Up again the brainwashing word. Nobody uses that word widespread. Unless they're trying to deceive you, it's a deception, work. If they were trying to give you accurate information, they would say. There are some number of claims of fraud let you decide whether you thought that was widespread because widespread skydiving opinion isn't it. When you say it's a little bit subjective, why don't them just tell you how much there is low you decide. Is that widespread? While we have these claims These in the past, we ve had this many prosecutions. If you Figure this year is similar to the other years. Would that be widespread? That should be up to you. There tell you it's it's not widespread, that's propaganda about that.

this is the best one they're doing they say that Trump refuses to conceive which persuasion technique. Is that do you it? He refuses to concede. That's the most common persuasion, But if you don't study the stuff, you don't know it, you know you wouldn't know it. Just automatically is called the making. You think pass assail the most common here, the most common. Persuasion technic the sale is that he lost the election, fair and square. so they don't even think about the question, which is the only question. there's only one question and they're making you think pastor, nobody whose honest does lab honest people will deal with the question. so or no. We think there are some chance or not a chance of a fraud, but there

Can I go right past that all the way to he refuses to concede, so I tweeted there, Joe Biden refuses to concede, despite all of the evidence of an all the allegations of fraud. Same thing. They both refused concede. It's just that they thought the sad about tromp. First, if they dropped even thought of it. First, they could say the same thing about the buy it wouldn't fit as well, because the the alleged number of votes went abiden, but they get a sad it they could

Look we we got tons of sworn affidavits that the election was fraudulent. Why dont you concede, look at all this evidence is obvious violent. Why do you refuse to concede with all this evidence that it was fraudulent? I mean this is this is good evidence and you refuse to concede say, is just its propaganda. And you should recognize it as such, then there's the bad analogy, fear persuasion and there are three parts of this gym you to ask you. Don't I never know how to pronounce his name see you then he said quote the parallels between yesterday's Giuliani Press conference and Joseph Mccarthy's infamous.

What I have in my hand, speech are chilling, so you do you do Is comparing Giuliani to Mccarthy? So that's the first bad analogy now that is making you think past the sale isn't because Mccarthy did not have evidence, you simply claimed he did and then in the long run you found out it didn't exist is that the case with Giuliani does Giuliani, have no evidence by his saying he does now its opposite itself.

so that, because Giuliani has sworn statements from hundreds of witnesses did Mccarthy have sworn statements from hundreds of direct witnesses, no, no different in the common somebody saying that Mccarthy was right, but that's a different argument, though so tromp has been called a dictator who we owe his authoritarian reflexes, Our making them stay in office there saying that will say he owns a racist, their say he's a racist because it turns out that where the allegations of fraud are highest, let's say the places they didn't check. Signatures is also heavily a black population. Sophie

given even AOC was tweeting that the president challenging those specific places which are more black than anything else is racist. Now is the president's fault that that's where the problem appears to be. It wasn't like Trump decided. Well, I think I'll just pick these three places with a large black popular That didn't happen, they just look at the data and the data seems to say well. It looks like these places have some questions that need to be answered and they turn that into racism. When I went, I saw I look the s his tweet about that she referred to it as disenfranchises black voters. Dont think she used racism in that tweet a thing she said disenfranchised and.

I thought to myself that is so diabolically clever. Because once you saying is, I guess you could say it's technically true right You are a black floater in one of those cities, and the Trump legal team succeeded and getting some number of those votes thrown out. You'd have to wonder if you had been disenfranchised now, it might not be the biggest problem in your life. Probably the smallest problem in your life. But it's technically sworder somewhat accurate. That's not why he did is: if there's no, intention of being racists, the other. said less care and of all the black votes? Nobody had that thought. So too make this into our erases thing, even though the outcome certainly had as, moreover racial

more operational racial outcome, but to turn that into the he's, a racist is propaganda and brainwashing. So those are the main or years or more. They also say that, because the evidence has not been presented to the court in a way that the court has agreed and accepted the lawsuit and- and that the news is saying: there's no evidence of fraud and Julie August going crazy is gone. What do you mean no evidence? I have hundreds of direct witness evidence of plus the end of all these other things.

That's pretty direct, but as long as the fake news can disappear stories from half of the country, the half their watches that that branded news, they can just say, there's no evidence. They can just claim it and just keep saying and it will become true by repetition. Does there will be no counter argument that half the country sees there they'll be in their bubble, knew that won't another's any kind, they'll just say no evidence. The news says: there's no evidence. What else do I need to know? Isn't that the under the conversation no evidence, doesn't every conversation and with there's no evidence we're done now. Of course, the reality is a little more complicated. Probably these initial lawsuits were about keeping the argument alive, the argument being that there is something wrong with the selection, maybe trumped.

Lose, so I would say, and in lovely lawsuits came from individuals not from the legal too, so first on the one side of the ones that are lost, we're not from Trump anyway, but I dont think that the legal team cared to much and others they didn't have too much invested in the first batch of lawsuits. I think I was just to keep the argument alive. Make sure everybody was in that frame of mind that there is still something to look at by all time because it takes a while to get hundreds of sworn testimonies, Normally, this is a process that could take a year that they're trying to compressed into two weeks. So it looks like a buying time strategy to me, but then the fake news turns added,

no evidence as opposed to give him a little time there is? There is a clear indication that there's a problem or could be could be wrong, but there's clear indication that there is something that needs to be looked at. Gimme some time the other thing is they can give people and authority to say that there was no fraud or irregularities detected that true no. No irregularities detected and somebody a twitter forwarded me. The republican head of elections, whose just that I think it was Pennsylvania, doesn't matter which state could have been Georgia, but it's a republican, and these on is on camera, and he saying to the public I did not witness any irregularities in this election. What's wrong with that, is there,

guys job to make sure There were no irregularities that there too. The guy whose job it is to prevent those things. Do you think if you talk to an and their job is to prevent from happening and the only way you know if it happened or didn't happen. Is you ask the person whose job it is and it gets paid to tell you that they did a good job in it and it didn't happen it could not. A less credible source. Then the person whose job it was to make sure didn't happen All he said it was, he did say it and if he says he didn't see, it submitted didn't happen, because let me explain how fraud works. Let's say you're a fraudster enters a person whose job. It is to catch you and that's that republican guy was ahead of the elections right, it's his job to catch. You.

And it's your job as a fraudster to avoid this guy and you do. It's not really a fraud if you do it in front of that guy. So really, if you can imagine the fraudsters, if, if allegedly any. Arrested and they'll be looking around and they say where's that guy and they say he's over there They say keep an eye on him because he is the guy. You don't wanna, know we're frothing just that guy That guy says others Of course. Even fucking see anything he's the guy. You don't show it to buy his job description, he's you don't want to. Let see see this happen, logically, there were people giving less a postal people giving directions to other postal people to backdate YO ballots? If that happened,

Where did it happen? Did it happen in front of that? Guy? Now, if it happened, it all happened at the Post office, it didn't happen in front of their guy. So if he says he didn't see it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Is it's amazing persuasion. the other one is that if there were widespread and throwing the widespread part there, if there were massive cheating in the election, it would be obvious Scott. It would be obvious. How can you claim that those elections, cheating that was like so big, so big actually change the outcome of this election when Biden, one by you know the five million votes or wherever it would have to be such a big fraud that you would notice.

To which I say: that's why we're talking about it? Because we noticed We're not talking about it because we didn't notice, everybody noticed. Do you think that by didn't got that many more votes than Obama? Do you think that he couldn't get twelve people to attend his rallies and he got the most votes of anybody in history that sound like a baby? You're eyebrow goes up all the little bit Is it a coincidence now it's an allegation. I can't I can't say this is true, but the allegation is that the so called the irregularities in the data seems to happen in just the right places at just the right time. Is that something

Notice because I feel like people notice that is it a coincidence that that that Trump gained with every minority group you got more votes than before, and historically more than Romney more than most Republicans for decades and yet you lost votes with his core base after four years of doing what they would consider a great job. If that happened, it could have happened. It could have happened right, so you cannot rule out other explanations for everything. Every single thing you see, but to tell me that is not obvious, even if I'm wrong, even if I'm wrong. That's just not true. It looks obvious to me.

even if I am wrong so that does the other persuasion, is that you'd see it? But we do Then the other word is enabling an apologist, so they, Surely trotted out Carl Bernstein again everytime CNN Trouser Carl Bernstein to say this is worse than the Watergate. I just love, because why you should be saying is that if this fraud is real as alleged its way worsen war again, but you can't really going to say that I see it, I believe it's just about all. I want to talk about. Oh here's, your some more democrats tell us we should listen to the ECB.

Birds and our right am I right. That's right. We should listen to the experts. Would you say that Rudy Giuliani and his legal to human Sidney pal. what would you say that their experts, I would say their exports when you say the Rudy Julie Oddy is about as good as you can get as an expert on organised crime techniques. Now would be better than him. I mean, did prosecute the mafia. And he was mayor of New York City. So if I had to pick an expert in anywhere in the world who could tell me

they had accurately seen election fraud at a local level, meaning managed at the local level, who would be a bigger expert in the whole country, then Rudy Giuliani, shouldn't. We listen, he's an expert. I is another thing, you're not hearing. I tweeted about this because I think it's hilarious. What do you expect that by now you would see somebody who was anti Trump buddy. You says the election was fair or fair enough. What do you expect some? Anyone come out in public and say I don't know what you people are talking about, because Philadelphia has clean elections and always has, whereas I guy canvassing, isn't he. Don't you think that the most obvious the most

obvious thing that you should put on the air- is somebody who We'll see you now. I ve been studying Philadelphia politics for years. I wrote a book on it I was an insider I was actually in politics or I covered it and up To tell you that, if you are saying the Philadelphia, politics is dirty or that they rig. Election, I don't know what you're talking about A velvet doesn't do stuff like that, where's that guy Where's, it where's the words one from Detroit, where, whereas the pandit- who goes on CNN and says I can't believe they're impugning the integrity of Detroit Politics. I lived and destroyed all my life. I've worked in politics of covered. It wrote a book about it, I'm here to tell you. If there's one clean setting a stick.

So they picked the raw town, I mean it, I'm just on the face of it is like saying that hope is a murderer does even make sets out even conceive of that Philadelphia in Detroit. How can you think that they withdraw election? It's kind of crazy, we'll be crazy bananas if you

its bananas as seen and likes to say when they cannot tell the difference between an apple in a banana. I believe that's all I want to say today have I said it too much really too much so he says what is Jean citizens say that is the most random question of the day. Slaughter meter is that ninety eight percent, with the with this provision again here's the provision. I separate the question of whether the president will prevail and making his case that the election was stolen and that he was actually the one who got the right enough votes in the electoral college. I believe that there is a ninety eight percent chance that the press

will succeed in making that case. Wait for it to his base. That's important part will he has succeeded in making their case to the courts. I dont think the courts are inclined to overthrow an election even if the cases made so I think the court's would say the last thing we want to do is disenfranchise all these people, even though the law would allow us to do that and would even indicate maybe we should. But

The bigger the bigger benefits for society is keeping the world together, keeping the country together. So I think that in terms of winning a slam dunk in the court's probably lull I'd say the odds of just walk out right winning the election, because the Supreme Court said I it is trumps election. He one, I think, that's lull, ten percent less than ten percent me help. Course s lot is only only path. He also has the bath. Yell says the path. That he can get the legislatures to just say they don't certify now that path only requires that he convinces base. So that is based, says: hey you Republicans, who want it might want to certify this election. If you do, you can lose your job.

Is there a ninety eight percent chance that Trump will succeed in convincing his base that the election was stolen? Yes, there's a one hundred percent chance that, actually, I don't think, there's any chance. You won't do that cuz, you can't prove a negative and that's what the that's, what the Democrats would have to do to convince Republicans and it it's not. It's not logically possible. It's not just hard. No possibility, you can't prove something didn't happen. You can only prove he didn't find it, and as long as you say well, the best we can do is we didn't find it that allows Republicans to say while we found it, I think I said so. That's good enough for me and I think that they they are saying that and they will so the likely will likely path of us.

Is that the legislature is gonna, have a hiccup on? This could end up. The House of Representatives, in which case it goes the trump but here's the next part of the production. I dont think the country could handle it. In other words, the the amount of upset that would be caused by having this go to Biden, at least in the minds of biting supporters and then having it yanked away in what would look like an illegitimate process now, there's nothing more legitimate, then, following the actual steps of the constitution, which is what would happen, then the scenario, but it wouldn't look that way.

To the Democrats. That would look like a technical lawyer thing. You would look like a stolen, it would look like an autocrat, so I can see that the Democrats have any chance of living with it and I think they would go violent or enough of them would that there would be met, of unrest, and I will end go back to my George Washington PATH? And that allows that President tromp, through technical processes, actually wins the election and can be seated but chooses to step down for the good of the country.

Now, if I were you, I would not choose to step down unless I were cleared of all of my legal future legal problems see where this is having trumps biggest risk according to his critics, are future legal problems that are not easy to avoid if you're no longer the president, so president as this big hockin thing hanging over there. He can avoid either by being the president which might rip the country a park or getting some agreement that going George Washington and stepping down preserves is freedom in the future and He becomes George Washington. He will always be the person who gave a power now the story will be. He gave up power to avoid legal, But since we don't know how the legal problems would have turned out, it's gonna look: George Washington D.

Now the other possibility easy just lives with the lives with the street violence and tries to the last detail which could work. so work. So those are possibilities, and that's where I see is gone and I'll talk to you later right said goodbye to periscope. Oh you! U tumors! My full attention, sealed him! Six! I don't think so. I don't a lot of people who believe that I'm operating in bad faith and there I should just cut it out, which part what is it? What is it that I should cut out doing? Should I cut out pudding percentage odds? Are things happen?

Why why should I stop that? Why should I start putting odds? Are things in predicting? It's actually useful thing to do. But a lot of that is making trying to make me think, pass the sale. The people want me to stop talking about even the potential that the election could go. The other way they are trying to make me think, pass the sale and trying to make me think that Only one way you can go, and so clinging to any other hope is just bad for the country, but that's just simply not true. If you are, if I were to place a bat today, I think I would think that trust as a path somebody says: violence is coming regardless. Well, you know one of the one of the beauties of getting into the winter, especially with the large towns and stuff.

between the call than the corona virus and the fact that there are some protests fatigue, I would think by now. Might be a good time to ever. ever some some protest and because it might not get too big, just as the weather is so bad when you're bad weather, especially cold, it does put a bullet crimp on your protesting. Somebody says Trump fire desperate. We could use the military. I don't think there's any chance of that. Well I'll, be consistent and say that nothing has zero chance, but that's pretty close to zero Adams. His mind reading now give me a specific for that. You know. I always talk about people, mind reading and how you shouldn't do that. But it is also true that you can't really avoided because

If you're operating in the real world, you have to make assumptions about how other people are thinking or you couldn't operate, so you have to do it, but you shouldn't. You should stop and remind yourself that you're not good at it and and adjust year, your predictions from that. So if I did something that would be called mind, reading just tell me I might have done it is the head of the golden. Still happening with by then you know what people work on the great reset or whatever. There is a whole bunch of stuff. That's going to be way better after the pandemic like way better like way better than you could have imagined even a year ago. So everything from the way we do transactions in the way food is, is created and delivered our healthcare system. I can just everything you know.

Zoom meetings so much, there are so many things that changed because the pandemic and many of them are opening up opportunities. So I would say the golden age probably does come, regardless of Present, can we ever trust elections again what we shouldn't have trusted in them in the first place, but yeah, I think we can figure out. Do it right? Did my inside information come to pass the stuff that I've seen some of it? I have not seen debated in public

don't know if all of it is part of any lawsuits. So what I've seen is data related, but you haven't seen too much, at least on the the news you see it on social media, but the things I've seen I'm not seeing covered in the news news. It's hard to eat a turkey with a mask. You know one part of the that there's a whole bunch of that venezuelan whistleblower story. They just in the way it's told just to my ears, unthinking sounds made up, we'll find a election should be blockchain. Probably I think that's worth. All all for now and I'll talk to you all.