Back to episode — Episode 1837 Scott Adams - Is E.S.G. A Form Of Fascism, And Is The Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Legitimate?
Context —
fferent areas. He was a skeptic. Now was he proven right in the end? Go. Was Alex Berenson proven to be right after all? Go. Comments I'm seeing, a wall of yeses over here. Some not reallys. Don't know. Yes. 25 yes. Yes. Yes. Some nos. Some nos. But mostly yeses. And some people don't know. So my audience thinks mostly he's been proven right. I didn't see any of that. Are you sure you're not hall…
← Previous segment →something. Or does he actually think we should believe this, that this is on the table, there's a possibility of this?
But then I was informed that he worked for NBC. NBC, the entity most closely associated with allegedly the CIA. Is the CIA wanting us to believe that Trump is selling nuclear secrets to a foreign country? I think so. I don't know. But it would be consistent with what we've seen from the CIA in terms of trying to affect internal politics before, right? It would be consistent with what we've seen. Ridiculous but consistent.
And you know I like this what-if thing that the Democrats are doing. What if Trump sold, he tried to sell secrets. What if. And I thought I like that. So I added my own what-if. I tweeted earlier: what if, I'm not saying it's happening, I'm not saying it's happening, but what if, what if, what if Democrats are intentionally creating more right-wing extremists to justify their tactics against regular Republicans? Now I'm not saying that's happening. All I'm saying is that all of their actions are consistent with them needing to create extremists because they're not enough of them. So they seem to be doing things that when you look at them they seem only designed to create extremists. And I think to myself, shouldn't you be trying to reduce the number of extremists? That being actually the job of our FBI, I thought. It doesn't look like they're trying to decrease it. It actually looks like they're trying to increase it. Yeah. All right. So I'm not saying it's happening. I'm just saying they're acting like they're trying to create more extremists.
Here's a little story for you that should make you feel good. So Twitter, I guess the Department of Justice has found guilty an employee of Twitter who formerly was of Walnut Creek, California. Do you know where Walnut Creek, California is compared to me? It's like right over there. It's like where I shop. That's where I go to dinner. The Walnut Creek. So it's like right here. So this guy from Walnut Creek, but he wasn't working in Walnut Creek at the time. He was residing in Seattle. And he was accused of, and apparently they have evidence of, that he was giving private Twitter information to Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family specifically about critics of Saudi Arabia, I assume.
So what do you think of that? So there was an insider. But here was his job. He was the media partnership manager for the MENA region. So he was a media partnership manager. Do you think that somebody with the title media partnership manager should have access to private Twitter information? What kind of job has access to the private Twitter information? Could the manager of media partnerships look at my direct messages? Can my private direct messages be seen by the media partnership manager? Really? Maybe. I don't know. But apparently, according to the legal system, yes.
Now how many other Twitter employees can look at personal information of people? Don't know. How many Twitter employees can tweak the algorithm to change the results? Lots of them. Are there lots of people who could make a change in their little area but as long as it compiles right nobody really knows? I don't know. If you told me that an employee who is the manager of media partnerships could access private Twitter data, I would have said that's not a thing. Nobody's going to do that. No company would allow that. But apparently it happened.
So if you think this is bad news, I think you're just a pessimist. Because here's what you should think is the good news. Despite the fact that Twitter had this fairly massive hole in their security, don't you feel good to know that all 50 of our election systems in the United States don't have this kind of problem? They don't have an insider who has access to anything or could change anything. And I feel as if we don't give enough credit to the programmers for our 50, I guess they're 51 different election systems because they use different digital technology. It's not all about paper, right? Because even the paper stuff has to be reported digitally. So all the systems have some digital connection.
And unlike Twitter, and I think some of these state ele
Context —
ction people, maybe Twitter should hire them to find out how they do it. Because Twitter, you know you probably thought Twitter is like a big multi-billion dollar company and you're thinking well they hire the best security people but obviously they're not operating at the level of each of these state election systems. So the state election systems that have operated flawlessly without any insider…
Next segment → →