But the book from something larger, hey everybody come out in command habits, die it's time for a coffee was governs best part of the day. I gotta tell you that the Sunday after Thanksgiving is just about the sleepiness day of the year, but we're gonna dig deep and find some funny or today and all the boring this, but First, in order to enjoy it to its full full full extent, all you need is a Margaret less adapting trousers. I like anti drug flask vessel about guided solely with your favorite. Look I like coffee and join me now.

For the unparalleled pleasure, the dove really another day, the thing that makes everything better, including recounts, scalded, simultaneous happen. That was now go. So good, so there's a really interesting chess game Going on in the Middle EAST,. and I hate to be fascinated by war and death, but it's hard not to be. You know if you're, a human. who's got is two thoughts going on all that's horrible. I hope there is less of that. I don't want a death and destruction over there, on the other hand, is really interesting, which is not really a not really fun. Somebody said it's these scab saw

history, our ever anybody you who accuse you of sophistry? That's that's one of the dumbest. The one is one of the dumbest criticisms utterly to say more. That the system, usually where they accuse you of sophistry, is scarcely they don't agree with. You doesn't mean I'm wrong. I will talk about the Middle EAST as you know that say assassination of aid. The top. iranian nuclear scientist guy Everybody assumes its Israel, but the time the interesting part, because if Biden goes ahead and takes office as many people- will happen. This, really throws a little a wrinkle into a doesn't. It. Because what is really going to do. Here's the clever apart.

does a ran just ignore it. Of that. Do there will be more of it to be more a more targeted assassinations. I assume more things a blow up. that sort of thing, but what if they want to? retaliate. They retaliate these. retaliate weekly, united and weak way. That makes no difference. So what's the point or they tell you, there Retaliate, strong, What would happen if they did is strong retaliation when by them is trying to figure out maybe get back into the Ariane Peace deal. It would really hard for Biden to make any kind of overture for peace or an agreement with ran. So I think

If, if we assume, as everybody assumes that Israel was behind it, let's call that a safe assumption, baseless, always based on I have not seen any not one piece of evidence certain, nothing's when been proven in court, so I think we could I agree that the allegations that Israel is behind the assassination baseless by definition, because there's no evidence. don't. You know that if something is baseless,. I guess you have to treat it like. It didn't happen, causes basis. now. I have argued, of course, that there are some situations. Which are so obvious that you don't really need too much proof dear. How much proof do you need, but Israel. Israel was behind that assassination.

you be willing to make decisions and act upon your belief that Israel was behind it. while knowing its basis, I thought we didn't do that. Can you act upon something with? No evidence just because you know that the way the situation is constructed. the real you sort of only one person who could about behind it. If you know what I mean it wasn't Estonia, Estonia it's a free pass and Oliver stuffed okay. So we'll watch that, but it looks to me that Israel has The right chess move, because if here. Second in command of the nuclear,

a programme, and around here not so effective. Today I don't think you're doing much communicating with your staff if you're the number two nuclear, so, at the very least, is gonna. Make things less efficient over there was talk MEL, something else. So I tweeted today my minimum requirement for unity with Democrats. No. Democrats are calling for unity, some of them anyway, and I, like the I, like the concept of unity and I Any time they national leader calls for unity, we should take that very seriously and I think that the United They should have as its very strong goal to be unified course. You need a system to get there,

but here is what I would recommend in order to get good with somebody. It helps if you tell them what But take because you don't want somebody who is trying to find some unity with you just guessing what you need right, just as in very efficient for the other person to say? Ok, I want some unity with you like to get along, I'm gonna, guess what it would take to do that White make Guess why not just say, look I'll, be ok with you under the following conditions. Yellow still hate, your policies will still argue about politics, but I'll, be ok with you, as this. Listen there's a person I'll be ok. you under the following conditions. I hear my conditions now: it's not only things that are ever bother me.

I'm just saying, as the only things I need sort of the minimum to think about unity,. Am I a minimum requirement? Is that the Democrats apologise for that and people over the drinking bleach hoax and there. Russian collusion oaks, which they like to confuse with russian interference, which actually did out and Of course, I'm using a little persuasion track de recognises what person Vision trick and by using maybe more than one was listen, how good you are spotting. Now I've been training. You four for a few years Read it again, and then you tell me what persuasion trick laundry list is one of them, but there is another one I'm going for a ride, catch. My men will require for unity. We Democrats is an apology for the fine. People are extremely chokes and Russia collusion Oaks.

Somebody says high ground, no, it's I see why you're saying hi grandpa, that's not what I was going for its thinking past the sale that is correct, for I got most of the time saying in the comments most of you were actually get in the rye. Would you have gotten that answer before I started talking about this thinking past the sale thing? Would you have all spot of that cuz I like to think that I set your filter so that you can see. Right now, so it is a pursuing didn't trick to make them think about the apology for the hoaxes. It makes some think what's the question of hey, were these things real or were these things hoaxes? Now they were hoaxes, I'm not trying to fool people into thinking, something untrue, I'm trying to persuade them into thinking, something that's true.

The real the elegance closer to reality than whatever there were imagining so I would say that this is ethical persuasion. Manipulation is a word that I would use for on ethical persuasion where you're persuading something that is good for Europe. waiting other people to do something that is good for you, maybe not so good for them less manipulation, but Regular persuasion, where you're getting people to do things that are good for them and good for you, I would say: that's just leadership. and, of course this triggered a bunch of people to say what do you mean fine people hoax? sought myself on tv. He said it, I heard it with my own ears and I'm taking a new technique with those people. My all tat

was let me show you my evidence, here's the transcript here's, my argument for why it's a hoax as witnessed I've been doing that for years with almost no success almost no success, and simply sending an argument with facts and really clear facts ones which they can check. Oh here's. The transfer now I see that I always saw the first part of the transcript now they use the second part I can see it's a hoax, but when I only saw the first part I was convinced. I saw everything I needed to see and then I was fooled, so that never work. You That would be the most. Obviously they would work right. I believe- Something incorrect well, let me give you incontrovertible proof that you can check yourself and in five seconds you google, it yourself just

We resolve in five seconds. I can show you a fact that disproves your original thought didn't work, not ever So here is the new technique, ones but it makes that claim. Oh, he did say it. I saw it with my own eyes. I retweeted I tell the world there are still people who think this happened. There are still people believe this employed as a trigger the course. I go crazy cause you're, calling them out to embarrass them for a fake memory, they stole figures, true and so they're going to start and defend their false memory, which they can't it's not it's not possible because it didn't happen in here's. What here's the trick. So the new track compared to the old track the old technique was, I would show them the transcript and make my argument and never work. The new one is this:

I say if you believe it happened. I I want you to go, find the transcript and paste it in the comments and of course they think what kind of trick is this? Are you telling me that if I go get the transcript myself, I'm going to debunk myself, Of course, they don't believe that, and the first thing that they'll do predictably is go, get these fake transcript, which is the first half where they leave out trumps clarification that was unproven, That modifies what he said so you're not confused. If you only see the top ass, you are confused. That's why he clarified it so. That's the first thing to do, as I heard, as is here's the transcript I win, I said he said it in public. There's the transcript of one my case, and then you say no, it isn't. That's not the transcript. Now go

find the whole transcript now. The reason that I do this is because it is impossible to talk somebody into leaving something? They thought they saw their own eyes, but it might be possible to get them to talk themselves out of it you have to make them work, because if you do the work and say here's the transcript just read that just never works because they're just automatically in defensive mode, but if you make them do the work on their own You go find me the transcript note that wasn't it nope nope. You did not find the transcript, yet you found the fake one now go back and find the rest of it, because even you can see that wasn't the last thing he said and you can tell from the. The export- that's not done so we'll see if that works all report and later, but it looks like it was, make an effect.

I like to read to you two versions of the news. One version was in the two movies on one screen: the news about the Pennsylvania legal Challenges- and it goes like this first I'll- give you the news from the USA the right, the news is, there are lots of irregularities and constant. National violations of the Pennsylvania election and is working itself the legal system, and we have some indication from the Supreme Court that there are likely to agree and throw out a bunch of votes, so Pennsylvania's

good? Not only that, but a couple dozen state legislators have said that they don't trust the certification of the election, pretty good source right for it to get somebody reminded me to put my ring Becker. Thank you. Here's the second version of the news. Pennsylvania they keep trying, we lost slower than they keep getting kicked out? Why? Because there's no evidence, there's no proof. There's no proof. There's no evidence. Pennsylvania lawsuits, no chance it's over, is dead and done. its buried and it's a hundred feet on the ground is covered with dirt. Its covered with grab discovered. Nuclear waste. Let's far and a whole? They live the challenges are. There no hope I hope in the world cannot be done the constitution and, in fact,

Physics itself makes it impossible. You can't change tie reality is set, nothing can happen. The election is over and then the other news looks like it It goes to the Supreme Court. Things are gonna, go pretty well for a job. both of those news service. Hasn't it That's. Why is Dale wearing your wedding ring? What do you like? The wealth of a whole? and so I'm trying to figure out what is real. What is real, let's take the lead state, the fact that I think what is six state legislators rum is the report's Republicans. From Pennsylvania now have no,

confidence in the vote? So Twenty two: twenty six: a lot: if twenty six g opium legislators either not confident that a lot because is the first time I saw the news it was out of context, as in is twenty six a lot. I'm just if you want to know how completely incompetent the news business. I imagine that you, as a consumer, heard this news. Twenty six Republicans are clear the credibility of the election. What does that tell you nothing? Guess you don't know how many legislators or idea how many of you knew how many legislators are either how many Abbe as legislators are there in Pennsylvania, Bees Bay Though I have an idea now

how many of the the answers there are. Two hundred and three seats so though Twenty six, two hundred and three days. I think somebody did the math for me here in the comments and set eleven percent. Are you done it's only eleven percent you? Can ignore eleven percent Kenya? Or can you eleven percent love or as eleven percent another, because it's not a vote right. If it were a vote, eleven percent would be. If it were a number of people, We're gonna die from corroded virus percent would be sky high you'd be like that before the end of civilization. I think not quite but it's alive. preside, always not really. Eleven percent less modify this old it because

There are only two hundred and thirteen Republicans: do you expect that they would any Democrats, no matter the information, no matter the data, no matter the evidence. Do you believe that any Democrats Would say the election was not credible once leave, one Is it reasonable to think that any of the Democrats could PA. Probably be honest, even if they believe the election was now. So I think. you're gonna, be reasonable and say: ok, how much of a big deal is this twenty six legit It is an honour to under three you have to subtract the Democrats. because the only group that matters are the group that could change their mind if you ve got to go

that you know with a high degree of certainty. It doesn't matter what the facts are there not gonna use the facts to make any kind of decisions here. They're gonna use politics. They want now we're reverse the situation, let's say Republic, Said one and the Democrats were thinking of challenging the credibility of the election. Would you expect, Even one republican If we had one to question the crow, Billy of election that they want now, quite obviously that would be a zero. Is anybody doubted it do? I need to prove do I need to give you proof that is the Republicans had won the election

It wouldn't be questioning the credit only because I've been told that nothing can be true or known until you have proof. I don't have any proof. How can I approve the Republicans? Would act like Human beings act every single time, human beings are of a certain kind of situation. Now forget Republicans. That's the Democrats that are the human beings in the specific situation who have won and defeated Orange Hitler is not just women it's not like living a sophomore game, they defeated Orange Heller Is there any reasonable chance that that group, the winners are gonna, say maybe breathing Maybe maybe we should open up the possibility that Orange Hitler would become our leader again now,

No, you don't need any evidence. You don't really prove. Those Democrats are simply not relevant to the question of whether the election. Credible. They don't have any value to the decision. So take him out so now, twenty six out of one hundred and thirteen Republicans who what's twenty six than of honour and thirteen Alexa twenty six divided by one, thirteen twenty three percent, twenty three percent of the legislators, who could change their mind? Another word. There are the only ones who have even a possibility of

I think the selections now so good twenty three percent twenty three percent is enough is what its way enough. It is common, we enough, because if the game here is to get the house and even after fact, check me on some of the constitutional ins and outs here, but I think that if the house looks at these legislators and sees that nearly a quarter of them think the election was thrown, that would give them enough cover to say there's too much doubt Right how much a reasonable doubt does the house need to say now. I think we're just gonna make our own decision and ignore the election. What is the quantity,

tea or percentage or, however, you wanna measure it of how much doubt if this were a legal case. How much doubt would you need to get somebody off who had been accused? It wouldn t much. Maybe ten percent doubt fight, percent doubt how much doubt would it take to find somebody innocent, even if there was a lot of evidence, but there is still a ten percent doubt you would let them go when you now what if it was a twenty percent doubt, then I think you would definitely let them go. Could you imagine convicting somebody? If you felt in her own mind, there was a twenty percent doubt you, wouldn't you wouldn't even come close to convict them. You wouldn't even consider it gives you a reasonable person right. So I think the Pennsylvania list least in terms of the Republican.

Goals here. I think they accomplished what they want to do, and it's probably still not done, because I think it goes to the Supreme Court. Now is one of the challenges a rule change now, one of the rule change. One of the reasons that I guess was, the Pennsylvania court. The high court said that the legal challenge in which they challenge Day, twenty nineteen rule, change about mail and ballots. So the challenge was to get rid of those votes that had been the subject of that rule. Change goes, the change came from the court and not the legislature. I think that's the nature of it and therefore the change was on constitute. so I got challenge, and this is why the court rejected that challenge because of the doctrine of love latch

or a lush is l a c h. Yes, have you ever heard that word before? If you're, not if you're not a lawyer, you ever even heard that word. Have you ever heard of the doctrine of Latches lush aser. Somebody says laches, I don't know how to pronounce it. Oh thank you in the comments there saying it's latches, so the doctrine of latches doesn't have a tea in it, but lay siege and here's what that means. I look it up. And what it means in. Just ordinary talk, not legal talk. is that you waited too long, and if you will too long to accuse somebody of something theirs implied a disadvantage for the accused. and I think, there's also to just a fairness and appropriateness.

Sort of subjective right so that the thought is that you ve waited too long to make your claim and therefore we can ignore the club, so the claim was ignored because they said you didn't miss a deadline. This is important, for there was no deadline to make the claim per se in terms of a statute or anything like that. It was just felt by the court that is seemed too long. Now, member, I told the court, will rule on your feelings, sometimes more than they will rule on the letter of the law. So I think this is one of those clear cases where they said it would seem enact the bowl and unfair, and it would disenfranchise voters if we do this

Other than that I looked at the claim that it was on constitution. How do you ever you describe what I just described, those same they put feelings of the law. I believe that this is a common thing, not an uncommon thing, rather that the court does sometimes say what's best for them. World in our opinions were the judges, so we get to be a little subjective, What's best for the world. and sometimes judges link what's best for the world, is to ignore the law having door the constitution? I would, view that abortion rights are an example of that. Would argue that the Supreme Court kind made up our right and our people and the right to believe this year, the privacy or whatever it is sort of

Crafted law and of nothing and said I sort of their if you look hard enough I think that was just an example of the Supreme Court saying that in there and their opinion at the time the The world was better Nor is the law or just making Love their own, if you will Now they have in common. There you go, I would say that the odds of something like that and getting overturned by the Supreme Court. I'm no. Supreme Court expert but This whole doctrine of latches just looks like bullshit me looks like bullshit me, but we'll see. I said yesterday that I'm gonna start giving our compliments.

To various entities, especially especially entities and people that I have criticised in the past, It's just a holiday thing: I'm gonna compliment people and things and entities that I had been tough on in the past. Here's an exam, Have you seen any photos of the New Ford Bronco? I was pretty brutal. Doubt Ford when I was trying to buy a Ford truck and it's just the hard process. But, oh my god, the New Ford Bronco is redesign I think it's beautiful now I don't know you know what reviews is gonna get. I don't know how it is. You know autumn.

Bravely and all that, but I am so glad to live in a country with a company like Ford American company that can build such a beautiful product. I think the same thing about apple all the time I criticise apple about various things, but man, you can't you gotta, give it up for their design. Their design is beautiful. This for Bronco, I want that thing with a in rational lost the moment I saw the picture I just I just frickin had to have this thing, so you know But a new vehicle, not that long ago, so I won't. don't go look at a hard for my next vehicle for sure? That's my compliments. To the day to Ford due to do so, I did a little on scientific terms Paul, and I said this: a court.

until the news and social media you consume, and this is important according to so this is not you making up opinions had enough but according to the news and social media that you personally consume, which of these claims has more evidence and the claims were that there was election fraud. Is a more evidence for that or climate emergency. I used emergency just be more clear. that I'm not talking about climate change, but rather that it's an emergency. which has more evidence. And my scientific unscientific ball. Eighty seven percent of you said that election fraud has more evidence. Then climate emerges now. If I, if I made this same two interpol and ran it on illicit Llanos at her twin.

It really sure the numbers would be either completely reversed or or a hundred percent would say the opposite. So here's my point: what does it mean when people say follow the facts and follow the evidence and follow the proof, I believe the experts and listen to the science. What is any of that mean when we can't do those things. So you're some advice for you warrior. This is good advice. By the way, I think you would agree. This is good advice. If you find yourself in the middle of the road and the Anders. boss coming right at you, and you realize that you don't have enough time to get out of the way transport. Just

Just use your transporter like STAR Trek and go disappear and that just reappear and transport to a different place. That is my advice, is right. wrong. With my advice, do you find the flaw, in my advice, that if you don't have enough time to get way from the boss in the normal way of like walking or jumping they. The Future STAR trek transporter. Why not? Oh, oh, I forgot tat supporters don't exist. Is that the only reason you can't use my advice because it's not a thing. It doesn't exist. But it would be great advice, otherwise, wouldn't I mean if it isn't existed, pretty good advice. So here are some more advice. That's exactly like that. Trans border example. follow the science? Do we have

how much proof do you need the people can't do that. You can't do that Cause you don't know what science is real about. Follow the facts. You can't do that. Does it on our facts? Are real? Look the fine people oaks, the people, the fine people hopes here's here's the years they had scratched and others might come as a shock they're not in dumber than you were. Not there not dumber than you. They just believe something sincerely. That is not the case. So if they follow the facts, Gonna work out because they're fact is wrong, but they're not dumb

they don't have a lower? I q than you do on average, not not at all. People cannot follow the evidence. They don't have that power. It just doesn't exist right. All we have is confirmation, buyers and We know a team were on so we know what the team argument is. We have a pin, like it assigned to us by the media, but there's nothing like people looking at data and evidence play the reason and coming to good decisions you do, live in that world not any more than you live in the world where you can use your transporter? Take it out of the way the bus so the advice to follow the science as Joe Biden, Condescendingly says because he's a fucking idiot because it just as nothing it just isn't a thing. He can't do it or not. Do it. It's just not a thing.

Here's a cost, I wish you should keep in mind. We talk about the fog of war, with any big story that just blows up and the in the initial days, everything you know the story ends up being wrong right. The call that the fog of war What is new and there's too many things happening. All the information is wrong. You don't know anything until a few days have gone by I would say that the election and allegations of election fraud were very much that fog of war situation very much a fog or meaning that whatever allegations of fraud, came out of the first week or so after the election. If you would get them on average. What you should expect is that they would be weak or false,

compared to the allegations which were developed over more time. So if you know what the bag of allegations after let's say the fourth week of research versus the ban, give allegations on the first week. There should be a big difference and the Democrats have lulled themselves into a sense. That, the highly inaccurate fog of war accusations that came out of the first week tell you the quality to expect after the fourth week, when we ve had time to look into it, and I don't think those are gonna be even now? If there's nothing there, then it will be built the beginning and bs at the end. But if there is something there, the normal way, you should expect things to go at the. This all things you heard were more bs than real, but by the end

would be more real than bs, but it will take you awhile to get there, so everybody was looking at the poor cases that have got filed a few weeks ago and it's just taking a while to work through the system and go to the records, etc they largely are meaningless. Are there really nothing but stalling tactics? I think I think that was actually the legal strategy was just to stall. Keep the topic opened to Lincoln, find better evidence. I have said this before, but boy do we need a dictator retirement system. have you ever noticed that whenever you wanna dictator to leave power, what are they gonna do if you're addict Can you give up power the end up like adopting the end up like Mussolini,. giving up power looks like kind of a bad deal,

if the only way you can end up bad situation is to get a dictator out of that job. Why would they ever leave you? You need some kind of an exit path where a dictator who is a pretty good situation, Victor guests, to retire with some kind of confidence that they will be killed and they can still have a good life in their family, won't be rounded up, etc, and although I do not consider president trumpet dictator look at situation, there has been created not by him. Here's the situation. There is this sketchy election was at his fault. Is it presents trumps fault that the election has low credible, do not really know there was a pandemic.

we, we did the best recurred, but there are too many opportunities for training. So we have this election. That is at least doubt in by the majority of the country at this point, so you didn't cause that in fact he argued very strongly against male imbalance, which may have felt that maybe it'll be complaining about the voting machines They have created a situation. Why, where they're saying that once he's gonna power, they're gonna go after him and try to put him in jail and the only thing that's keeping you men in jail, say half the country is that he's still in office, and the moment he leaves office. He is gonna, go to jail. Now, we have to be an expert on human motivation to know what that will cause. I can't put myself in the president's mind.

But if you put me in that situation, am I you can see the election. Would you can see it in an election year? people who are asking you to concede are saying, would you please can see this election and we can just put you in jail? Why would you do that so The Democrats have created a situation where he has to hold on. He has to fight and if there is a grey area, he asked a push it if there's a boundary. Yes to test it Dorothy S to see if its unlocked, if there's one breath left in his body, He absolutely has to fuckin pursue it because they made their situation. He didn't create that situation. This situation was created,

Democrats and no matter what he wanted about being president or not being president, no matter how bad he felt about losing, etc. If he lost. He doesn't have a choice. Now you kind a kind of forced his hand if you want him to concede, you're gonna have to give them an exit, wrap. It doesn't have one. Let me suggest one just for fun in conversation. This is never going to happen, but it's possible it's just Deeply unlikely there are two pardons which I think would help the country move forward, and I think you would agree you won't like one of these. Gardens and people on the other side of the political divide, they're not gonna likely other one.

so it's gonna be like a hostage exchange. One pardon for one pardon just move the country had and they would go like this. A blanket pardon for a hunter by. Blanket pardon meaning not specific to a crime, and I believe Richard Nixon got one of those is just time limited. Other word you say we pardon everything you ve done up to today's date. Likewise, you do the same thing with President Trump. Now you might need to put pence in office from one day to do the pardon to make it legally whatever, but you could do it and you trade, you, trade, A hunter biden- pardon generic one for everything up to that date for a president, Trump pardon for everything that happened up to the date of his last in office. Would you again Because the hundred Biden stuff, I think, is real

It's also a risk to the United States, because what's in a name and compromised blackmail able situation when you say which makes bite in the senior and sort of a blackmail in situ. And so I feel that you even Republicans way better off. If hundred Biden gets a pardon light, just a generic get outta jail for Card because I dont want China to come in, later and say we go or somethin argue Hunter button. or I dont want what Joe Biden to be thinking well, China hasn't directly threaten to blackmail me, but they do have the goods they do. Have the goods or they. the goods, so I'm just going to be a sort of biased in their favour, not because they threaten me not because of a specific problem, but because of

hunter, just the whole situation. I just don't want China to use that in some way. Of course, it would affect them. Fathers are affected by the other needs of their children. So I would say we should get past if It turns out that the their Biden takes office still uncertain, but if happened, I think we should do a trade pardon for apart. Somebody pointed out on twitter, and I should I when I do this. So I, more jobs than the whole world for doing this. Ever now and then also with a comment on twitter and I'll. Remember it, but I won't right down who wrote who said it so I can give them credit. But the idea so good or funny that I still want to say it, but so is not mine. I'm just saying I don't know knows that a first.

Somebody said it must be. A simulation were living in Kosovo. What are the odds that the that this election fraud thing would come down to Republicans finding? a bald headed genius, whose last name is Brainerd. Thou uttered use soon. A picture of a map Brainerd. Apparently is some genius data analysed the Trump side of things And he's been looking at all the fraud allegations from the data analysis domain. and here is one of the people in this conversation that people actually trust, because he had no serious talent and experienced in this domain data. Us, so here's data analysis is picking up some interesting things such as he said. but I can show you. The names of people voted in multiple states in the

Our data states make available. So another she's, just using the dates is using the state's own data is not making of data is used in the state's own data and he says you can show that the same people voted in multiple states. Now Here, the squares, the question the firstly, you ask: is Scott. Don't you know that there are probably a lot of people named Scott Adams who voted in All fifty states, because there our people named Scott Albums, who did vote, probably in all fifteen states I don't know about Rhode, Island or Alaska, but probably about their earth, Free Scott items is in my town. So if you look that near for duplicate names on voter roles, The states, of course, you're going to find a lot of em, but.

I did a follow up, and I said if I tweet this, I ask somebody who knew the answer to this question. I tweeted am I going to be embarrassed later? There's somebody's going to just Scott. You know there are a lot of people with the same name and of course, let me go back to my. Sure point did I mention that my Brainerd is a genius last name is Brainerd. If your last name is named after a brain, you're, pretty smart, it has to happen that way, because the simulation so Matt Brainerd does know that people in different states can have the same then believe it or not. Geniuses geniuses know that nobody had to tell him so he did check, for that of course, so whatever they did to double check for that he is smart, enough to know the people of the same name live in other states. So dont worry that that's all that's happening, there's more

Now is that enough: did he find now for those votes that will change the election. Will here's the really clever part of this alleged election fraud, If the election fraud happened, it happened. multiple ways and in the areas where it happened, so, in other words, there hopefully worse, some dead people voted there. Probably worrisome batches of ballots. They got you grabbed from the people who were supposed to get them There are probably were some people voting in two states. There are probably worrisome ballot corrections probably worrisome, fake, valets fed in somewhere. There probably worrisome young summer mischief were the software, probably.

And the problem here is that, if you're on the other team and you're trying to say, hey, the selection is fraudulent. What, if you find. three of the seven ways that the election was stolen. Or let's say you can prove three of them. feel pretty confident the others are real, but you can prove thrill of seven. What will the court say. You ve got seven claims three of them. pretty darn, solid. For them may be true, but approve it, the court well say those three: if you add them together, do not change the result of the election cause. You needed all seven And the court will say it's not enough or point your brain up is to change the result,

you're bringing us something the court that either if we ruled I wouldn t Here's the outcome of the election were the ruling, we're gonna say: go home. That's the wasted time. so. The genius of this alleged election fraud. Is that it was a packet ized. I use a year elegy from telecommunications, where your data, But a little packets, so there Something happened to one of the packets. You have a look everything and you can also correct, you can correct and we send it. But what they ve done is leave a diversified, their fraud. So Is it any of the individual frauds get found? It won't matter? Cuz, they're too small. You needed all seven, or maybe you needed five and a seven or you needed the right ones on

seven year, the big ones, finding three and seven, which is I Think what we're heading toward in conceptual terms, not real numbers by worth having toward finding some but not all wisdom least in terms of proving it of the hopes of the of the fraud, and I won't be enough, so it would be enough to put Biden in office that. To talk about today you now. I think that there is a good chance that Pennsylvania will go the way, the dam the Republicans want. There is a good chance that the Supreme Court, because I think they ve already signalled. That does not go with this doctrine of latches business. I feel as though that was just too obviously political bs that I dont know that the supreme

gonna buy into that, but I'm no legal scholars. So I could be surprised now suppose help me with this right because it gets complicated. Obviously,. If Pennsylvania got reversed and neither was taken out of the mix, no less say again reversed the same the reversed, and I don't think, there's likely gets reverse and Trump becomes a winner. What is the next state that he would need to win to flip the entire result? What it? What is the next state, as the best argument is in Georgia. Wisconsin, I think Michigan got a lot of issues, but I don't know if that's the most reversal, one where's your head at what you planned post election, we'll talk,

That is a lot of people say Georgia. Somebody says Arizona yeah. I guess I don't know enough to dig into those too much California, gonna be California, I so we we have opinions all over the place here. We do not know at sea. Got some news coming in. So let me look is in questions here before I go. Somebody says if he gets Pennsylvania, he needs to more of the disputed states. That's what I was looking for, so that that's a fact right. You would need to more, not one more so people are saying Georgian Wisconsin, maybe we'll see.

Somebody says seem: is you're so cleverly trying to. Often you up for a binding presidency. I think that I'm getting on the roof at you to get you mentally prepared for a Biden presidency. I think that's the effect of it. That is, I think, that's you know the results of what I'm doing. It's not my intention exactly because I'm not afraid of a I'm, not afraid of Republicans staging a violent rebellion, So I didn't feel I needed to do that. I do think it would be accurate to say that that that's what I am doing, but that's not the point of the point of his just to talk about it as objective as possible, and that's just what comes out most of you think that I'm a cleverly

cleverly persuading you to accept a binding presidency. Well, let me tell you this: if there are, there are two different paths One of the past is that the Republicans hold the Senate. They went in Georgia, They wouldn't ballsy its. They hold the Senate. Now you ve got a deadlock government, I would say: wouldn't you agree that if these is held a binding,

see is not merely as dangerous as if it went the other way. I think we would all agree with that, but imagine if you will the both democratic senators win in Georgia, which would give the Senate and the whole government to the Democrats and here's. The second part Republicans think that the election was stolen. Again, if that happens, all bets are off. Ok, I cannot predict what would happen if democratic, when both houses in georgia- and it looks like it- was rigged

Now, even if it doesn't look like it was rigged, Republicans are going to think it was rigged because they expect to win right and since only President Trump allegedly had problems in the general election in and the Republicans did great in the under guard. They should expect and also because special elections, favour Republicans you should expect the Republicans to win, but what, if, at four in the morning, both Republicans or ahead, the voting stops for two hours, one recommence as all the votes

or for the Democrats. What are the odds that what I just described is about to happen in a few weeks in Georgia, it's not a zero, I mean I don't know what odds you could put on that being stolen, but it's definitely not a zero. If I had to guess, I think, there's at least a fifty percent chance that

Under the under the condition that the presidential election was stolen, which would which will prove that the stealing is possible, if that's true- and I think it's true, if it's true- it's not proven, but I think you will be, then I think the George election will be stolen, or at least they gonna think about it. Release legal dry will see, it would be a hairs, presidency. Somebody says the slaughter meter is Scots. Frankenstein you'd have the fraud. The slaughter meter made an assumption that turned out not to be the case. The slaughter meter based its

Protection on the assumption that the the elections would be fair, guiche or fair enough, and I don't think that happened. So I think the slaughter meter prediction became mood because the thing had predicted was sort of sabotage by something else. The the cap has many cool morbidity is somebody's. Ask me how the cat that was on the roof is the election not fair, and why, while the allegation is that the election was not fair, we know that elections can't be fair, because the news is fake, social media

Biased there's some amount of fraud, no matter what etc. I think the rebellion on the right is probable, nope nope, it is so unbearable. If they are punished for their fraud, they will do more fraud. well, the other possibility is that we will put in more controls, so the other. two ways to reduce the amount of fraud in the future, if you believe it happened in the past and one way waterway is together. Just read a comment there. Just throw me off. Somebody says: if pension

play news. Rules in the courts is very possible. Republicans get all three. Is that because there's some connection and what Pennsylvania is doing and other states, I don't feel like they're connected somebody said- is this part of your promise to make the Biden presidency unmanageable? I never promised anything like that. I would like the Biden President's lead to succeed. Why? Why I do not want America to succeed. What are my other requirements for unity? I think, It's easier to keep your requirements for unity to some minimum number, something that

Could be done? Lay I don't want to have a list of things you must do all of these things are. I can't talk to you again, but there are just a few easy ones. Their simple, simple apology right, look in your comments here, plus people were locked them. yes that obviously affected Thea the election. What is my opinion on the global reset? I dont think the global reset is a giant scheme in which the virus was intentional released or anything like that. It's obvious that things will be different, but is because we want them to be done.

So you could call that a reset, but I'm just not really dealing with that whole reset thing. You know I'd rather call it the golden age and say yeah, things might be better people who did the fraud that won't put in controls prevent fraud right. So if the only people were working on the question of protecting the elections are the people who did the fraud? Yeah you're not gonna, get any improvements. But I would imagine that if any effort is made to improve things they would be bipartisan did Darwin. Well, I think what you're asking is. Did I win so remember what I told you if a I is already controlling us. And what would happen if we would get the most I'm sure versatile or provocative outcome that didn't actually kill us

You notice that a I is keeping us alive because it could have given the election to trial, there could have been riots in the street, it could have been the under the republic. I didn't think it was gonna happen, both carbon If you are a I do you want to end the republic or even take a chance of it, or do you just wanna, keep us fighting with each other, but not so violently that the computers get destroyed. Two. I don't think we have proof that I already run things but. keep an eye on how many times our our politics goes in. The direction that is perfectly designed for I, but not for us, see how many times. The actual outcomes, who's, the guy at the expense of humans? It's gonna be a lot,

did Amazon and Google and all the companies that have algorithms did they grow as opposed to recent events from recent events, or did they shrink they'll grow rhythms got more important. There are more servers, more data being analyzed. so a I groom human beings are pretty Pretty challenge right: our were suffering through this pandemic and through the election itself so I would look for their pattern. Because I don't know, will ever know the exact day the a I takes over for you. And we know it has to happen there. Really anyway, I can happen in the long run and the shore on you can. planet it off, but in the long run a I of course has to take over for humans, of course, No, they won't even have to, we won't have to fight them for it. We will surrender.

We will surrender to. I. Don't even knowing we did. Let me give you an example. I ve done this before, but I, like it I say again an apple watch or something It tells you when you're dehydrated enough as possible. So that's possible- probably is It tells you went to take to have some beverages, airport only watch and it goes beep beep. today, David says your little dehydrated. And you said yourself: I've got free. Will I don't have to take a drink? Just cause my I said, I'm dehydrated watch me not. Old time goes by, and you say you know: that's done well Why would I resist my own tax, apology I bought this to help me I'll, take a drink and then

It tells you again tomorrow to take a drink, and you say nor I work last time. Why wouldn't I take Drink, so you do what the ay I says you go get a beverage now why you think happened as you got some information and then Your free will totally you and control here, and then you did what you wanted to do It wasn't the. Maybe you do it now. This was your decision, the hall, the whole way you decided to get a drink, except that you would very quickly become addicted to being smart because knowing when you need to take a drink, is smarter. Then the way used yesterday are you going to do it is being done over smart, one being smart works. Every time, being I'd rather it is a really good deal. It's good for your health is good for everything. So

the trivial example, but my point is the a I becomes irresistible by being useful. and that's why I, as is usual to these then the a I continues to grow and usefulness. We are helpless because we don't turn down usefulness. We can't It's not built that way we can in the short run. I free will have to choose that door but in the long run you're going to choose the door. That makes sense. That's the one that works! That makes your life better and it will be the one that a I put there for you, so I will control you completely. Eventually, we just don't know.

Happened. Yet that's all for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow, right periscopes off you? U tubers, you ve got another minute of lovely entertainment here. Somebody says this is gross. Well, that's a large sums it up as Gross Scott has good stuff. You keep talking about already come out. The good stuff is the data analysis. So look for anything that comes at a map. Brainerd.

so the the work that I was seeing, some hints of ahead of time was the mat Brainerd stuff. So that's what I consider the good stuff I dont have. I had no personal insight into anything about the software, although I do believe any system of that type will be corrupted eventually, if it's not already boast the Mat Brainerd stuff that you should pay attention to I take us airplane shopping with you. Well, Christina already bought her airplane. She got a extra three hundred and thirty. I think I think it's the three hundred and thirty. It's all for now, and I will talk to you later.