Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization, you made it again. I know I know you're very consistent and good for you now, if you'd like to take it up a notch before we have the best live stream. You've ever seen Your entire life: what do you need to do that? Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass and take your jealousy I began to enjoy the last of us, deliver the kind filled with your favor liquid, I like coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine every day. The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip and it happens in this awesome mug. It happens now: go oh yeah, yeah yeah,. A film called on. Yes, my might oak andrea is be repaired and just from once up well,

see what happens. Is the coffee by itself gives you some benefits, but when you pair the the coffee, With a simultaneous eighty well whole different level, all right. Let's talk about some stuff. Tweet from you learn musk. lula, I icon of a robot and then mother, I can't was too small for me. Look at and I said, might and they said soon. I myself he's announcing that their new. so robots can be produced soon, but turns out that the other little thing that I didn't recognize was a tombstone. So what he was really tweeting is that the box on twitter will be destroyed soon. Now it feels to be like there's already some action. There are roughly knows that by feel there are fewer trawls,

I account now. I think I would notice it earlier than some of you, because I get more elective than most. But to me it looks like a better experience. I dunno I dunno. If that's just I dunno could be some other reason, but it looks like they're doing something different. Do you have the same? Experience It could be completely come confirmation by us. It will talk about ethics. But it made me think of the tesla robots are coming, and I was wondering this. How fast do you think the tesla robots will be able to run if you just said the russian gas something a fast where they may be, just their fast enough? Can I just a saddle to my robot guerrero, my car.

Can I just like right on the back of the robot unsay robot. Take me to safeway. I need groceries and they will just start running down the street with me on the back of the bull. Why not well something to look forward to twitter user resists communism suggested that you launch a programme the robots so that they can count ballots a ballot counting robot cabinet. For some people up and canada, I saw a than look into it, but apparently canada looking to allow mental health as one of the best

Mental health, as one of the conditions in which people could request and get doktor assumes that doctor assisted suicides. What do you think about people with mental health problems being able to kill themselves legally in canada, good or bad good or bad. Well, so, first of all of you to make an assumption, I'm gonna make an assumption that are not talking about people who don't know what their situation is. I haven't. Then do it, but it seems to me that there would not include people who were just so out of it that they didn't know. If they didn't know anything. I doubt the talk of that. I'm guess. What you're talking about the someone who is completely in their right mind and there depression or some kind of trauma that they worked for decades to get rid of them. That's just to living Hell

if somebody is in pain, permanent pain? Does it matter of psychological or physical. You know you could argue that either one of them might have some future occur in the future, so hold it there might be a way to fix it in the future, but that that applies to both physical and and problems right, there's always a reason to wait, but what about now? Eugenics is different, as somebody else deciding to kill you, nobody stockings. we're worley talk about people were in their right mind. Making decision about them own bodily autonomy, I think I think I'm open to listening to the argument, but I'm completely on board with a

it's losing their right mind, but the lisbon there basically locked in their torture ed. I think that person is an option and it's not up to me to tell them what they can and cannot. it was her own body, so I'm leaning toward it as long as they're really careful about not sliding into eugenics. Obviously I saw Jordan petersen suggests that twitter should have effectively to buy one where you're seeing the comments- and you can interact with the people who are verified or least their identity, is known to us. And then a second part of twitter, though you should call like twitter hell.

Where is all the unverified bots and trolls and all the status and stuff or you go there if you want or you can avoid them easily, I thought to myself: well, I'm not sure you could. You know cleanly create those two groups. but suppose you could, if I had the option of only people who have used their real identity being sorted to the top of my comments, that's all I did. I just want the real people to be at the top. Then I, as I read the list I'll get to twitter hell, you might be twenty comments down and then I'll just stop reading, because I don't want to go to twitter hell, but I might want to. I might want to just see what they said. I like the option years ago as losers,. In our view and pierce morgan with Jordan petersen very interesting and Beers whose referring to a study,

Women who use instagram are the worst kind of women and I'm summarizing in way. He did not. I think the trees were something like the other people who use the most ours is the groundwork, narcissists narcissists and say this sociopaths. Stuff like that as other the think he is that the average person on social media who the average person who uses a lot right, the more you use it, the more likely it signalling a personality or a character defect is pretty deep, so upset the first cavalier shock Have you ever noticed how many times Jordan peterson says something that your first reaction is my god that is academically and scientifically interesting and new information? And then you think about it for like a minute and you go away. I think we already knew that yeah, because it was

obvious, but it's nice that it's nice to know that the science backs up. What you think is obvious and also Jordan. Peterson said he would prefer a dissenters like candidate over trump, and you said good things about trump but said that trump raises the temperature too high. It was bad for the republic. What do you think of that? If you agree that less aid, trump and dissent as my have similar republican politics, would you prefer Who does not raise the temperature to the point where the temperature itself becomes a problem independently of the politics. You know it's a tough one, because the reason the reason that trump raises the temperature is because that's what the devil.

It's due to him so should republicans be denied the president of their choice because he is more susceptible to the other side's dirty tricks. I dunno yeah there. You have to make a practical decision, you wanna be a moral and ethical loser, aura the opposite. Well, correct me: if I'm wrong, What would you say Let's say you imagine the the subset of prior trumps supporters who were also in the public eye, if I were to narrow the conversation to just people in the public eye people like me, like prominent pundits, how many? What percentage of the

Who were trump supporters and are prominent pundits? What percentage are still backing and as of today forget about the public? I'm only talking about the public voices the people are in. because it's a lot easier to say you don't back him at the moment. Isn't it scott is safe to say that cause yo feels like you're on the you're on the side of the angels. Why don't know the percentage it's hard to argue with this answer, gives you everything you want without the bad parts? It's pretty strong argument. I don't love is true, which is all different topic does? You might say? Well, dissenters won't pushes artists trump word, so Tom still the better choice. Maybe maybe

I know, but I would note that a lot of people that you would consider reasonable have now decided that, even if they liked trump and even if they liked his first term, that things have changed or were in a different environment, he's older a lot has changed, and so it doesn't it's not the perfect fit anymore. Now, how would you like. Dear the opposite argument. It goes like this. Have you noticed their reality, the something that must tweeted once by thing on the first person who noted it. Only those a reality follows the path of most entertainment, not for the victims, because there's always a victim but for the casual observers. Reality follows the pattern of you most entertainment, for example, trumped getting elected the first time greatest entertainment,

What would be the most entertaining thing that could have happened with the mid term elections? The most entertaining thing is a super close election that nobody expected. I won't say nobody most people. Expect followed by a delayed vote, followed by unexpectedly democrats, do better than ever before for a mid term with the the president of their own party. Now that what the, if you and predicted advances It was the most entertain you that could happen. The most entertaining thing is neither a clean win for a democratic republic and the most entertain thing. so we're going to fight over who really one by far the most endangered in a bad way. But it will give you the most clicks and most energy.

So that that would have predicted that totally so I had a point, I was working towards that I've totally lost. What was I talking about the cheating and it an okay here go. What would be the most listen the most entertaining story? Art for trump? As of now, most entertaining story arc would be what third act exactly we just had transfer Now you might have more than one third act as this is the come back like shocker, but at this why are all the smart people say he's dead right,

the most entertaining outcome would be a discovery of fraud in the twenty twenty two election that change the outcome, followed by a landslide victory by trump for having been completely cleared of his act, stations about twenty twenty now not here. Let me be very clear. I am not saying that there is any evidence of election fraud. I'm not saying that long, barely, I could say them and twitter if I wanted to but I don't really. So I not aware of any like obvious fraud was literally really clear, but wouldn't that make the best story when it.

I mean there's no contest that would be the best bully. So do we get to test the best movie filter the best movie filter? Is that trump down and out and there's no way, he come back from apparently being blamed for the mid terms. But if and there's no evidence of this? No evidence whatsoever. We're only talking speculative. You know movie imagination, stuff here what else they found at actual smoking gun in arizona changes everything it changes everything now I don't think it'll happen yeah. I bet again.

But that filter does predicted. Would you agree? Would you agree that that's the most obviously entertaining outcome? Not that is often not that is likely just as the most entertaining okay get so it let's. Let's just keep an eye on that. I will talk about some other protection filters. Speaking of people who are bailing out on trump or candace owens personal interaction with jumped, and apparently she considered rude that he was router, I guess. It was based on some rumor in the daily beast that completely quoted her anna context and made it look like she was insulting trump. When, literally she didn't say it. By the way if candor says- and she did I didn't say those things and the daily. He says you said those things.

I have to wonder who to believe they're like that that one's a slam dunk right yeah, that's definitely campus, there's no competition. The daily beast is the least credible thing you could ever see. So do you think the trumpet could win back Jordan in petersen does matters canadian, but Kansas Owens me did you think you could win back his base and even the prominent people of abandoning their guard. Totally get all he has to do. All he has to do is be the best option. That's it. He just has to be the best option and then everybody comes back. There's no mystery to at all. Could he do that totally? Don't leave it. He could give me back just by having a reasonable sentinel plan. There's nobody else is going to happen.

Do you think anybody else will say anything serious about sentinel nope, but if trump does back and that are not just back, I'm back for power. Come back, I'm going to forgive every other fucked up there you ever did. a single issue voter, let me tell you, I was english voter. It gives me more power if my vote or my support worms spread overlapping issues. But if I just pick one thing I can, maybe maybe you know have enough of a wedge to make something happen. So that's why I'm a single issue voter you don't have to be: I'm not I'm not suggesting that you be one just saying I'm going to be, one gives them more influence. You're all following the story of the crypto exchange gold. After ex that

first on the scene, just in twenty nineteen, so this entire story, until it blew up recently but I'd never heard of f. I didn't know that the creator of the founder was worrisome Tens of billions of dollars he claimed on paper or somethin was giving massive amounts of money to democrats, but here's the four areas like thirty years old and here's here's the interesting thing about it. seems like you always have this. It didn't take long for someone define some smart people who know the crypto world and then some video podcast, where the two smart people, I don't understand this all left. The ex thing like there's no way be producing as much cash to use outside of the exchange with what they exchange is doing their basically.

People who understood it looked at and said this does make sense. This couldn't pass the math doesn't work and sure enough we don't know the exact story of what was going on, but the math didn't work. It may have been a total dollar fraud. Ok, Do you know how many people have asked me to mention the last name of the founder. Lastly, the founder who created exchange with some people would say and in the crypto kind of away is sort of like a bank where you were put your money and then you can get it back. It's like a bank. It's an exchange. and then in the that the bank, if you recall that sort of get burned to the ground by fraud or somethin

and the last named the founder, I'm not making this up. It's a hyphenated name bank ban bank man fried afar. Eighty fried bank man fried use a bank man and ride. if you told me that the simulation is now sending us any any wigs, I call bullshit or that I think, there's plenty wings might be coincidences, but it's fun to think of them as So. one of the big investors and empty ex was blackrock. Blackrock was one of the investors,

So what I want else's black rock invested in we're whiter name before oh yeah. Yes, she so black rock. The people behind what I would consider a scale which is only yesterday stuff now, that is a fairly transparency, In this sense, the whole thing blackrock is hiding anything but You only everything, looks legal burgundy people that there is these little environmentally friendly companies. Had been raided by somebody are positive. the scam you lookin for exam. Guess what f the x, the company was rated as in the sheep company,

And I remind you that one of the people invested enough. The ex report leaves blackrock in black raucously promoter of yesterday. So do you think They gave a high score or a low score to the to the company that they invested in personally high score. Surprise really high score now It makes sense that they would have a high, because if you were a digital company and their problem, I don't think you're evian, server farms or anything like that right. They were burning up a lot of electricity, so important yesterday, rules that would be a good yesterday, investment, not a good investment, but it would be strong on the energy they wait in black rock, as investor that should be read like there's next blackrock executive.

Who is writing in things in the wall street journal? Terence gaily, he was a former black, the he says his new book, that the extra investment model is broken. And what he means is that the EU s she investments, don't perform better than none it yesterday, which is like the reason people invest. but also it isn't necessarily causing anybody to do things better. In other words, is not causing the low yes cheese, score people to try harder and you'll be compatible. The street so seems lies not having this problem not agree, washing whether pretending to be compatible, but so soberly yes, thing just doesn't work. I spoke about.

the tick tock. I told you, I was wrong, so I'm a bidding them wrong. Now, if you, if you like that, you came to the right place, you like it, what I'm that I'm wrong gotcha, especially while cocky and then I'm wrong, that's the good stuff. So if you like to see me be wrong, when I was cocky here, it is. I told you, I could destroy e s g and I dunno. Maybe I helped it's hard to know what what impact that? That's, not what I'm talking about I also told you that I was going to destroy tiktok because tiktok sir there, their soft underbelly was revealed, By the election, now not legend that tiktok change, the elected, I'm alleging is that we saw very clearly that it could have if china, to change the algorithm tiktok which they could do? Then the biggest group of orders that determine the election safely extra

which is young people and especially young single women, mostly the take up users. If china wanted to influence them, they just tweak the algorithm inertness there. It is Here's what I mistakenly thought I thought, what We have this like close sketchy election sketchy in the sense that the local was delayed. If you ve got a really those sketchy election. Everybody is talking about water. The things that might have a factor that this was the perfect time. for everybody to say. Well, oh, oh, oh, we don't know that tik tok air the influence, but is obviously good. It's obviously right. So why would you want to keep their such situation because next time they might actually inputs Thirdly, possible that yes, sketchy. Why you asked me about: sketchy sketchy and my my telling of it just means we didn't get a quick.

certain reliable result that we find credible as as voters doesn't mean there's anything illegal. I haven't seen any evidence but here is why I will not be able to have any impact on tiktok and it took me a figure this out because noticing a pattern, but I wasn't sure it was a pattern and here's the pattern. Nothing gets done unless there's a billionaire wants it to be done. General statement in politics, nothing happens until there's is at least one billion there who wants to get that done, tiktok does the only situation, where there are no billion euros will want to get at them. I'm not

because all billionaires have chinese business, it will be almost impossible to have vast resources, and I have a china connection. It's almost impasse So you're not gonna, get murdoch to go anti. China So there goes the wall street journal. There goes fox news service in the post wrong. Well, let me ask you this question: do you think rupert murdoch has business interests there? He needs to make china happy. I don't know anything about his business, but I soon so when you assumes up medium oval seems like it. so about trump. Now job doesnt seem to have china business. But for whatever reason is yeah he's he did try to ban tax so that that might be the one exception.

Who would be the other billionaire who doesn't have any any business in china. So here's what you need to know about the world everybody that you see in public in all the politicians and the pundits they're, not the real people, almost all of the important pundits and the important politicians have it one billion who was the real power behind the the throne, don't be know who they are the people and the third know all this billionaires. If you name anybody in congress, the people The garden will tell you there. Billionaire are thus that's that guy sky, all until you see yourself, you don't believe. No, tromp at his own billionaire right number and trumpet twenty sixteen mercilessly so everybody else

So if you don't get a billion urging you can get anything done, So my in order from I persuasion to be effective in general, I would first have to prove to persuade other media. And then the other media ties were boosted and this them. Yes added enough than the politicians would feel over. That's that's a big click item, I'll I'll get. such oil normally work, but that process doesn't work because the major pundit as soon as soon as a billion euro back some finds out what they're saying they're gonna stop saying Here's what I think should happen, I think musk can make twitter

insanely profitable with just two things, one and he's plans to do at least one of these probable one adding payment options, so I can directly pay through goo through twitter. You have some kind of digital payment system. I want to pay through twitter for If they advertise on twitter, I mean you do that and you certainly up advertisements of things I, what I'll give twitter all kinds of money, because I'm going to be buying those same stuff anyway might as well give them a little cut of the transaction. The second thing and musk asked about this, which is bringing back and finds the vines was the short video that would have had- and I dont know if it wasn't technically up to what needed to be, but it did not succeed. But at this point we know for sure that the most viral social media is video and his shortly

else. It's tiktok videos, words instagram real sorts, facebook, videos And it wouldn't be hard to add a filter on twitter, so leave shoulda, everything that isn't a short video madge. Now. Maginnis hitting getting one button and son instead of savings, they are in your feed. You see all the short videos and their ranked by popularity. I'm already hot totally autonomy the instrument, videos, their soap, addictive it just crazy and where it could be so at least there be an american substitute

There are already argue snapchat and swim, but I think we may be compete. Tiktok away, maybe might be able to just have a better product and make it go away on it's own, but will be hard to get kids to think that tiktok wasn't cool anymore and to get a kid to think that twitter, which seems like your grandfather's service. It seems like an older male sort of thing and it'd be hard to get teens to go onto that platform, but not impossible if the product is better. So maybe that's eleven. and yet I can directly convince people that, like tik tok not like it that are so you can get people were on aligned and don't have an opinion.

Come down your way, but if somebody loves tiktok talking him of it, you can't do it. You can't convince teens not to use that's not even a thing. Now, here's the biggest risk would tiktok, and I've told you about this before it's it's. How magicians work, if you ever big complained about. Let's say: x is a real, valid complaint and you say my complaint about topic taxes. This.

Best way to make that go away is to have a second complaint about the same topic that gets more attention, but the other complaint isn't actually that important and that's happening with tiktok. If I tell you, tiktok is a risk. What what what's? The top thing you say is a risk because go tiktok is a risk because fill in the blank. What is the risk? Well, china right, but what is China doing specifically. The influence brainwashing interesting most of you have been, I think, informed by me to know what the real risk is say. So you've got most of it right. If you look at the

media, the media will say the risk of tiktok is that there have access to data about americans access. The data is that the big problem. No. The problem is that they would use not just their information, but they were. They were tweak the algorithm to persuade people. And if you look at it, I was reading a major article. A major article about the risk of tiktok that never mentions the influence only mentions the data security element. Now, if you were to rank those too the risk of data security is important, especially when children revolver. If you were to give that importance, I'd, say: that's a lie, some eight ten. What do you say bali data them.

What is the level of risk before the algorithm and using a lie to persuade you? That's a weapon of mass destruction, That could bring down the entire country- that's not just even the ten to twenty five, thus comparing a and a nuclear weapon to a really good tank or an age, more system there are not really in the same class day security really important, really important, but it's not me in class with what the algorithm can do. Those are real, different, so every time you see an article about the data security part of tiktok- I don't know, its intentional, but it is taking away from the real problem, is take your mind in the wrong direction to something small when in fact is really big

say, Travis bad none. Twitter asked me if I get killed, tik tok from with them. I says I should join in start making dance videos. Well, if not the most practical idea, but would it be hilarious if Was the american dads, mostly dads, decided to kill tick tock by making it on cool like we? We all just sign up and make dance videos like we're, barbecuing and chip on and and and just like, fill tiktok with with dad dancing. Could you kill it be because you know it's: it's not a joke, the kids,

or run away from anything parents are using. That's another joke, that's real! I know, there's probably some level of dad dancing that would make tick doug die, but they would just use the algorithm to make sure he didn't see it so that won't work kyle Becker on twitter ask service by a tweet member of the nuclear secrets that donald trump stolen here that more long ago, when one happened to those that the Democrats played a very effective asian game. So the january six thing was the the set up so that that was like the canvas. So if they talked enough about january sex, it looked like tromp was out just a person who would do like any thing, but the january sexting the longer went on, I just felt a little aged felt like your yesterday's news,

It is something new and fresh that would remind you of how bad it was, so that so suddenly got nuclear secrets of moral logo which will never your about again. Your problem, we're about him unless he runs for office than you hear them. What do you think that was ever real? I don't. I don't think that was a real. I think they're there might, nuclear related documents. Would you doubt that I dont out their nuclear related things, they might can be marked as confidential or seek river wherever they might be well better, not important, but they are not important all right. So here's the big question should now

to all of the major media, be reporting the following data to us today, hey public, you should know that most of the time when an election is delayed, more than will say a day the time one party usually wins when you liked another feels like that would be a more. Do you think anybody will report that today it should be the front page of every paper, because if you don't know the context, how can you judge today story? If you tell me a story took days longer than we hoped well, would you like to know the context, so my understanding is peoples either they usually goes to the Democrat when the when the vote is delayed, but that by itself evidence of fraud go

suppose you knew that eight out of ten times when an election is delayed, the Democrat ends up winning. Is that evidence of fraud? It is not because the Democrats prefer the you know the the ballot method, which. In some cases is not necessary, but in some cases they like to give a little cushion for accounting solar system is actually just designed to make sure that they have time to verify all the balanced, so it makes sense that were democrats like ballots bell estate. honor. They don't have to take longer, there's a way to get around it But in some places they by one year low lines and lay you vote up to the last minute, just a difference in preference and that would explain everything it works

everything. So let me say as clearly as possible that one difference it would explain everything flame why some are late Explain why the Democrats, usually when they have more bela voting and that gives county last so we're all gonna write all good. No problem, because the only evidence of alleged fraud is easily explained by the obvious, really quite obvious. Well, here's my spend, I suppose, you're an engineer? Do we have any engineers her if you're an engineer, identify yourself in the comments. I just want to see how many we have to fuck huge jenny in all caps. Stupid cunt get the fuck out of here, oops unhide, oh there. You are

a hidden lies in quite a number of engineers. How are you are you keep doing, then? How can I keep hiding you? You keep appearing lots of engineers. This question is for the engineers only ok, so just for a moment. I want only the engineers to comment again I know you're one time in a light. You comment, but just for a moment only engineers- and here is the question. What does specifications do you think the the elections had that were executed in terms of the system they built. What do you think the specifications were the specs? Do you think that the suspects were reduced? The the lines? Maybe do you think the specs were

make sure the of your maximum time for checking ballots. Here's what I think these specks should about maximum credibility. What would you disagree with that as the suspects No not maxim accuracy, nope, nope, maximum credibility, not maxim accuracy maxim. accuracy gives you a slow election right, that's what that's where they are. They did design flip by the slow election. Guess you what a delayed vote count gets you, what guaranteed every time you can't shoot out So if you are an engineer in new design, this system, the biased design give you a days long wait for the outcome.

he election battleground, if you designed it so the middle by design that it would take days to counter properly? What are you trying to maximize? Are you trying to maximize the credibility. or something else would that maximize the credibility of the vote. Now, The longer people have to wait. Remember that the public is now sophisticated. Is the public were sufficient, Did you say well, these are just different preferences. Some some states, It's like a low lines they want to. You know they just have a different preference, and it takes longer to count under some schemes that others that's all it is, but the public is not sophisticated. The public just knows they don't have an answer and it looks suspicious. How many of you engineers? This is just for the engineers.

how many of you engineers would have totally known that their I mean this system with a late outcome when other states are not late how many of you have known it would have reduced the credibility of the will of the result. All of one hundred percent of engineers would now that the I mean of one you're done is maybe the biggest factor in credibility so do. think that they would intentionally design a system for credibility as the other higher standard. Would they designed it that way Engineers only engineers, only if your top requirement was credibility, would you ever design it that way now, suppose you say to me: scots gasket, credibility is one variable yeah the time it takes to The election is one variable, but what.

all the extra effort to make sure that the signatures match. That's that gives you more credibility right, because you're taking really slow young people are watching. You got you got people watching, taking a real, slow and they're really really going to be careful about curing all the signatures. Make sure you get a real good vote? Doesn't. more credibility? No not as much as you lose by being late? just for the engineers? Would that not be obvious to just the engineers? Wouldn't it be obvious there that little extra effort of checking signatures sort of lost to the public definitely didn't notice of your late as Finally, when the other states are not right that late, so here here's my automatic, there are no engineers in the world and engineers built a system right

not no matter whether politicians said go, build a system, whoever said whoever paid for it and engineer built engineers. Technical people so they built a system that is not optimized for credibility. Would you would you agree with me any system that has delayed count even for all the best reasons is not designed for credibility. What it is not designed to optimize credibility. What is it optimizing? Is it optimizing convenience? because, as one of the things I say you don't have to stand in line, you can just drop off here ballot on the same day no standing alight. Well, the you for convenience. Is that better than optimizing for credibility, no literally nobody would say that right how about this democratic,

say. No, we're optimizing to get the most votes. We want the most people to be not disenfranchised. You know the the system is healthier, the more participation we have so we're we're doing everything we can to make sure every vote counts and we get everybody to the election. Would that give you more credibility. Does more people were participating compared to being late? with your result, now is very clear again, the on time with the result? Would trump convenience I won't use drop? It would be convenience And it would be having extra people vote does having action. people vote. Who are they

the original people who weren't that interested in voting. Am I right that the extra people that you know extra work brings into the system? Are the dumbest ones there, the yeah the the least information that the least caring? They add they had absolutely nothing to the quality of the decision. So do you think Democrats are trying to improve the quality of life? session by bringing the dumbest people? Obviously now obviously now nobody would design a system trying to get the best outcome, brian extra of the dumbest group of people who, paying the least attention. Nobody would do that. So I give you this following conclusion while I cannot say there, was any fraud intended or actual in this election, no data that would suggested, but I can't

No engineer would build this system for any intention. Other than hiding fraud is design died for hot is designed that way, and this it's about grounds dave and they didn't have to. everybody who says, but Scott, you don't understand theirs Some does take longer, because the way they did it, nobody else to do it. That way about does, we don't like at all, because you got all the others it's we're not doing that, so they had an option. They had an option to be credible and they chose not am I wrong. They had the option to be credible and they had time. I'm sure they had time to make adjustments. They had an option, they chose not to worry,

it's supposed to make of how else can you interpret that? Really from an engineer. Its perspective is obvious, is designed for fraud is obvious. now, let me be clear when I say design for fraud, it doesn't sicilian intentionally, doesn't necessarily mean intentionally. But a design. a design is a decision and assets right. The disease Tells you what, where your priorities were. Whether whether conscious or unconscious, is still going to tell you where your priorities were the priority was an election, this less transparent. What are you supposed to make of? It is obviously not designed for credibility and the good as the highest the desires requirement. Now there is, they can get away from away with it is that there are thereby the engineers.

If everyone were an engine air. This couldn't happen. Am I right gimme a hundred engineers, walk in and talk to, the politicians in arizona they got a hundred engineers here s these fuckers. How to do this right? They'll tell you, They will have different opinions or was right, but they'll all all agree percent of them that the way we are doing is not trying to meet the specification of credibility. They will all agree on that So there is a lack of, because talent stack that even let you allows the situation to happen. Some so what ratio of later? disputed kinds of elections. Go Democrats, verses, republicans I dont know I've heard we'll say, eighty percent go one way firstly, the other and then, but there is

notable exceptions, for example, a gore vs bush in two thousand. So close election, but when all the way the supreme court and then gore conceded. So that's an example of A things going, the way of the republican, but what state was at that the disputed one. Oh yeah so in a state of men where the election is managed by republicans in the state management republicans, the close election went to a republican about that. And do you know what happens when the press audited the votes themselves to see if the slovakia was right to know what happened. Well, it turns out that the only reason that bush one is

Is there a better reason agreement about what types of ballots to not count so at the time a ballot that was not perfect? Let's say it was missing a date or something would be to. by today's standards that probably wouldn't happen and love states a lot at states. So now is more important since obvious what the intention of the voter was like the fact that they wrote the date wrong there shouldn't you are taken motorway. If you use that standard where it was, We ask that it was a real person trying to make a real vote. They just fill out something wrong gore. What one do you think in twenty twenty two, gore- would have just given up, because the supreme court ruled that new they both agreed to those rules. I doubt it like, I don't know you do, but I would I think that would be infinite. Clever legal challenges,

till they found a way to say the more important that fund some democrat judge who would say the more important standard is a? U dont disenfranchised these voters. Yes, both sides agreed to these rules And yes, as the law of the land in florida, but you know some some, you could imagine some judge overrule it and say yeah, but you know that the higher standard is to make sure that everybody's vote counts. so it doesn't matter what you agreed to doesn't matter what the state says. The higher standard is the votes. Gotta count. If it's obvious what the vote was for the two thousand election wasn't slowed down to count new balance. Yeah there was a difference. Duration, for sure sure everything about gore versus bush was a little low. You dig I'm not sure if you can learn anything, but

interestingly gore would have one that, depending on which ones you accept. I said the other day that the mid term election was the best case scenario, because the country, gridlock and then they got it when I see it as a strikes out the difference between the best case scenario in the worst case scenario is really. There's really early. Klaus goes away. this case scenario is close election. The looks exactly like it was fraudulent. That's the worst case scenario. That's what we got now. I don't see any fraud, but it fits the battered. We'll talk. so you're all the reasons that people are sort of settling on four? Why the

The term didn't go the way. The republicans out that says all budget filters One filter is, as we discussed, that reality always takes the most entertaining path that would have that would have largely predicted what where we are so that shelter work, Now, let's say works in every case, but the work in this case here's another filters that people like to be given things and they don't like tat things taken from them, and I know what you're gonna say before I make this point so just way for a moment and all agree with your point before you make it. Ok. So you're gonna to immediately disagree with me, but I'm gonna confirm your disagreement among giving beats taking. What did the Democrats

I offer we will give you free money to cancel your student loans, people like stuff free money yay. When the Democrats offer to cut taxes, that's the same thing will give you free money. Oh yea. I, like my friends. Whereas the republicans- and I know you gonna, disagree but all agree with you in a moment the damn, what the the republicans offered was less freedom, that's what they offered. we're gonna, take your abortion rights, as you believe you have we're. Gonna take them from you. and then the Democrats cleverly said there- also gonna- take your democracy way, which I laughed out, because it was so ridiculous. But apparently a Democrats slipped, they were going to loser democracy, and so that should have predicted

Now what you can say, as scouts gus got, you have the giving and taking all backwards what the Republicans were doing there were trying to give life to the unborn. They were giving right. There are giving. So really you you say: that's taking thus giving thus giving life as irrelevant if the voters felt like they were using something. That's all that matters and obviously they felt like they're losing something young women thought there were losing right that they wanted so. And then the democracy thing. I don't think that the republicans have a good counter to that of the counter to you're. Losing your democracy is not you not and fear, for the fear. Persuasion works really.

So if the only thing you did it look at it and said what it feels like giving and what it feels like taking. You'll forget your academic argument about who is really doing the giving and whose during the taking that doesn't matter what matters is that feels and this toll. It felt like the only things the Republican offered was less rating. That's that's what it felt like Now. If we ban in the middle of the pandemic and look at this and we will free from the lockdown we'll ask it then than republicans are giving you some freedom potentially, but the republicans offered nothing less say nothing prominent. They do have plans but other prominent about solutions, They just said we're going take some things you like we have taken away from you. Am I wrong remember

this is how people received the message, does not the message that were sending, but that's how it was received, it was. It was a contest between I'll take your shit, verses org. We appreciate that's, not even a contest predict a winner of that. Every time now you ve got that midterms usually go the opposite way. The president thing but this is as close to a victory as you get in the house without actually victory. Our ears, another other filter, That, as long as the ballot harvesting is part of the process, democrats will whenever I'm because they have a built in advantage? No, not cheating the built in advantages that they have urban

in areas so it's easier to collect a bunch of ballots from. Let's say you know an apartment building than it is to drive down a country road and say: do you have the other about. So as long as dynamic as are concentrated in cities, they should with every election, because you ve been belarus more easily. so there's a filter about that predicted everything right going to predict a little earlier. So that's a shelter. There would work here's another filter there would have worked. Follow the money Follow the money, works right, blake masters, I didn't know this at all, but this is shocking, so black masters lost if he had one could change the direction of the of the senate who? It was a super under funded. He had like

Twelve million- or something is clear and is position, one at eighty million, something elaborate: it wasn't clothes, So, if you follow the money, it looks like the Democrats put their money in the right places and it looks like the Republicans maybe put their money in the wrong is this so follow? The money would have actually gotten you to where you are maybe not as cleanly, but it looks like it would be productive. Okay, let's see what else