NOM

Alright, alright, there was a big conspiracy to get tRump out of office. 80+ million of us all agreed that the man is an incompetent idiot, and we all conspired to get rid of him by voting for Biden. There, I think most of us can agree to this. 80+ million of us all conspired to get rid of the narcissistic blathering baby. Sorry that your conspiracy for tRump was only 70 some million. Get a bigger conspiracy next time.

alas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:45 pm Alright, alright, there was a big conspiracy to get tRump out of office. 80+ million of us all agreed that the man is an incompetent idiot, and we all conspired to get rid of him by voting for Biden. There, I think most of us can agree to this. 80+ million of us all conspired to get rid of the narcissistic blathering baby. Sorry that your conspiracy for tRump was only 70 some million. Get a bigger conspiracy next time.

tck tck temper.

If I believed that 80 million of you came out to rid the world of Trump, I would be quiet. But since I'm not being quiet, you can imagine what I believe.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:45 am But altogether and among many others, it is sort of like one in 15 quadrillion chance that Joe Biden won. I admit, I did not run those stats myself.

The 15 quadrillion chance is a calculation based on a terrible model of votes. In particular, it assumes the distribution of presidential votes doesn't change throughout the election. That's a garbage assumption that the calculation is very sensitive to. Stop using this figure. Stop, stop, stop. It's a bullshit statistic.

Stop.

Stop.

Stop.

Stop. It hurts the stats center of my brain to see it. Toss it out of your head. Remove it from your list of talking points. We've been over it before, and I said the same thing then.

Now, I do recognize that you're drawing an analogy.

The fact that evidence is unlikely given a hypothesis doesn't make the hypothesis wrong. You're not accounting for the probability of such a huge conspiracy, which is ridiculously small. Every conspiracy theory has the same believability problem: the probability of it decreases exponentially with each added participant.

Math lesson time!

You're comparing P(Evidence | Conspiracy), the probability of the evidence given a massive nationwide conspiracy, with P(Evidence | No conspiracy). You say the first number is bigger, so there's a conspiracy. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is.

Those are the wrong numbers to compare. What we should compare are these, the probability that there's a massive nationwide conspiracy or not given the evidence.

P(Conspiracy | Evidence) = P(Conspiracy) * P(Evidence | Conspiracy) / P(Evidence)

P(No conspiracy | Evidence) = P(No conspiracy) * P(Evidence | No conspiracy) / P(Evidence)

(This is Bayes' law. Every statistician would tell you it's the right thing to use.)

Because P(Evidence) - the probability of seeing the evidence regardless of how it came to be - happens to be hard to calculate even when things are simple, it's nice that we can forget about it because it's the denominator in both formulas. We can compare these two probabilities, then:

P(Conspiracy) * P(Evidence | Conspiracy)

P(No conspiracy) * P(Evidence | No conspiracy)

The bigger one wins.

Where conspiracy theories run into trouble is in their a priori unlikelihood. How probable is it that all of the participants can keep quiet? Never let something major slip? Never leave incriminating evidence lying around? Never leave an obvious trail to follow? Per-participant, these are roughly independent outcomes. So even if the probability for each is low, the chance that at least one messes up is high. With thousands of participants, none of them messing up is like flipping a thousand coins and getting all heads. So P(Conspiracy) must be very low - and we're talking actual 1-in-15-quadrillion probabilities here, or smaller.

Does that mean there isn't ever a massive conspiracy? No, but to conclude it rationally you need a pretty small P(Evidence | No conspiracy), which entails seeing evidence that basically can't be explained without the massive conspiracy.

All of the evidence is perfectly explainable. Some, like "Trump was winning when we went to bed but losing when we got up" is actually very likely when evaluated using any reasonable model. Therefore, by incorporating P(Conspiracy), I arrive at P(No conspiracy | Evidence) as being vastly more likely than P(Conspiracy | Evidence).

I don't actually do that mental math - it's more like "I'll believe there's a massive conspiracy when I see some very strong evidence for one" or "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - but it's nice that the math justifies my intuition.

Reuben wrote:

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:45 am But altogether and among many others, it is sort of like one in 15 quadrillion chance that Joe Biden won. I admit, I did not run those stats myself.

The 15 quadrillion chance is a calculation based on a terrible model of votes. In particular, it assumes the distribution of presidential votes doesn't change throughout the election. That's a garbage assumption that the calculation is very sensitive to. Stop using this figure. Stop, stop, stop. It's a bullshit statistic.

Stop.

Stop.

Stop.

Stop. It hurts the stats center of my brain to see it. Toss it out of your head. Remove it from your list of talking points. We've been over it before, and I said the same thing then.

Now, I do recognize that you're drawing an analogy.

The fact that evidence is unlikely given a hypothesis doesn't make the hypothesis wrong. You're not accounting for the probability of such a huge conspiracy, which is ridiculously small. Every conspiracy theory has the same believability problem: the probability of it decreases exponentially with each added participant.

Math lesson time!

You're comparing P(Evidence | Conspiracy), the probability of the evidence given a massive nationwide conspiracy, with P(Evidence | No conspiracy). You say the first number is bigger, so there's a conspiracy. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is.

Those are the wrong numbers to compare. What we should compare are these, the probability that there's a massive nationwide conspiracy or not given the evidence.

P(Conspiracy | Evidence) = P(Conspiracy) * P(Evidence | Conspiracy) / P(Evidence)

P(No conspiracy | Evidence) = P(No conspiracy) * P(Evidence | No conspiracy) / P(Evidence)

(This is Bayes' law. Every statistician would tell you it's the right thing to use.)

Because P(Evidence) - the probability of seeing the evidence regardless of how it came to be - happens to be hard to calculate even when things are simple, it's nice that we can forget about it because it's the denominator in both formulas. We can compare these two probabilities, then:

P(Conspiracy) * P(Evidence | Conspiracy)

P(No conspiracy) * P(Evidence | No conspiracy)

The bigger one wins.

Where conspiracy theories run into trouble is in their a priori unlikelihood. How probable is it that all of the participants can keep quiet? Never let something major slip? Never leave incriminating evidence lying around? Never leave an obvious trail to follow? Per-participant, these are roughly independent outcomes. So even if the probability for each is low, the chance that at least one messes up is high. With thousands of participants, none of them messing up is like flipping a thousand coins and getting all heads. So P(Conspiracy) must be very low - and we're talking actual 1-in-15-quadrillion probabilities here, or smaller.

Does that mean there isn't ever a massive conspiracy? No, but to conclude it rationally you need a pretty small P(Evidence | No conspiracy), which entails seeing evidence that basically can't be explained without the massive conspiracy.

All of the evidence is perfectly explainable. Some, like "Trump was winning when we went to bed but losing when we got up" is actually very likely when evaluated using any reasonable model. Therefore, by incorporating P(Conspiracy), I arrive at P(No conspiracy | Evidence) as being vastly more likely than P(Conspiracy | Evidence).

I don't actually do that mental math - it's more like "I'll believe there's a massive conspiracy when I see some very strong evidence for one" or "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - but it's nice that the math justifies my intuition.

[emoji3590][emoji3461][emoji3590][emoji3461][emoji3590][emoji3461][emoji3590]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:45 am Actually I did not watch all of those things. I tried to, but they seem like farces in their own way. They seem like sideshows.

But that's really what it's all about, isn't it?

Like it or not, Rudy's evidence is the best the president of the United States and his legal team could come up with. It is the cream of the evidence. I may not believe Trump when he says he won, you may not believe all of the authorities who pronounced the evidence meritless. What we need to do is look at what Rudy presented. That really is what it comes down to. Neither your assumptions, rumors, and conspiracies nor mine override the president's own best evidence. Neither your news sources and commentators nor mine can answer the question.

Rudy's evidence is the only game in town. That is the best Trump's hundreds of millions in legal fund donations could provide. Do you believe Giuliani proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the election was stolen?

I don't take the word of the media, but I am compelled to give more credit to the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, et. al. than to the maelstrom of angry internet voices.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:02 pm A lot of this is easily explained. The bellwether counties - what does it matter?

What does it matter?

I can believe things but it doesn't make it reality?

For thousands of years Western Christian civilization believe that for Earth have been created in the six days and was about 6,000 years old. Why? The Bible said that it was so.

On closer examination We discovered that it was perhaps 4.5 billion years ago.

Doesn't really matter. That doesn't really change anything in the world except our understanding of it. Except that about 3 billion years ago a small planet mostly made of iron crashed into Earth. This changed the intensity of gravity which charges the speed of time and instead of 4.5 billion years it is really just 80million voters.

My point is, correlation matters. If the references points are off, then your results don't matter. Almost every external marker defies the result.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:58 pm

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 11:45 am Actually I did not watch all of those things. I tried to, but they seem like farces in their own way. They seem like sideshows.

But that's really what it's all about, isn't it?

Like it or not, Rudy's evidence is the best the president of the United States and his legal team could come up with. It is the cream of the evidence. I may not believe Trump when he says he won, you may not believe all of the authorities who pronounced the evidence meritless. What we need to do is look at what Rudy presented. That really is what it comes down to. Neither your assumptions, rumors, and conspiracies nor mine override the president's own best evidence. Neither your news sources and commentators nor mine can answer the question.

Rudy's evidence is the only game in town. That is the best Trump's hundreds of millions in legal fund donations could provide. Do you believe Giuliani proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the election was stolen?

I don't take the word of the media, but I am compelled to give more credit to the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, et. al. than to the maelstrom of angry internet voices.

Rudy's evidence was never about over turning an election. It was about getting an investigation. The only real evidence of election are the votes. Like we just arrested a woman in Texas charged with fraud, with about 18,000 votes. Even if they convict her, that will not influence the election. The results are certified.

A lot of people knew about the fraud but their is a process. Even though some election canvassers tried to hold out the pressure was on. Rudy gave witnesses, there is video, there are missing chips and computers. There are facts like, normally there is a 3% rejection because of wrong signatures, but now there was 0.1% this time. We want to a quality check. But nope, let's do a recount.

Two reports that we were asking for, that examined the machines, have come out. The machines were manipulated. But that still doesn't change the election.

I'm not sure what will happen at this point. But we don't believe Biden won.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:08 pm

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 1:02 pm A lot of this is easily explained. The bellwether counties - what does it matter?

What does it matter?

I can believe things but it doesn't make it reality?

For thousands of years Western Christian civilization believe that for Earth have been created in the six days and was about 6,000 years old. Why? The Bible said that it was so.

On closer examination We discovered that it was perhaps 4.5 billion years ago.

Doesn't really matter. That doesn't really change anything in the world except our understanding of it. Except that about 3 billion years ago a small planet mostly made of iron crashed into Earth. This changed the intensity of gravity which charges the speed of time and instead of 4.5 billion years it is really just 80million voters.

My point is, correlation matters. If the references points are off, then your results don't matter. Almost every external marker defies the result.

O...kay? Not sure what you're saying here, but just because some counties have voted a certain way for a while, demographics, generational changes and a host of other factors (including the polarization of political culture) can indicate simple political preference in these counties, not voter fraud. Take a look at this article about the bellwether counties, even though I'm sure you'll dismiss it, seeing that it's coming from the lamestream media:

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55062413

In any event, it has become very clear, like Sis M's sister, you've made your choice and you will simply shape the narrative around your belief. Cool. But no, just because you believe something doesn't make it real. Like, at all.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:02 pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55062413

In any event, it has become very clear, like Sis M's sister, you've made your choice and you will simply shape the narrative around your belief. Cool. But no, just because you believe something doesn't make it real. Like, at all.

I read this article the day came out. It is what really pissed me off. Trump made everybody to racist and therefore broke the rule? This makes the race card the joker. Obama win these counties twice. All of a sudden because Trump ran a second time they are two races to indicate what they always have?

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:43 pm Rudy's evidence was never about over turning an election. It was about getting an investigation.

You know what would have helped Rudy get an investigation? Presenting some of the evidence that you claim was already overwhelmingly abundant. Just to make sure I'm understanding you, you're saying his strategy for getting an investigation was to show up with a clownish sideshow of weak evidence that nobody would take seriously? The dots don't connect, man. The cartoonish juggling act IS the evidence.

Ultimately do Trump's followers really care about investigation? So many of then have made it clear that they only results they would accept would be the ones that found a massive fraud. They completely ignore the investigation that has been done so far because it's never the right investigation, the one that gives them the answer they want. Kind of like Dallin Oaks and personal revelation. Just keep praying until you get the right answer.

I did hear some pretty good evidence of someone attempting to steal the election. It was a recording of Trump's threat-laden invective ordering the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" him 12,000 votes. "And there's nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you've recalculated."

And then to top it all off, in standard Trump fashion he stiffed his lawyers. But do you think he's going to give back the hundreds of millions of dollars he coaxed out of his followers to pay his legal fees? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:59 am

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:43 pm Rudy's evidence was never about over turning an election. It was about getting an investigation.

You know what would have helped Rudy get an investigation? Presenting some of the evidence that you claim was already overwhelmingly abundant. Just to make sure I'm understanding you, you're saying his strategy for getting an investigation was to show up with a clownish sideshow of weak evidence that nobody would take seriously? The dots don't connect, man. The cartoonish juggling act IS the evidence.

Ultimately do Trump's followers really care about investigation? So many of then have made it clear that they only results they would accept would be the ones that found a massive fraud. They completely ignore the investigation that has been done so far because it's never the right investigation, the one that gives them the answer they want. Kind of like Dallin Oaks and personal revelation. Just keep praying until you get the right answer.

I did hear some pretty good evidence of someone attempting to steal the election. It was a recording of Trump's threat-laden invective ordering the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" him 12,000 votes. "And there's nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you've recalculated."

And then to top it all off, in standard Trump fashion he stiffed his lawyers. But do you think he's going to give back the hundreds of millions of dollars he coaxed out of his followers to pay his legal fees? It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

He stiffed his lawyers? I haven't heard that, but that is between them and him. He is the president, the DOJ should provide his lawyers.

The GA thing was taken out of context. They released the first few minutes because they could be twisted to seem incriminating. The complete recording was merely the nation's chief enforcement officer working with another Secretary of State. I listen to it and even straining my mind could detect no threat.

Everyone comes to a certain level of maturity. some people when finding flaws in their faith think the only solution is to burn the entire church to the ground. Some people finding flaws in the election I think the only solution is to overturn it.

The official stance is that we want an investigation. Rudy provided witnesses. Many times a case is decided by a witness. Rudy produced sworn affidavits. That is people swearing that they saw corruption. Normally that is considered solid evidence. It can be investigated and overturned, but at the beginning of the hearing it is considered solid evidence.

Rudy produced anomalies That belied normal policy and operations. Again that would be considered evidence. He provided motive. That would have been considered evidence. He provided precedence. Normally that would be considered evidence.

One state legislator asked Rudy if he wasn't honest man. She then called upon the warriors to rise and attack those trying to find evidence to overturn the election.

There is a bias here that is extremely obvious. I listen to those cases, it was compelling evidence. There was the one truck driver who took a truckload of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. He was told to wait at a certain place and then park the truck in a certain place and then never again saw the trailer.

There was the expert witnesses that claimed stolen computers from a Pennsylvania warehouse compromised the security of the encryption key between databases and machines doing the counting. There was no way to prove that the data was valid once the encryption key was out in the ethers with unknown people.

They provided evidence of ownership of who makes the machines. Dominion clothes of their doors and their offices instead of showing up at investigations. They have since lawyered up and provided a different business front.

They investigated Trump two and a half years and spent more than $40 million to discover that Russia had bought about $50,000 in Facebook ads. China has invested over $400 million into American media over the last four years. Dianne feinstein had a Chinese spy as her chief of staff for over 20 years. The new impeachment manager is sleeping with the documented Chinese spy.

This deserves a investigation.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:38 pm
This deserves a investigation.

Unfortunately, the MAGA people have cried wolf so many times and blown so many things monumentally out of proportion that they're beginning to have the opposite effect of what was intend. People are getting sick and tired and ready to move on. Not just Biden voters but many Trump voters too. And in the process the infighting is ensuring that there will be no political party cohesive enough to challenge the Democrats in the long run. The wave that McConnell and others have been allowing to build for their self-interest is about to crash them into the rocks. And now, on top of everything else, they are going to have to make a stand to either condemn or praise a domestic terrorists monster that they helped create.

The party would do well to listen to the advice of former Republican National Committee member David Asp, "The party should move away from Trump as quickly as possible, drop the conspiracy theorists and advance a vision for the party focused on the national interest."

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:00 pm

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 12:38 pm
This deserves a investigation.

Unfortunately, the MAGA people have cried wolf so many times and blown so many things monumentally out of proportion that they're beginning to have the opposite effect of what was intend. People are getting sick and tired and ready to move on. Not just Biden voters but many Trump voters too. And in the process the infighting is ensuring that there will be no political party cohesive enough to challenge the Democrats in the long run. The wave that McConnell and others have been allowing to build for their self-interest is about to crash them into the rocks. And now, on top of everything else, they are going to have to make a stand to either condemn or praise a domestic terrorists monster that they helped create.

The party would do well to listen to the advice of former Republican National Committee member David Asp, "The party should move away from Trump as quickly as possible, drop the conspiracy theorists and advance a vision for the party focused on the national interest."

Cried Wolf?
How?

There is no Republican party. Not really.

The RNC betrayed us.

The majority of us will not be moving on. The RNC is as corrupt as the DNC. This will not go away. This election was stolen.

I asked before. Is Trump as dumb as you think? Or as smart as I think?

There's obviously no changing your mind, SN.

So, here's a question. What do you and your fellow Trumpers do now? You didn't get what you want. Even though you believe the election was rigged, Trump will no longer be the president.

Do you continue the coup? Foment a civil war?
Do you accept the loss, support a democratic process and try to remedy a different person in four years?

What can we expect from the Trumpers now?

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:50 am There's obviously no changing your mind, SN.

So, here's a question. What do you and your fellow Trumpers do now? You didn't get what you want. Even though you believe the election was rigged, Trump will no longer be the president.

Do you continue the coup? Foment a civil war?
Do you accept the loss, support a democratic process and try to remedy a different person in four years?

What can we expect from the Trumpers now?

Thank you for acknowledging my stubbornness. I would be more agreeable If I wasn't such a hard-ass.

But here's the trick. As of yesterday yet another evidence came forth showing internet traffic through different server points, that show that Trump won about 79 million to about 68 million. This is a little closer in line with actual possibility, as Obama, a truly popular president, got about 69 million.

Anyway, yet another scientifically provable footprint showing the vote in Trump's favor. So who is pulling a coup? You claim that we are pulling the coup even though we can prove that we had not only the electoral votes, but the popular vote. We have numbers that make sense to all of the markers on the outside, that match the enthusiasm and other statistical realities.

So, should Joe Biden actually enter the White House, you will see four years of stonewalling conservatives calling you liars and cheaters. Now it isn't meant to be personally insulting, because I don't believe that of you. Or anyone else on this board. But I believe with all of my heart and all of the blood that it pumps that this election was stolen. I'm not the only one who thinks that. It's not only us slow, uninformed, ignorant, high school dropout, flea scratching Trumpers. It is also high level government officials. It is other countries. It is the military. And it is Q. I, along with some millions of others, have no clue who Q is. But I have heard theories and oddly enough may actually make sense to me.

Let me say this as a disclaimer. What I am about to tell you I don't know for sure and have no way to validate. But I would bet that it is true before I would bet on that that Joseph Smith saw the father and the son.

Days before John F Kennedy was shot He announced that he had discovered a plot against the American people so evil that it was bad. Don't know how he actually described it. Then he was killed. A very odd anomaly about that event takes a close inspection of the video upon the impact of the bullet. Jackie Kennedy leans in and puts her hand on his shoulder. And then blood comes out of the opposite side of his head as if she shot him in the side of the head. If the bullet had come from the other direction the blood would have gone towards her.

It is speculated that she might have actually killed him. But not alone and perhaps not willingly. She blamed it on Lyndon B Johnson.

Supposably, that event drew a lot of interest from the protectors of the United States, including philosophers and military thinkers. They set about trying to understand what had happened and what to do about it.

It doesn't take a lot of convincing to believe that Washington is corrupt. Probably has been for many decades. But could it be so corrupt then it all acted as one organized crime syndicate? And I think the answer to that has been made pretty clear recently. When Trump took office they all freaked out. They launched every PR campaign they could against him. They impeached him for nothing. And then they impeached him for nothing again.

But aside from that, a side interest has been artificial intelligence. We have known that the military has been working on it for a long time. People like Matthew Snowden exposed How powerful the military spying operations were. Also exposed how powerful their computer power was. And that was eons ago in terms of computer development. Elon Musk has been warning us about artificial intelligence for a while. We would never be able to out think or out maneuver an artificial intelligence in control of the world's resources.

There would be only one safeguard. To make the artificial intelligence patriotic, to make its primary directive to protect the Constitution and the people of the United States. I am not saying this is a published concept, but it is kind of implied with who Q is. Anyway, the movement that Trump referred isn't just pushing back on the taking of American freedoms it's the going beyond what the media and officials tell us the truth. We will no longer settle criminals acting in our name. There will be transparency. People will be clean enough to be investigated like Trump and still come up clean.

We are just getting starting started either way.

Hmm, SN, I admit I don't really understand what the hell you're trying to say.

I asked what we can expect from the Trumpers now. I guess we first need to agree that Joe Biden is going to be the president in a few days (unless something happens to him). Trump will not be the president. Can you agree with that much?

And I suppose I should have said attempted coup, rather than coup.

And I know you are not the Trumper spokesperson, but you do report to believe in their rhetoric. So, just in your opinion, what do you think we can expect from the Trumpers as Biden is inaugurated?

Do you think we'll see protests at state capitals, especially the debated states?

Do you think we'll see more violence and rioting?

Finally, can you answer without including additional conspiracy theories?

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:03 pm Hmm, SN, I admit I don't really understand what the hell you're trying to say.

I asked what we can expect from the Trumpers now. I guess we first need to agree that Joe Biden is going to be the president in a few days (unless something happens to him). Trump will not be the president. Can you agree with that much?

And I suppose I should have said attempted coup, rather than coup.

And I know you are not the Trumper spokesperson, but you do report to believe in their rhetoric. So, just in your opinion, what do you think we can expect from the Trumpers as Biden is inaugurated?

Do you think we'll see protests at state capitals, especially the debated states?

Do you think we'll see more violence and rioting?

Finally, can you answer without including additional conspiracy theories?

I will answer your last question first. No. If I am speaking it it will be conspiracy theory.

Having said that, I pretty much told you what Trump supporters are going to do. We don't know what's going on. We know that Trump won the election. I do not agree at all that Joe Biden is or will be president.

There will be no violence for me. A TV interviewer asked me what I would do if Trump lost the election. I told him that I would probably be home watching a lot of Star Wars. My wife has corrected me, we will be watching Vampire Diaries.

I know this nation cannot be taken by force. There was as violent and nasty riding in the streets of major cities as I would ever want to see happen in the United States. But who are we going to fight? If there is going to be civil discord it will be right here, where we can call each other's names and then vote and see who gets the upper hand. We will, without doubt, pressure for better voting identification and security.

By and large, Trumpers are patriots. We love this country. We may not agree with you or others like you, but we would fight just as hard for your rights as we would for ours. In general, we have.

Big Tech has attacked conservatives. It isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact, not that I like those very much. But it is also true. They do all sorts of things to shut down conservatives. Everything from demonetizing their web pages, to shutting down their channels, deleting their accounts, and now even destroying platforms that cater to conservatives.

Putting the election aside, these things are unacceptable. But I have polled people here on NOM and they seem to think it is okay to delete and cancel and destroy the voices that they don't want to hear. You have exposed the sort of evil that you will embrace. People think that because I am a conservative that I embrace the violence at the capital January 6th. But the truth is that was a very complicated event. It wasn't just conservatives or Trumpers, was government agents and Antifa and paid agitators. There is an investigation.

No violence for me. Not accepting that this was a valid election.

I'm going to make my last post on Donald J Trump, and it's simply this.

Thank you Donald, the last few months you have managed to make me obsess about something other than Mormonism. Thank you very much.

That is all.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:45 am I'm going to make my last post on Donald J Trump, and it's simply this.

Thank you Donald, the last few months you have managed to make me obsess about something other than Mormonism. Thank you very much.

That is all.

He is the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks for the conversations.

Today's news:

Mitch McConnell admitted today that he holds President Trump at least partly responsible for the assault on the capitol. McConnell said, “The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”