was true? Nope. No scientist agreeing doesn't mean anything. What about, you know, so basically the news is fake, the data is fake, the science is fake. And now Trump is telling you that intelligence briefings are fake. If I'd heard this 15 years ago, I would say that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. But now I think, oh, obviously they're fake because they don't want to tell him the good stuff. So of course they're not going to. They said it. I mean, you know, some of the top intelligence people have said it out loud. We'd be afraid to give him the good stuff. I think Brennan said that. So yes, Trump would get nothing he didn't already know because they would leave out the good stuff and it would just be a trap for them to say that he's a leaker. So he's completely right. Not so much that the leak part is the important part, but that the briefings would have no value. What's he going to do with that? Is he going to change his policies because he heard a secret thing? Probably not. Yeah, what's the point of it?

So every time you think something is important and then you find out, I thought my whole life this was important, and then you find out it's not, it's just a mind spinner. My mind is still spinning about the fact that it's true that national security briefings for the guy who's likely to be the next president wouldn't have any value. Like, that's hard for me to get my head around. But I do believe that in this specific case, I believe it.

Meanwhile, the Georgia state election board, they passed this new measure for the elections that the number of voters casting ballots must match the number of ballots counted. What is the story? Is the story that the new procedure is that the number of voters has to equal the number of votes, or is the story that it wasn't true before? Apparently the number of voters didn't need to match the number of votes. How about that? So there's your most secure election in American history, where the number of voters didn't need to match the number of votes until now.

Now, here's my second question. Was this only an issue in Georgia? Was Georgia the only place where the number of voters didn't have to match the number of votes? Let me tell you as clearly as possible. If the filter you put on our election system in terms of how fair and unrigged they are, if the filter you put on it was the experts told me it was completely secure, oh, you're so lost. You're so lost. How about take it up a level? All the experts agreed that the elections are too hard to rig. It's very fair. That doesn't mean anything. All the experts agreed. All the experts didn't check the machines. All the experts can't even describe the system in every state. How would the experts know if somebody hacked into it and was so good at it they could get away with it? What expert would know that? Here's the filter you should put on it. Not the experts said it's true. Put the Dilbert filter on it. All right, so you know what the Dilbert comic is. It's about mass incompetence being normal, not the exception. So that's the Dilbert filter. Mass incompetence is universal and normal. It's just that big companies are good at hiding it from their customers because the customer might just see the product. So if you apply that to the Secret Service guarding the president, suddenly everything makes sense. Now, there is a question as to whether they were extra incompetent intentionally. That's still an open question. But incompetence can explain just about everything you see in the news.

And when I look at the elections, you've got 50-plus different entities handling elections. You've got hundreds of people, maybe thousands involved in every state. They don't do the job every day as paid employees or a lot of volunteers. So they have to be retrained every time. The process for the election itself changes every year. For example, this new Georgia procedure is new, so you'd have to train people on that. And I could go on and on about the complexity and the number of people involved. But when you have this level of complexity, you have that number of people involved, they're not the permanent employees, they just come in as needed for an election, most of them. Every part of that screams that there isn't the slightest chance that we even know what's going on in the election. It's the same filter I put on climate change. Yep, there are all these thermometers around the world and we've got all these crack employees in different parts of the world checking those thermometers. No, there's no situation in human history in which you could make that work. That being a big, complicated thing where you've got different technology in different places and the environment's changing and the heat islands are moving and they're all different countries and different languages and they're checking these thermometers. All about half the time they don't even check. Do you think every single time in some other country the person goes through the junk and then writes down correctly the numbers from the machine, the thermometer? Or sometimes do they say, ah, it's probably the same as last year, I'll just bump it up 0.1. And then you get paid the same whether you looked at it or just said you looked at it. Now, maybe there's some logs where they would get caught if they did that, but who checks the logs? So my point is, whenever you see any system that's vast and has lots of people involved, it's always a mess.

With those of you who have experience in large organizations of any kind, can you confirm this for maybe the other people who don't have this experience? If you've worked in any