But the narrative once she had a nudge you from no proof when in fact there has been no process to decide if proof exists or not we're we're too early for that that that's that turns into baseless, which of course makes you think that no proof could come, which is different to that. Of course they inject the word widespread that they all tried this track right, there's no widespread frog, it's not widespread and of course the claim was never widespread. The claim was always focused in these keys, is so, but now there's so much evidence from Rudy that, even if you imagine that each of the individual pieces of allegations, even if they do not add up to something, still looks

and widespread doesn't, even if you just say it's in those swing, states eddies. Rudy has so many examples in different ways: different techniques. then it's kind of widespread now you see that common, because I think of widespread in terms of geography but if you think of it in terms of these targeted cities, its widespread in terms thoroughly infiltrating those places, that's very widespread, and so. That's now changed too, and this is what our twitter put it in one of their headline bullets. Were To summarize the hashtag, they use this sentence.

Judges have found no evidence of fraud. Judges have found no evidence of fraud so now you're back to the trick of of thinking. While they must have looked at the evidence and then they found there was no fraud, but apparently that didn't happen there, but there was no process by which anybody looked at any evidence. So if you haven't done The process when it, let me give an example, I use my tending your house for termites example. Tending doesnt work because how still as termites and then they the Termite eradicated guy, says oh well. we haven't put the tent on your house yet You understand that there are Termites in your house, until you put the term I tend to on and the new fumigate,

and then, if we do it right. it's only afterwards that your house could have no termites understand that right, We are now with termites that in the future there's the tendering and then possibly, if you do it right, To a no termites situation, and then I say nice try, my house is voluntary. Ok. What are you not understanding about the fact that the process hasn't even begun and I say: look. My house is probably had termites for what six months at least maybe the year. Are you telling me that in six months to a year your company can't put up a tent and get rid of the termites in my house and the terms? goes. Guy goes, I don't know what's happening here. You only. we'll be yesterday. How could I have put up attend six months ago?

When I didn't even know you existed, you call be yesterday and I'll say: nice try but My house is fully termites, you grafter, what's happening, the tens Yes, tomorrow, It has already happened what I have like hulu- and I say here six months and you couldn't put up a tent miles pathetic right, so that's it. I would say the Rudy destroyed three narratives from the other team. Yes, now, when I say he destroyed their narratives, what I'm not saying is proved his case So can we be all smart enough to know that one I'm say here:

Freud, several narratives. That's not not anyway saying he proved this case. All he did was subtractive. You attacks against him, but that's all that's all, but he didn't really well. Ok, really! Well here the three things that do you might have believed a few weeks ago? But now, maybe you don't number one, the clause, that there were not enough fraud charges that they were fraud and even if it were proven, could change the outcome of the race that's now destroyed? Rudy has given us the numbers We don't know if the case will go his way, but the note. Others are absolutely unambiguously allegedly and that's all we're dealing with. Is the allegation

so. Can we stop saying forever that if Rudy prevails in his case, it would not change the election because clearly would he has now made the case. There's big enough doesn't mean he wins, but it's big enough so, can we get rid of that narrative forever, probably not, but we should number two lot of smart people told me that there is no real opportunity for anybody to cheat on a scale big enough. They could change the election. Well, if you listen to have three our hearing, you heard nothing but opportunity for achieving. Apparently it's not only passed how to cheat in an election, but the number of ways to do it are so many that you don't have enough time to hear. The mall now did Rudy make the case

that there were so many allegations that, at the very least, there was possible, meaning that even. If each of these individual allegations we found out, nobody used those loopholes, nobody used those opportunities He still prove the opportunities were there, for example, he might be able to prove that observers were kept out of the room with the ballots, probably very provable, with witnesses, etc. if he proves that people were kept in that room, it doesn't mean there was fraud inside the room. It just means he's proven that I think at some other point, but I really forgot it out. The point is that he would have proven their was opportunity to cheat behind the closed door, but he would not have proven that the cheating actually happened. Hypothetically

So the argument that it wasn't an opportunity, I think, he's laid there. There is nothing left that accident, and that is why I say this might be one of the best thing that ever happened to the country, because I think Rudy will, at the very least be the agent. The causes are election system to be improved and and hardened. If that's all that comes out of it would be great number three. The thought that if there was so much cheating, Scott Scott Scouts Gasket, if through was that much cheating, there would be witnesses. No because you would need probably multiple people to be in on it. You can have lots of witnesses so where all your witnesses, Scott. While I think that questions being asked and answered turns out.

There are hundreds of them and their only hundreds of them, because if you had another thousand of them, they would be saying the same observations in other words or multiple witnesses to each alleged fraud. Imperfection and so now you can never say that again, if you're being honest you can, ever say that if there was not much treating you'd have tons of witnesses because there are tons of witnesses. That's now a fact, I think a mean. He says he has this worn statements if he doesn't show them to us, be pre disappointed, but what we assume that that's probably not something lying about right that they exist. So that doesn't mean he's proven his case, but I dont want to hear anybody say. The allegations are not large enough to change the result

don't want anybody to say, there's no opportunity to cheat and our elections, there are tons, And I wanna hear anybody say that there are no witnesses and of course, if that was that much cheating there be witnesses. The tunnel. All right, you're so seeing them confused me about the Pennsylvania situation, I'll, get to read the exact statement and see if you can figure out what the hell this means all right on Wednesday, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania issued a temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking further action in certifying the twenty twenty, Pending a hearing on male imbalance schedule Friday, so That sentence I interpret as the caught the courts.

A temporary injunction prohibiting state officials from taking actions to certify the election. So I think this told me that is not the certified, because the court prevented them from taking further actions to certify okay, so the first part says: it's not certified yet and their pausing it and then the second part of the same paragraph says Pennsylvania. State officials filed an appeal before and said that the injunction not impact the servant. Certification process wasn't it already certified. so. I'm a little back up completely confused about the certifying situation. So utterly Pennsylvania's and play or not will say so Twitter suspended.

Pennsylvania, Senator and Colonel Doug must Bianco, because he was leading the Pennsylvania Senate hearings. I dont know what he tweeted, but he got suspended for twelve hours or something. back now, and I would just add this to their story. If twitter suspends you. they all your reason? Don't you think, Do you think they owe you a reason? Because you would like Oh it's a minute is not a law. There's no constitutional right. The twitter will tell you why their suspending him, but it seems good form. They should say. Oh you, U promoted violence or you said something there wasn't true too many times but on top of that, if an elected official gets suspended from twitter, twitter is obligation again, not legal, not constitutional obligation, but I think

an obligation of members of society. As a social obligation, a civilization obligation. If a senator is suspended for something he said on Twitter, Twitter needs to explain that us right, that's not just between Twitter and that one senator or other elected official. It's not just me, between them, like were, were part of this fight right like if uses somebody. I voted for your fucking with me. You owe me an explanation. I didn't see one so this would be my recommendation to Jack Anti Twitter is that you know. I don't think that there are no reasons to suspend people.

and I feel that if they're experimenting their way to to maybe a better situation. So as long as there, a b testing, I'm not going to be too hard on Twitter, their testing, stuff, they're, saying what the response. There's a lot worse. So someone so some of that's fine, but you need to explain to the public if you're banning up somebody, we voted for that. That's on us right, that's personal I'm not even there. Even a citizen of Pennsylvania right, I didn't vote from the senator, but still personal. Because this is a senator that one of one of my country's states elected- they elected him to speak for them, and Twitter decided that Why does twitter decide that legally elected senator, at least in this one limited way can't speak for us can speak for the people?

nothing that the daily wire and Hank Variant at a story about Currently, there is a study to find out how much violence borders know about the news. It went just about the way you think it would turn. Then a survey of seventy eight hundred and fifty by supporters and seven swing states. So there are looking to swing states that mattered. Found the news media is suppression of stories. That airports is opinion. I know you agree with the opinion, as do I, but that's opinion have former vice President Joe Eurobonds, electoral chances, so they go on to talk about the stories that Democrats didn't here, I'm not talking about. They disagree with the stories they didn't hear them complete blackened. also the less eighty two percent of violent voters were

are unaware of at least one of the following issues. A red sexual assault allegations. Thirty five percent were unaware so think about that thirty five percent of the people who voted for Abiden, probably thought they didn't want to support. The guy was an accused sexual in Leicester, so they voted for Biden instead that thirty five percent of them had never heard that he's an accused rapist. I feel sorry for the Democrats and eight point: nine percent said they would have voted for a trump if they had. None of these numbers are so big, completely change the election. Yes, the news had allowed in social media and allowed people to know about these stories. The Hunter Biden scandal, forty five percent of voters, Biden: voters!

were unaware. Forty five per cent of Biden voters had never heard the Hunter Biden scandal. That is so bad is just funny, I really feel sorry for these people and nine point. Four percent said they would have switched off. Twenty five percent didn't know Kamel errors is really really left. How do you not know that now, as some of it is just people, don't watch the new, but these are probably a lot of them. Are people did watch the news and still didn't know the news, see the avenue knew there was a huge.

Jump and economic growth, so ably people knew there were coming out of the pandemic, at least the economic or really strongly. Forty nine percent of Democrats did know about that. They didn't know they. Do you not know about the economy and we do not pay attention to that and five point. Six percent They would have changed their vote. Yes, maybe if they knew about that about the historic peace agreements with Israel and the arab neighbours. Now you can't miss that right is like this like what probably one of the biggest stories of the year that the Middle EAST is finding peace than that Trump is a big part of that with the Jericho. And how many people in the Democrats heavily? Do you think I haven't heard about that? Say zoo at last number.

It's a big number. then, for that are for three percent, almost forty four percent, I heard about any of the Middle EAST peace, the hills, forty four percent. Oh my God for Democrats. About a number of Democrats were aware, the president was behind operation warp speed, and that is a huge success. How many didn't know that who voted for by thirty six percent? Thirty six percent. Of course. Some of these people might not of necessarily voted for a trump, but they might have now voted. If you could have gotten six percent of them do not vote. There would have been a pretty big deal now. Here's here's the the

around this, because we are spending all our attention talking about fraud or no fraud. These the media and the news is getting a pass. There's nothing like the will of the people were democracy that happened, so this vote wasn't even close to a democratic process within within the context of a republic. What not even close the only thing that happened, and you can see it really clearly in this survey. What happened is the public was brainwashed? by social media and the news and that's at every other part of the story is way less important is. Is the fraud important was important for fixing the elections in the future, perhaps, but even the fraud is smaller than

the social media and and the fake news did for the past year Way way smaller. So because the free The is glowing. The fun glowing object is that they were watching and board sort talking about media by us. They got a total pass, the for all practical purposes. This was the year we formed a chinese form of gum The chinese form of government is you: ve got your supreme leader, your presidency but really has to be backed by the Communist Party top officials. If, President, she lost the support hypothetically of all, of the top officials in the Communist Party. He probably would lose power. So the president, even though, is sorted dictator lie, he is now really because a kind of ass tat of the lower level bring with it

Similar to IRAN, IRAN has a process where there's a supreme leader but he's Supreme leader, but he needs is a religious council to support. memory probably couldn't stand power. What we have just created accidentally is a process by which the the social media ceos given that they control Athens in their companies that they have become effectively like the Communist Party. Of China. Now this is an analogy. So don't get too hung up in They're not exact, there is a slight difference there, not exact I'm just making the point. The irish government is now clearly this survey shows that as clearly as possible that

The decision of who is president has been taken out of the hands of the public. That statement is very strong economies. again. These social media companies and the heads of the big networks have tat. out of the hands of the public. The decision of other government will be. That happened. There's no story this bigger than that. Do you know why? That's not a story because we're a communist country network and the Communist Party, taking the analogy too far, but the the heads of the social media platforms and the heads of the news networks they get to decide. Who is president? If you don't think, that's Well, I got a survey, the show you because it was just Joan pretty conclusively If the newest can simply disappear stories- and you can see that very clearly, they did they get to decide who is present.

Now you at all, you're, not even a little bit of involved in taking the president, not even you You are simply being assigned an opinion and then like a good little hypnotize zombie you go. I have my opinion, I'm using my good judgment. My free will We'll go about now, according to my smart thinking and free will, and none of this happened. The public is assigned their opinions and then that's it. That's the problem You wait for the oligarchs to tell you what your opinion will be. They assign it, it doesn't affect everybody grant Maybe you you're invulnerable neither brainwashing doesnt work on you, but love enough on enough people that your vote is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it works you so

people still believe that they look at the information and form relevant opinions. That is one of the big reality. Bending things that you're gonna learn that you don't look at data and form opinions it doesn't happen. It is purely an illusion. You look at the data that the oligarchs show you and you don't see anything else, and then you formed the opinion that they wanted you to form which they created. By deciding what information you see. You are not part of the decision making process even for your own brain that has now gone again. There are exceptions right they don't they don't necessarily brainwash every person in the same way and justice of actively, but that's what's happening. Thus, the world you live in There's another study the showed that the tone of the code

related news articles in the United States. Ninety one percent of them were negative. now you said yourself that makes sense. It's a pandemic. Ninety one percent of the coverage, if not a hundred percent, be Leaving a little negative, we're sort of in the middle of a pandemic accept that look at how much. outside the United States, treats it fifty four percent given a negative coverage. So I suppose you could argue that maybe we got hit worse in the United States baby, that's part of it, but feels as though that was a trump related problem. A little bit right that are oligarchy, decided that covert was gonna, be the story, and it was bad for Trump and very habit.

All right, yeah, but part of the part of that study said that it didn't matter if things were trending, worse or better with a pandemic, it didn't affect the coverage being ninety one percent negative, so the The allegation and the study was that the news creates a narrative that is in invulnerable to any change and facts. Chad says you're wrong: Scotty I'm gonna take that is as parity.

all right: how did you enjoy? Today's special Thanksgiving episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, I feel like I was angrier than I wanted to be. Have I ever spoken with Martin Gettys? I have not not even not even sure who that is not release your mind and you release the Kraken. Somebody says

Thanks for doing you thanks giving episode. You know somebody asked me if I was going to do this on Thanksgiving, to which I say two things number one. If you sleep in on weekends and holidays, you're, probably not new and yourself a favor, it's a good habit to get into that. You keep your sleep schedule similar, no matter what's going on, because sleep spreading born, even though he sleep and try to get off as little as possible, I do try to keep the same real, approximately schedule, so I'm always going to get up early, no matter what I enjoyed and then the second thing is why I come here I enjoyed, I enjoy it so on a holiday. I want to do things I enjoy. Somebody asked me about the great reset which I still call bullshit. I believe

The great reset is all about people confusing the words it feels like word thinking, because there's this idea that there is the other. The global elites want to cause this great reset to consolidate power, and it's all part of a grand game, which I dont believe any of and then there is Justin Trudeau who used the phrase. You know we have a reset because of the pandemic, a completely different use of the word in a whole different context, but because people are people they said, hey, you use that word reset in a completely different context. There this completely other different story that uses the word reset must be true. Now the only thing. That's a carbon is that word. Is it true that there will be a recent? Of course the pandemic makes us wreath

Everything I have to change our doing, of course, as a recent. How can it be anything else, of course, but it's not that now, weird conspiracy thing worthy elites are having a meeting in Davos or whatever the hell. George Soros is behind this. None that release is no evidence of it that I have seen, but let me be clear and not and not say what my critic say.

I'll just say that I am not personally aware of any evidence that would make me think of the great reset is anything but ridiculous Q talk doesn't mean it's not true. Just means not personally aware of any evidence, and my aware of vocs day, I'm aware there is somebody with a name spent. What a more yes just intruders said great reset, but words can be used in different contexts, and that was a different context. That's all was if you think that you discovered a secret world plot, because just in Trudeau said it directly on television, you really need to check your thinking, because if it was really this great clever secret,

I'm pretty sure just in Trudeau, would not have revealed it in his speech. How do we get rid of propaganda and back to truth, I would argue that we have never been of truth. We just didn't know it. So when I talked about trumpet changing the nature of reality, what people thought they are saying is that he changed the reality now, aided change them reality, but on top of that, he also change how we see the reality that was already there before tromp. You probably thought your elections were pretty secure you're, probably thought your social media was little biased, but how big it deals that maybe you thought that your news was real. Trumpet taught you

that you are observation of reality is deeply subjective and you're, probably getting brainwashed. That wasn't knew it was only new to you. It wasn't something that I didn't know and in twenty fifteen, when I said that they was two thousand and fifteen when I said that Trump would change your understanding of reality. It was this. This is the part I was telling you was coming. I can see it as clearly as I can see. You know my hand in front of my face. You could tell that he was going to mess up what you thought of your own ability to understand you real

In a way that could never be put back on the bottle and the biggest way did it was by departing from the fact checking all the time, because he realized that the facts are not persuasive and we don't live in a world where facts matter, at least matter for persuasion they matter for reality, but not persuasion. I think the president, when, when people are trying to understand, why does he keeps saying things that aren't true when he must have figured out by now? They're, not true these somebody of told them is not true, and I would. I haven T the big reality, mind effort that some of you are already at and some of you we're almost there is this he might now than it doesn't matter.

And it really was right, he became president without paying any attention to the specificity of the fact check. None,

he put he treated like it literally didn't matter at all and what happened he was right. He was one hundred percent right. None of the fact checking mattered. Not what did matter is how the network's covered it and social media handled it, etc. But it didn't matter if it was true and it didn't matter if it wasn't true so long as it was a well intended to move the country and a good direction. That's what matter! Ok, that's all! For now. I will talk to you tomorrow have a great thanksgiving, and you you tubers still here, for you for a minute to assign oftener second right,

can present tromp prove election fraud, do George Washington and then go back. That's my prediction. That's my prediction. My prediction is that you will do a George Washington, meaning that you will say yeah I won, but I am also going to peacefully transfer. Whether he runs again. Twenty twenty four, I think that's a wait and see. You know it does make sense that maybe he would say he's going to maybe things like you, but I think age is just too big of a variable and give it and give it a couple years before you take it seriously. I am grateful for you as well, so so thank you, but I am grateful to all of you. I mean that

quite sincerely. This is this is usually the one of the highlights of my day, except for the time I spend with Christine, and I want you to have a great thanksgiving taker.