Back to episode — Episode 294 Scott Adams Enemy of the People, Wildfires, Tweets, and Whitaker
Context —
ings because I said something that was provocative, that Trump would get elected. I gave my reasons and I didn't hear anybody push back. So that alone should have been remarkable in the context of that show. And then once I was proven right about all of the big stuff you would think I would be the ideal person to have back. But I would break their world so badly if I came back now. I don't know. I…
← Previous segment →nemy of the people.
But look, let me jump in and say this. Calling CNN the enemy of the people, I want to be really clear. Nobody should act on that in any physical violent way. I don't think anybody should be accosting them, no pun intended. Nobody should be accosting them in public. Nobody should be showing up at their doorstep. Nobody should be doing anything physical or threatening to anybody who works at CNN or anybody. But it still can be true that there could be organized forces within the country that are working against the best interest of the country. That can still be true. But we still live in a republic and there are ways to fix things that don't require showing up at somebody's house. So don't do that. Let me be clear about that.
So anyway that my overall comment about the Broward County stuff is I see what you see which is a lot of irregularities. But so far the irregularities have not risen to the level of, I don't know is smoking gun the right word here? They have not risen to the level of my God they all have to go to jail. But it could. You can't rule it out. No. I see somebody saying come on, come on Scott please. Two of you said that. Come on, come on. It's obvious right Scott? It's obvious. Something's going on.
I'll give you my opinion. It looks to me exactly the way it looks to you on my irrational part of my brain that makes most of my decisions just like you. Everything I'm saying looks like voter fraud. So trust me I see the same thing you do. It all looks like voter fraud to me. It looks blatant. It looks obvious. But it's also the fog of war. So the things that are being reported initially just take it with a grain of salt.
If I had to place money on it, I don't know if you can bet on this. Could you bet on this? If I could bet on this on PredictIt I would place a very large bet that there's substantial fraud going on in Broward County this week. So if you're going to ask me to bet on it that's easy. I would definitely bet that's happening. I don't know how big it is. You know I don't know if it could really be tens of thousands of votes. I'm not going to rule that out. I would say the odds of substantial fraud are close to a hundred percent. Would you mostly agree with that? The chance that there's something that you would call substantial and intentional fraud in Broward County, I think the odds of some of it being true are close to a hundred percent. The odds of it being so big that they're blatantly trying to steal an election is less than a hundred percent. Maybe 80 percent, maybe 75, maybe 95 percent. But it's less than 100. So let's wait and see.
You know if it turns out that there is provable massive intentional voter fraud in the tens of thousands of votes and they were literally trying to change the outcome of an election you can't say I was wrong because I'm putting very high odds on that being the case. I'm just saying don't jump to a hundred percent yet. Just maintain a little bit of healthy skepticism. And then you know if you put a 90 percent or 99 percent on it at least you're part of the rational conversation.
Yeah if it turns out that it's 85,000 extra votes and it changes the election then people got to go to jail. People have to go to jail.
Here's my idea for checking the voter results. You're ready for this? It goes like this. You have an app, just an app that anybody can download. Or if somebody gets a link by an email they can click the link and it takes them to the app so they could download it. And the app's only purpose was to ask you who you voted for and then have some way to compare that to how your vote was counted. I'm not sure if they could do that. But after you vote you can tell who it was. Or was the voter, here's a dumb question. Can the people counting the votes associate the vote with an actual specific individual? Did the voting process do that or does it remove the identity and just make it a voting thing? Can somebody answer that question for me? There's a little delay here.
So let me just finish the point. The point was that randomly people would get a notification on the app. They wouldn't be able to do it on their own but randomly they would get a notification. And the notification would say they are secret. So people are saying it's a secret ballot. So how about we change that? There's probably a way to associate the person and the vote in a way that still keeps it. Yeah I'll bet there's a way to randomize things or to hide identities so that you can figure out if the person who has the app says yes I voted this way that you can match it to the actual vote. So I think that would be a way to use an app with some changes to the voting system so you could guarantee that you've checked enough places to find any problems. So if you find several people in one city they say I voted this way but you can check and the vote went the other way, there you go.
Now one way you could adjust this is that there must be plenty of people who would not care if their voting record was public. So maybe some people could say and go into the voting booth and say hey I'm one of those people. I'm willing to be public. And if anybody wants to be private they can still be private but you know I'm willing to be public. And then maybe only those people use the app because those are the ones who have given away their identity and then you can check. I think that might work.
And here's another question that I asked. I'll probably ask this often but if our voting system was so good why do recounts even exist? The whole fact that every state has a recount system and that we do it often, is it only in case of mistakes really? Is that the only reason we have recounts? Because we might have made a mistake. To me it seems that the fact that recounts are universally accepted probably suggests that the system is at least susceptible to corruption.
Have you heard anything about Russia interfering with the midterms? Did I just realize that the biggest story in the world is the one that's not being told? Here's the dog that isn't barking. Wouldn't we know by now if Russia tried to influence the midterms? Shouldn't that be the top line story on every news site? It should be the top line story whether they did or they did not, right? Because it's still the biggest story as long as Mueller is still doing his thing. It should be still the biggest story. Russia did or did not or we don't know influence the election. Where's that story? There should be massive stories about how we cannot detect Russia doing anything with our election. How does that fit with Trump can't manage Russia? How does any of that fit with the story that Trump is a Russian puppet? How do we explain that apparently Putin allowed Democrats to win the House and didn't seem to do anything to stop it? Does that seem like Putin and Trump are working together?
There's a big problem in the narrative that Trump and Putin are working together. And there's a big problem in the narrative that Trump is not doing enough to prevent Russia from messing with our elections. Because it looks to me like Russia got out of Dodge or they're so clever that they got away with it this time. But I feel like we'd at least have some rumors that they were doing something. We don't even have rumors about Russia interfering with the midterms, do we? It might be because Democrats won. Do you think if Republicans had prevailed in the House that we would have no stories about Russians influencing the election? There's no way to know but you have to ask that question, don't you? You have to ask that question.
I was speaking of asking the question. So when I tweeted that somebody should ask Don Lemon whether his actions were influencing Antifa, his answer should be the same as Trump's which is from a legal perspective you don't blame people who are talking for people who are acting. So from a legal perspective of course Don Lemon has no responsibility for Antifa. But also of course President Trump has no legal responsibility for any of these mass shooters. But are both of them involved in raising the temperature by departing from let's say a strict factual description
Context —
of reality? And the answer is yes. So from a scientific perspective there's still a thing called cause and effect. And it certainly seems reasonable to assume that anybody who's raising the temperature is responsible for things that happen when you raise the temperature. And it's quite clear that both the president and CNN do that. They get people pretty worked up. No stories of voter suppression…
Next segment → →