have to assume it's probably this this hack this uh this wind what is it uh solar solar wind thing here's a question for you i've read stories that associated the hack with china but those were not you know credible and now it sounds like the new york times is saying that the hack is russian does that feel a little bit convenient that it's a russian hack here's my question is russia the only country that's good at it are you telling me that china isn't good at hacking because why is it that russia is the only one who breaks through it feels a little too neat to me so then here's the question how do we know how do our intelligence people know because that's who we're telling us so i guess the us intelligence people are saying they think it's russia keep in mind that 50 uh us past and present intelligence professionals also said the hunter biden story was russian information i guess i was informed that they didn't use the word disinformation but they're saying it's russian information sort of assuming that uh you know they're playing fast and loose with what information means do you believe that the same intelligence agencies who 50 of them believe that the hunter biden laptop story was russian information do you believe that the same class of people can tell you who hacked who hacked the software i don't think that's a thing now if there is a hacker out there who who actually has experience like a real you know super experienced hacker who wants to disagree with me i will listen to that but i'm not going to listen to ordinary people who don't know more than i do which is not a lot about hacking tell me that we can always tell where a hack comes from because i don't think we can i don't think that's a thing i think that often you can tell i wouldn't i wouldn't rule out the fact that it's you know there are times when you can tell that seems reasonable but are you telling me that russia russia or china you tell me they don't have the ability to hide the source of the hack i i'm not a hacker but i don't believe that things can't be hidden it proved me wrong there's a story out of great britain where unconscious biased training is being scrapped for civil servants so i guess in england or just england i guess you had to take unconscious bias training to find out how much bias you had that you didn't even know about and apparently after doing it for a while they decided uh there is no evidence that this makes a difference and there's a little bit of evidence that it makes things worse so uh that's in england i don't know that i don't think that's gonna happen here i think over here we'll be doing more of this not less of it but england decided to go without uh scott why aren't you talking about russell ramsland jr remind me who russell ramsen was i i did read him i think that's another russell ramslund who is he ramsa because i know that's a real story that's and i remember seeing it and ignoring it oh that's a state official oh he slams a report on the votes so is he the one who did the uh yeah i just talked about that why are you asking me to talk about that i just got done with that oh patrick byrne so patrick byrne who had been the ceo of overstock he's no longer i think but he has a story that the fbi asked him to work on a sting for a bribery of hillary clinton the credibility you should put on that story is zero zero unfortunately patrick byrne has a credibility problem yeah zero now again people can be non-credible but they can be right sometimes so i'm not saying i'm not saying it didn't happen i'm just saying that if that's your only source zero zero all right um talk about bar you know i haven't talked a lot about barr but i'll give you my layperson's opinion i think he was great honestly i was looking at the comments from democrats who were saying that he lied to the country about the mueller report to which i say did he did he lie about the mueller report because i don't think so i think he handled the mueller report just right now did he should he told us more about hunter biden's laptop before the election not if he's doing his job i feel like he should not have told us that even though i wanted to know even though it would have changed the result i feel like there are some lines that you just don't cross and that feels like one that should not have been crossed and i would respect him for not crossing it i respect him for being good with working for the president and uh if there are people not being prosecuted for i don't know the mueller report origins or whatever it's probably because they don't have the goods yet so i don't have any problem with borrow at all that's just me uh but he didn't tell excuse me sorry about that he didn't tell the president or congress well that's to keep it from leaking it's the same same issue and if he had told congress it would have leaked and i don't think that would be fair um he quit before he could be fired possibly thank you all right uh the child of a candy did blah blah blah all right look them up when you have time somebody says i don't know what you're talking about all right i think we've covered everything haven't we i think we have that's all for today i will talk to you tomorrow and you uh youtubers all right you got any questions for me some of you trust bars some of you don't like them what's your one sentence explanation for socialism sharing versus competition that's it uh why was my week so bad well you might find out someday but today's not the day uh oh i'm feeling well i mean i'm healthy i just you know there are some times when you have a you have an unbelievably bad week like so bad you can't even believe it it's one of those uh but i'll get over it and i will talk to you tomorrow you
hey everybody
come on in come on in
it's time for coffee with scott adams
best time of the day
for most of you and if you'd like to
enjoy it
to its fullest extent i mean really
really enjoy it all you need is a copper
mug or a glass a tanker jealousy stein a
canteen jugger flask
a vessel of any kind fill it with your
favorite liquid
i like coffee and join me now for the
unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine
of the day the thing that makes
everything except
solar wind software better it's called
the simultaneous it happens now
go
somebody says where is youtube uh
youtube is live
it's live at the same time
so uh i hope your week is going better
than mine
uh if if i seem a little down
i'm not having the best week to say the
least
but i'm gonna try to raise my
spirits for you so there's a story that
there's a filter that's made for
astronaut
urine that could soon be providing
drinking water to earth
that was the headline in cnn so it's
some kind of a
amazing filter that you can put urine
into it
astronauts have been using it and it
just turns it into clean drinking water
um but i have some questions
when it rains will you be able to tell
how much is the regular rain
and how much is coming from the
international space station if you know
what i mean
i feel like we need to know that um
sweden has uh disappointed us quite a
bit
poor little sweden early on in the
coronavirus
seemed to be some kind of a weird
exception that made it look as though
all of our worst
fears were exaggerated
because sweden didn't lock down as
aggressively as other places and
even though their death rate was high
they seemed to have gotten through
the first wave not too badly
but it turns out that the second wave
not so good and sweden is getting
crushed
in terms of rate of infections compared
to europe
so can we say now
that sweden was a mistake is
it are we at a point where even the
skeptics will say
okay lockdowns work
and okay i guess the
i guess the social distancing and the
masks might make a difference
i'm looking at the comments not yet
we're not ready to
not ready to you're not ready to cave on
that yet
well how about the fact that nearly 300
000 americans
will die from coronavirus are you
willing to give me that it's not just
the flu
anybody anybody who thought it was just
the flu
any revised opinions after 300 000
people dead
or are you still on the view that they
were all misdiagnosed
and they died of something else well we
know that the
if you've seen around on twitter there
were some
tweets going around saying that the net
death rate was actually down
and it turns out that the way you arrive
at that
at that conclusion that the net death
rate is down
is by using the wrong data in the wrong
way
but if you don't do that the death
rate's way up
and it's coronavirus but you've probably
seen that tweet
did not pass the fact-checking took
about a minute to get debunked
um president-elect
joe biden gave a speech was there
anybody dumb enough to watch it
imagine the last time you heard you know
president trump was going to give a
speech
didn't you automatically say to yourself
oh i wonder where i'll be
maybe i'll maybe i'll listen to that it
could be interesting
but what did you say when you heard that
biden was going to give a speech
did you say to yourself well that's a
that's appointment tv
i'd better set my alarm i better get
over there and listen to that
well i do this every day talk about
politics and even i couldn't get
interested in his speech
i thought well if anything happens i'll
see it on the
highlight clip but apparently one of the
things that happened is he was clearing
his throat a lot and he said that he's
battling a slight cold
uh now does that sound true in the
in the age of uh coronavirus
and in the age of everything else
well let me ask you this uh joe biden
has been
socially distancing and wearing masks
how did he get a cold where'd the cold
come from
i might i mean i'm just kidding but if
he was really socially distancing
does jill biden have a cold because if
he didn't get it from jill biden
what's he doing when we're not watching
maybe he only goes down into the
basement for his videos
i don't know but i'm glad he doesn't
have coronavirus but
how do you catch anything if you're
socially distancing
you'd have to work at it i think but he
pulled it off
and uh when i say that joe biden has a
bit of a cold i mean
possibly dying same thing
you you give a guy that age a a
bit of a cold you know start writing the
obituary
because he's at that age where he could
be taken out by
normal respiratory problems but
we hope it's just a cold quite a
coincidence
he has a he has a raspy throat during a
coronavirus situation
i gotta say i don't know i've met
anybody who's had a cold since the
coronavirus started
let me ask you have you seen a lot of
colds
in your house since the coronavirus
started
i believe i haven't seen any
i've seen some allergies
yeah somebody says you got it from
sniffing hair
in the big news you may have heard that
pornhub
is deleting all of its unverified
content
i think the idea there is that they're
cracking down on sex trafficking and
underage stuff so there's probably a
good base for that but
there was a tweet on this topic from
steve hassan
phd and he's an expert on cults
he writes books on cults and he said
this
about pornhub he says i hope they are
deleting all hypnosis videos
what i watched two videos
says steve hassan to convince people
they were
they were another gender what i saw was
highly sophisticated mind control
d transitioners pointed me to them so
according to steve
there are videos on pornhub or
unless they've been taken down that
would convince people they were another
gender
do you think now the first the first
thing you have to ask is
steve hassan is an expert he's written
books he's a phd
written books on cults and cult
indoctrination
and getting out of cults but is he a
hypnotist
yes i don't know i don't believe he's a
trained hypnotist
but i am so
if i were wondering about this question
i would ask me
is that possible can you change
somebody's
gender with hypnosis and if you could
could you put it in a video and put it
online and it just
changes people's genders the answer to
that is
nope no you know you can't
you can't change people's gender or in
other words you can't change people's
mind about what their gender is
that's not a thing what you can do is if
somebody was
interested in doing that those videos
would probably make a difference
but you have to start out wanting to do
it you know nobody
nobody wanders into the site and says
hey i wonder what this is
let's let me click on this and just
sample a few minutes i'm just curious i
certainly don't want to change my
i am now a woman okay
that's not happening but it is true
that people who might want to fantasize
about that or
make it happen anyway those videos might
make a difference
but no you will not be accidentally
hypnotized
to be another gender
let me say that with complete certainty
that's not a thing
now you can change people's preferences
so if they wanted to indulge in this
content they could
change their preference and then
anything's possible but
the the nuance of knowing that it can't
change you unless you wanted that change
is pretty important
all right uh i saw online that the new
york times has not covered the
story of uh representative swalwell and
the
uh the alleged chinese spy that he
allegedly had a close relationship with
and i'm thinking to myself how in the
world
does the new york times just not cover
it maybe that's
it could be not true so somebody might
fact check that and say oh they covered
it
so i guess i shouldn't assume that's
true just because i saw it on twitter
um here's something you don't see in the
news
what is the thing that's most holding up
the
coronavirus relief kind of packages in
congress
and the answer is it's over the biggest
issue seems to be the question
of whether businesses would receive some
protection from being sued
should they not do things right with
coronavirus
the democrats want to change nothing and
allow people to be sued the republicans
say
you can't ask people to open up business
in a pandemic
at the same time they can be sued if
anybody gets a virus
so here's what's missing
where are the news programs where people
who understand both sides of that issue
just the liability issue where are the
news programs where those people are on
and they're being interviewed and the
and the person interviewing them
let's say on cnn or even fox here's the
argument
because i keep waiting to hear the
argument i have a bias
because i used to own small businesses
so my bias is i'd like to see protection
so they can't get sued to me it makes
perfect sense
but if there's some gigantic problem
with that
that's holding things up my question is
this
why are we not seeing that debate why
are we just
we're just saying it exists well that's
what's happening
congress is having that debate it exists
that they disagree
i feel like we need to get involved with
this right
are you telling me that the public
should not be pushing congress for this
because here's the problem i don't think
congress is the right entity
to make that decision congress is the
right entity to make lots of decisions
it's designed that way
but when it comes down to this question
of personal risk
i just don't know that congress can do
it because they don't want to make a
mistake
right so it's a situation where
whichever way you go it's going to be a
mistake
if you say that the small businesses are
protected
it's going to look like a mistake
because sooner or later somebody's going
to do something so egregious
that you wish they had been sued but if
you go the other way and say
all right you can sue it's gonna happen
and then small businesses will be put
out of business for
largely things that they probably
couldn't control so you've got two ways
to lose
and there are only two options so how
can we expect congress
who needs to get reelected to sign up
for either thing
either to keep it the way it is or to
sign up and put their name on changing
it
because both of those things could cost
them their job
so it turns out the congress is just the
worst tool for this decision
but the public isn't the public if we
had a
let's say a 75 opinion that
businesses should be uh you know held uh
faultless i think congress would have to
do it right
so have you seen any polls on whether
whether congress should go with the
limiting the liability or not have you
seen a poll on that
i don't know if there have been polls on
that but i haven't seen one
wouldn't you like to know if 75 of the
country was on one side or the other
because if 75 of the country is on one
side i don't know which side it would be
actually then we should be pushing
congress to just
do what we need them to do instead of
having them try to make that decision
never work um
so amazon turns out they bought a
startup with a
self-driving car i don't know why
amazon's getting into these self-driving
car business but i'm sure it's
strategically smart because they tend to
be and
this one's different because it won't
have steering wheels and it won't have
any way for a human being to
control it it'll just be a pure
self-driving
driving car so if it goes where it's not
supposed to be
you can't take the steering wheel it
would be like a taxi
uh the company name is zoox zoox
and here's what's interesting about this
if you told me that amazon should stay
under the hardware business
i would have said yes about that i would
have said yeah
amazon stick to your selling stuff
online you're pretty good at that
but then they invented their digital
assistant
the a-l-e-x-a that i won't say out loud
because i
have them in the house that piece of
hardware
impresses me every single day it is
sensational
compared to let's say uh s-i-r-i
on your phone that's just sort of a
i don't know a novelty or a toy
but amazon's version of the digital
assistant
and maybe google's too i haven't used
that but amazon's version
is really really good so much so it's
like having a
star trek computer in your home i talk
to it all day long
i order things through it it's it's
transformational so if you tell me that
amazon isn't the right company to make
a self-driving car i say to you
they might be they might be i mean i
wouldn't bet against them
after seeing the alexa
and maybe their play here is that if the
car is self-driving
you need to do something while the car
is moving and what are you going to do
while the car is doing its thing well
you're going to read
right you're going to look at some
content you're going to watch a movie
maybe you get it from amazon
so there's probably some way for them to
tie this
car to their service and this is why i
predict
that inevitably you're going to see
these big companies
building homes because if a big company
such as an apple or google
could build a home and they only catch
let's say it's free they'll build you a
home and it doesn't even cost you
anything it's just free
and the only catch is that all of the
services that support the home
have to be bought from them so you'd
have to get your
your energy from your wi-fi your
insurance maybe
you know so you just have to get all
your services from whoever gave you the
shell of a home
and then they could give it to you for
free and i think that might be what's
happening with this
taxi thing uh rasmussen is reporting
they did a survey and they found the 52
percent of
likely u.s voters think that many news
organizations
ignored the hunter biden's story to help
his father's campaign
so that's over half of the likely voters
believe that the media rigged the vote
by what what coverage they they did
especially on the hunter buying thing
over half of the country thinks
that the media rigged the election think
about that
um and only 32 percent disagree with
that
so here's a uh i don't know if this is
new or a story or not but a bipartisan
and that the bipartisan part is
important
energy package uh just got attached to
the omnibus
spending bill so omnibus means it's
a big comprehensive spending bill and
they attach to it this little energy
package
that has provisions to boost and here's
the fun part
i'm just quoting from this tweet to
boost green
technologies such as advanced
nuclear power so with no
no caveats people are talking about
green technology being advanced nuclear
power
so the administration uh is putting this
in the bill that will probably get
passed
and they're also looking at energy
storage and carbon capture
now if you read my book loser think you
know that carbon capture is
a big deal and there are a whole bunch
of ways to do it where you can turn it
into products and
and goods so you don't just capture and
bury it you can capture it
and use it in a variety of ways so it
feels as though
the trump administration assuming trump
is still there to
sign off on this thing uh was doing
maybe some good stuff
on advanced nuclear power at least
funding the research and maybe biden
will do more of it but it looks like
here's the biggest news in the world
the biggest news in the world is that
you can write a tweet and say green
technology
such as advanced nuclear power you can
you can write that sentence in a tweet
in public green technologies such as
advanced nuclear power and people will
just read it and go yeah that sounds
about right
do you know how big a deal that is that
that's that's the bigger deal than
anything in the news today
you know even if our elections were
stolen and
i don't know this is like the biggest
deal in the world because the
climate change green new deal thing even
if you don't think it's
exactly as scary as the proponents of
that if you do
you'd have to admit it's a gigantic
issue
whatever you think of it it's gigantic
it's going to determine the fate of the
earth
etc now the biggest
problem looks like it's solved
the biggest problem was psychological
simply simply understanding that
advanced nuclear energy was a green
technology
and and what else
it's a green neck nuclear technology and
the only technology that a lot of smart
people say
could do anything about climate change
in the long run
because the other the other technologies
have their hiccups and problems and
limitations
it's a big deal all right
um i would say the most impressive thing
about our election system
is how amazingly poorly designed it is
because think about a system where the
system
you know by its nature is subject to
massive different ways to do fraud
so it's not even like there's just one
way to do it there might be
a dozen or 25 different ways to
to cheat in an election so you've got a
system that's like
amazingly transparent i'm sorry
it's amazingly go it's got holes in it
everywhere
so it would be easy to cheat if that's
what you wanted to do you might get
caught
but it would be easy to do the cheating
and
at the same time we have a system
which guarantees there'll never be
enough time
to look into any allegations of cheating
so this is by design you know our system
including the constitution and all the
ways we vote these are systems
and by design this is the the freaky
part
it's not an accident but meaning that we
know we did it it's
it's an accidental outcome but we
designed it
and it's doing exactly what anybody who
looked at this design would say oh yeah
that's
that's guaranteed to happen and here's
here's what it is we're guaranteed to
have fraud
because there are so many ways it's
possible and the the upside potential
for getting away with cheating on
election is gigantic
so if you have a situation where it's
possible and the upside potential is
through
the roof it's going to happen every time
guaranteed
but normally you'd still be okay
because eventually you're going to catch
it and once you catch it
the people who might do it next time are
going to say wow
they always catch this why would i do it
again
but we've designed a system with a
compressed window
and our courts don't want to get
involved because our system
keeps the courts a little bit of a
distance from what
the states want to do in their own state
so you don't really have a court that's
designed to handle the problem
you don't have a timeline that's long
enough for the judicial
system to handle it and produce a
penalty that would make a difference for
the next time and it's guaranteed fraud
it's really a perfect design
if you didn't want to have a fair
election
let me say it in a different way if you
were going to start from scratch
to design a system that is guaranteed to
have a massive fraud guaranteed
no way around it guaranteed how would
you design it
just like this you'd make it complicated
you'd make sure that there were not lots
of
uh there were a lot not lots of ways
that
you could be detected if you cheated and
you would make sure that
uh it's not transparent so you don't
have witnesses and all the different
places that you could cheat
and then you'd make sure that there wer
there was not enough time
to find fraud that's how you design it
you would make it like that from scratch
exactly like the system we have it's
designed
maybe accidentally but i'll say the
design is such that
the fraud is essentially guaranteed by
the design
you couldn't not have it um
jim cramer of cnbc you all know jim
craver
kramer mad money and i guess he's gonna
have a guest on his show
or if unless it already happened michael
mina
who is the biggest name talking about
these rapid cheap
coronavirus tests the part that the
public
and maybe the government fails to
understand
is how less sensitive tests
or less specific tests could get you a
better result
than more accurate tests and the reason
that people can't understand it
is that people are not good with
statistics and probability
and risk management right we're just not
good at it
so if i say to you why don't we
introduce these tests
they're less less accurate than the
other tests we already have
you're kind of done with the
conversation aren't you
we have good tests and you're saying
you'd like to introduce some tests that
would be widespread
and not accurate isn't that the worst of
everything it's widespread
and not accurate i mean i what could be
worse than that
and the answer is you don't understand
risk management
or statistics or decision making if
that's your view
because here's the real the real reason
that the less
sensitive tests are the way to go you
could you could test yourself every day
if it misses it once it picks it up the
next day
you spent uh five dollars instead of two
dollars and fifty cents people who
wanted to test could do as much as they
want
eighty percent of the t at the time
they'd get the right result
although i've heard some rapid tests
that might be in the
high 90s accuracy don't know about that
yet
and the point is if you have enough
inaccurate tests
it's way better than having not enough
wait three days for your response
accurate tests
now why is it and this is the mystery
that i've been
uh wondering why is it that the
administration has
not they of course know about the idea
because i i can i can vouch for the fact
that the idea has reached
the administration i guarantee that so
they've heard the idea
what they haven't done is said we don't
like the idea because of x
apparently the fda has some problem with
these tests
that i don't quite understand maybe has
something to do with reporting
requirements etc
not not a good reason uh but
if the government knows about these
tests what are the
two possible reasons that they are not
implementing them number one that this
harvard trained expert and all the
people he's talked to
are wrong about their thinking
that would be one reason not to do it
right that michael meena is just wrong
he's thought of it wrong he did the risk
management wrong
he's not wrong about how accurate the
tests are or how much they would cost
but one reason not to do it is he got
something wrong
what is it that we haven't even seen a
counter argument there's never
to to my understanding there has never
been
a counter-argument there are simply
people who don't understand it
now here's the powerful part of this jim
cramer
is not normal people the reason he has
this gigantically successful show is
that jim cramer has a special skill
that he brings to the show which is risk
management
statistical understanding on top of you
know lots of financial and tv
things he's got an amazing talent stack
but a big part of the telestack
is that he can look at a complicated
situation with lots of risks and
possibilities and he can analyze that
better than you can
that's why you watch him for his stock
picks
and i think he's probably the exact
right person
on the exact right topic because if
you're in the administration and you see
michael meena talking by himself you
might say to yourself well i don't know
nobody's mentioning it lately
maybe it's not a thing but if you see
jim cramer talk
to him and endorse it i don't know if he
will but let's say he does
you'd say to yourself oh i don't know
much about michael mina
but i've been watching jim cramer
forever and if he says this is the way
to go
logically just common sense logically
risk management statistically if he says
this makes sense
suddenly i take it seriously so
there might be something very important
happening here it has to do with the
fact that
cramer can put a seal of uh credibility
on
exactly this kind of thing even though
he's not a medical guy
because it's not really a medical
question ultimately
so we'll see if that makes a difference
i don't know maybe he's already been on
the show could have already happened
um let's see let's talk about the great
reset
i i didn't want to do it but i decided
to google it this morning
and look into it and the great reset is
basically
two words for what people already wanted
to do
and what what people already wanted to
do and of course
not all people but the people who use
this phrase
what a lot of people wanted to do
globally not just in this country
is have more socialism
so if i could simplify the great reset
it is
hey let's introduce more socialism
in more countries the idea being to help
the people at the bottom strata
that might require taking money from the
richest
but there are a number of ways to do the
great reset the the details of the great
reset are less important
than the fact that the people who want
more socialism
are saying hey let's use this as
a this crisis as an opportunity
now there are two things that they want
to use as their opportunity
hey it's a coronavirus let's do more
socialism
but also hey it's a climate change
let's do more socialism
now the uh the coronavirus
did cause more socialism in the united
states right we just printed money and
started sending it out so that's as
socialist as you can get uh in my
opinion
but let me ask you this if you take away
the words
great reset just the words what's
different
do you think that the people who wanted
socialism were not looking for
every excuse to say well we got a solar
flare
so i think we need more socialism
we looks like there's going to be a war
so a little more socialism
it's going to be a virus how about some
more socialism
climate change i want a little socialism
so i don't think there's anything
different
it's just a word put to what people
wanted
now is it true that the coronavirus will
accelerate that yeah
because it happened already we saw
people just checks being mailed out
and people getting free healthcare at
least in part
free free vaccinations so yeah
we're way more socialist than we were a
year ago
so saying that there's something that
will cause more socialism
is different from saying i've got a plan
watch me release this virus so i can
have some socialism
but it's not really the socialism i want
it's really the power
but here's the problem with the theory
that the real point of the great reset
is power yes socialism consolidates
power
it does have that element to it it gives
the government more power
but for whom
if there were somebody running for
office
and also wanted the great reset you
could say ah they're saying it because
if that great reset happens
you know they're going to get elected
because they're associated with it
but how would klaus schwab
benefit from you know one of the guys
pushing the great reset
how would somebody who's not running for
the highest office
benefit yes there might be more control
but the people who would have the
control are not the people promoting it
so why are people promoting more control
for
other people that doesn't even make
sense
so if you if you dig even this much into
the great reset it looks like they're
just putting words on things that
are going to happen anyway because
society changes
all right
here's banzai sharma had a long tweet
thread that i
retweeted and you should look at it and
it starts out by saying the biggest real
problem with their voting system
is not only that we've got these voting
machines in uh in almost all of our
states
but with relatively few exceptions i
guess
but we have a system that's not only
universally you know similar in states
but it rigorously defies a fraud
detection
i love that phrase our election system
rigorously defies fraud detection it
does
it looks like it was designed to
not show you the fraud if it happened it
looks like it was built that way
it's so bad yeah but
here's some things going on the georgia
secretary of state announced that an
audit of voter signatures
on absentee ballot ballots will happen
in cobb county
now of course everybody said why cobb
county that's not the bad one
why don't you do the ballot count in a
county that
there are allegations there were there
was misbehavior
i don't know if cobb county was even the
one one of the ones somebody had a
question about
but anyway so all they're going to do is
check signatures
i assume they'll find some amount of
fraud i assume
that they won't be able to prove how
much it is because they're only looking
at a sample
and therefore you can't always
generalize that sample and therefore the
courts will say
so what yeah you found you found a bunch
of fraud
so the courts don't care
so does it matter that there's going to
be an audit of voter signatures i mean
maybe for your curiosity
but whatever all right here's the good
story it's the one you're waiting for
there was a forensic audit
of dominion voting machines in michigan
in one county
and uh here's the result of the audit
all right now i'm just reporting
a reporting what i heard okay
that's it i'm just reporting it uh
remind me to talk about patrick byrne in
a minute somebody's
somebody's prompting me so what they
find is that
68 of the votes that went through the
voting machine
went to adjudication so that means that
they
they feed a bunch of votes into the
machine
and 68 of them were bounced as it needs
a person to review them
68 percent do you know what is the
allowed
error way less than one percent
so the amount that would be acceptable
given that nothing is perfect
by contract way less than one percent
would be
acceptable they had 68
way way less than one percent not even
close to one percent
they had 68 percent okay
68 allegedly all right we'll get to that
now what happens when a ballot is
adjudicated well
we found out because we saw a video on
it so what happens is a separate machine
lights up if something was not
proper in the vote counting and then you
can see the ballot
and it comes up and the operator can put
anything they want on that ballot
yeah i really said that the operator who
sees the adjudicated ballots the ones
that have some question about what the
voter intended
all of those votes go to somebody who
sits at another computer
a separate computer it comes up on
screen
and then they can change the votes to
whatever they want
and nobody's watching just whatever they
want
so they could take all 68 of those votes
just change of all the biden and do you
know uh
how easy it would be to get away with it
it's 100 easy nobody's watching
and do you know what happens when they
look for the the logs
and so that they could look at the the
actual uh
the record of what happened in 2020
the 2020 log is missing oh they've got
the 2018 log still in the machine
oh yeah they have the 2016 log
still complete still in the machine only
the 2020 log was deleted and it was
deleted the day after the election
and every vote in there
that went through adjudication allegedly
was unmonitored now
these are the same machines that
allegedly are in widespread use
and one of the things that disappeared
with the
log that would have told you what
happened with this machine
was the indication of whether the
internet had connected to the machine
at any point so the thing that would
have told them
if the internet had ever been connected
to that machine at least during the
voting process
that log was missing wasn't missing in
2018
in fact it's still there right on the
disk
wasn't missing in 2016.
now what do you think about this
and then the the analyst who looks at it
he says that
this is not an error so it's not a bug
he said he can look at the code and he
can see that the code was written
to create 68 errors
it wasn't a mistake it's right there in
the code
to create the errors that aren't real
errors
so so let me say this
if this is true this is you know kraken
times 10
that's all you would need to know really
you wouldn't even need to know if it
happened
you would only need to know this is a
thing
if this is a thing that the adjudicators
are getting
tons of votes and nobody watches what
they
changed them to if that's real the
election is just garbage
but is it real is there anything about
this story
that you find unsettling so
turn on your your your skeptic mode now
right i know you
want to believe this is true you do
don't you
you want to believe this is the kraken
you want to believe this forensic
analyst
nailed it you want to believe badly if
you're
a trump supporter but just work with me
a little bit
and turn on your skeptical your
skeptical filter
and tell me is there anything wrong with
this story
for the sk there we go somebody somebody
nailed it
a little too on the nose
right a little bit too on the nose
the story is a little bit too good and
by a little bit too good i mean
way too good way too good
to be true
now that doesn't mean it's not true but
if you had to place a really big
bet on this one you should bet against
it
sorry that doesn't mean it's false
i can't tell i don't i don't really have
any independent way to know if it's true
or false
i'm just telling you that if you ever
hear a story
that sounds like this one and you don't
know anything yourself you've just heard
this story
if it sounds like this one
bet against it
like you i join you in saying i would
love to know
if this is true because if it is
there's one other tell here
that the analyst says the the code
is intentional do you think that
these voting systems would include
intentional code
that was obvious when you just looked at
it for fraud
or in this case obvious code for
creating adjudicated ballots for
no reason do you believe that that's
really there
that you could just look at the code and
you could see
a cheat code and you could tell their
intentions
just by looking at the code well maybe
maybe there's nothing that would rule
that out
that i'm aware of but
you've got a story that's really a
little too perfect
a little too perfect
and you've got somebody who might be
doing a little bit of mind reading
because you can tell what the code does
you can't tell the intention of the
person who wrote it
you think you can but you can't always
no you could be speculating correctly
it could be speculating that that's the
reason the code is there and maybe it is
maybe that's exactly why it's there but
i'll betcha
i'll betcha that when the
makers of this software respond they
will tell you a story of a reason that
that code exists
that will be plausible
probably now that doesn't mean their
plausible explanation is true
but i'll bet you're gonna hear a
plausible explanation i'll bet you will
so wait for that um we'd like this to be
true because it'd be fun but who knows
correct me if i'm wrong but as of this
morning google has not
told us what caused the massive outage
is that true
still true as of this time of day it was
true when i woke up
so i think if if google does not tell
you what caused their outage
you have to assume it's probably this
this hack this uh this
wind what is it uh solar solar wind
thing
here's a question for you i've read
stories that associated the hack with
china
but those were not you know credible and
now it sounds like the new york times
is saying that the hack is russian
does that feel a little bit convenient
that it's a russian hack here's my
question
is russia the only country that's good
at it
are you telling me that china isn't good
at hacking
because why is it that russia is the
only one who breaks through
it feels a little too
neat to me so
then here's the question how do we know
how do our intelligence people know
because that's who we're telling us so i
guess the us intelligence people are
saying they think it's russia
keep in mind that 50 uh us
past and present intelligence
professionals also said the hunter biden
story
was russian information i guess
i was informed that they didn't use the
word disinformation but they're saying
it's russian
information sort of assuming that
uh you know they're playing fast and
loose with what information means
do you believe that the same
intelligence agencies
who 50 of them believe that the hunter
biden
laptop story was russian information do
you believe that the same class of
people
can tell you who hacked who hacked the
software
i don't think that's a thing now if
there is a hacker out there who
who actually has experience like a real
you know super experienced hacker
who wants to disagree with me i will
listen to that
but i'm not going to listen to ordinary
people who don't know more than i do
which is not a lot about hacking tell me
that we can always tell where a hack
comes from because i don't think we can
i don't think that's a thing i think
that often you can tell
i wouldn't i wouldn't rule out the fact
that it's
you know there are times when you can
tell that seems reasonable
but are you telling me that russia
russia
or china you tell me they don't have the
ability to hide
the source of the hack i
i'm not a hacker but i don't believe
that things can't be hidden
it proved me wrong there's a story
out of great britain where unconscious
biased training is being scrapped
for civil servants so i guess in england
or just england i guess
you had to take unconscious bias
training to find out how much bias you
had that you didn't even know about
and apparently after doing it for a
while they decided uh
there is no evidence that this makes a
difference and there's a little bit of
evidence
that it makes things worse
so uh that's in england i don't know
that i don't think that's gonna happen
here
i think over here we'll be doing more of
this not less of it but
england decided to go without
uh scott why aren't you talking about
russell ramsland
jr remind me who russell ramsen was i
i did read him i think that's another
russell ramslund who is he
ramsa because i know that's a real story
that's
and i remember seeing it and ignoring it
oh that's a state official
oh he slams a report on the votes
so is he the one who did the uh
yeah i just talked about that why are
you asking me to talk about that i just
got done with that
oh patrick byrne so patrick byrne who
had been the ceo of overstock
he's no longer i think but he has a
story that the
fbi asked him to work on a sting
for a bribery of hillary clinton
the credibility you should put on that
story
is
zero zero unfortunately
patrick byrne has a credibility problem
yeah zero
now again people can be non-credible but
they can be right
sometimes so i'm not saying i'm not
saying it didn't happen
i'm just saying that if that's your only
source
zero zero
all right um talk about bar
you know i haven't talked a lot about
barr but i'll give you my
layperson's opinion i think he was great
honestly i was looking at the comments
from
democrats who were saying that he lied
to the country about the mueller report
to which i say did he
did he lie about the mueller report
because i don't think so
i think he handled the mueller report
just right
now did he should he told us more about
hunter biden's laptop before the
election
not if he's doing his job i feel like he
should not have told us that
even though i wanted to know even though
it would have changed the result
i feel like there are some lines that
you just don't cross
and that feels like one that should not
have been crossed
and i would respect him for not crossing
it
i respect him for being good with
working for the president
and uh if there are people not being
prosecuted for
i don't know the mueller report origins
or whatever it's probably because they
don't have the goods yet
so i don't have any problem with borrow
at all
that's just me uh
but he didn't tell excuse me
sorry about that he didn't tell the
president or congress
well that's to keep it from leaking it's
the same same issue
and if he had told congress it would
have leaked and i don't think that would
be fair
um
he quit before he could be fired
possibly
thank you all right uh
the child of a candy did blah blah blah
all right
look them up when you have time somebody
says i don't know what you're talking
about
all right i think we've covered
everything haven't we i think we have
that's all for today
i will talk to you tomorrow
and you uh youtubers
all right you got any questions for me
some of you trust bars some of you don't
like them
what's your one sentence explanation for
socialism
sharing versus competition that's
it uh why was my week so bad well you
might find out someday
but today's not the day
uh oh i'm feeling well i mean i'm
healthy i just
you know there are some times when you
have a
you have an unbelievably bad week like
so bad you can't even believe it
it's one of those uh but i'll get over
it
and i will talk to you tomorrow
you
