Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Wolf 359: Great idea. Totally back it.
Vega: This is awesome!!! I would love to participate in the seminar
Rigel: Really interesting proposal! I would love to participate. I feel like there's so much you can do with nymity!!
Craag An: My initial thought is that this could be an opportunity for students to develop a new means / mechanism of potentially more accurate political polling
Messier 83: I like threads, but I think what threads needs is more adoption first, and then a case study on the ways in which it comes to be used, rather than asking people to think of new ways for it to be used in the abstract.
Vega: I really like the idea of Prof. Nesson co-teaching the seminar with the MIT professor before giving students the opportunity to pitch their own ideas. I'm wondering if we could know more about the funding process and what the next steps for submitting the proposal are
Luyten 726-8B: Great idea!
Sun: I love the idea. One major hiccup that I find with the use of Threads is that there is no way to tell people that you are interested in a Threads discussion. So it is really good for classroom dialogue but less useful for use as a sounding board for ideas when you can't get enough people on the board.
Deimos: This is fantastic! as was discussed in earlier threads. so many of my 1L classes would have benefited from threads.
Rhea: Great Idea. Love it. Id be happy to help in any way possible
Venus: Yes, very cool idea! I think many will want to particpate
Dillingen: The best thing since sliced bread
Rhea: Deimos - completely agree
Ross 154: What exactly could be improved about threads? Seems like it's good enough as it is
Scarif: I love the idea!
Wolf 359: Sullust - agree
Vega: I feel like Threads is the only way to go for online learning. Makes it bearable
Rhea: Ganymede I am with you
Wolf 359: Sulliust I agree
Ross 154: What we need to work on, in my opinion, is how people in a classroom setting react to things said in threads. i think complicating the threads space wouldn't make it any better. Know im in the minority here
Deimos: What about a general threads app schoolwide that only enters about 5 people per room. So that the chat doesn't get overrun. and you can bounce from a specific thread if you are not engaged in the conversation
Dillingen: @Abydos that's freaking genius
Vega: I think the lag could be improved a bit
Ross 154: sure but does Harvard need to spend thousands of $ to fix a simple IT hiccup?
Rhea: Harvard spends a lot more dumber stuff
Alderaan: Biden won the election, let's not pretend otherwise
Deimos: nymity is related to the election because of the shy trumpets. polls were wrong because people are afraid to admit they are pro trump
Ross 154: so just because Harvard wastes money on other things it should also waste it on threads?
Asuras: Would it be a lot less comfortable to use if we were back in a classroom and people were afraid others were reading what they were typing? Of course this would only apply to using it concurrently with class
Ross 154: to me the beauty of threads is its simplicity
Procyon A: I like the theory behind Nesson's idea, but I think Nesson’s pedagogy is actually a bit misguided. I’ve talked with many students over the years who have been in Nesson's classes or are currently in one of his classes and they don't feel they are safe spaces for the types of discussions we have. Rather, while the nymity space is great, the live space lacks the structure to enable these difficult conversations to be had in a meaningful way. So, the combination doesn't work effectively -- there should be a focus on doing both.
Wolf 359: Alderaan how do you expect half the country to accept that given all the irregularities? If Biden won let Republicans in to see all the middle of hte night votes that purportedly went 100% Biden in some instances.
Rhea: yes. exactly, it isn't as if th live class is any better than other classes
Deimos: @procyon I still think its more welcoming than most HLS classes. last week we had some good dialogue
Alderaan: There are no irregularities, have fun losing in the court when you can't show any and whining for four years. I don't care if you accept it or not
Rhea: I dont know why there isn't more transparency with the vote counting. Like what is there to lose?
Deimos: @mahasim maybe we'll try impeachment and Russian collusion for three years
Craag An: "all the irregularities" lololololololololol
Alderaan: have fun, whatever floats your boat
Wolf 359: Just take that single instance of thousands of votes all going for Biden - literally 100% in one release. If you are honest you know that if the shoe was on the other foot you would be screaming foul.
Vega: Is anyone else mindblower that in 2020 this is the best system we have for counting votes. Like people sitting in rooms all night manually taking each one out of the envelope. It seems absurd that this can't be machine counted immediately or done through some sort of secure online system
Rhea: i dont think trump won but I wonder why there isn't more transparency. I mean they are technically just counting ballots. right?
Craag An: Maybe we should have federal election laws, maybe some sort of voter rights act?
Wolf 359: FWIW I also don't think he won but I think the lack of transparency coupled with all the irregularities makes it impossible to accept the outcome.
Rigel: Does no one realize they count mail in all at once and in person all at once? It's obvious people who mail in lean more to one party compared to in person voters. Don't pretend as though it's an irregularity when it's an easily understandable fact
Craag An: Ask Chief Justice Roberts about a voter rights act...
Rhea: Even if Trump claims irregularities I mean it is pretty hard to get 20K fraudulent ballots passed (the margin in WI for example)
Crait: Biden isn't preventing Republicans from seeing votes
Luyten 726-8B: I don't think he won but I am extremely suspicious about the process. Bad for the country
Wolf 359: Whirlpool --- literally thousands of votes going 100% Biden - not a *single* Trump vote in the batch? Sorry, I'm not stupid.
Rhea: Kamino - exactly my point
Sun: I get a real kick out of the idea that I show up with a new name each day. I feel like I am a new person each time I take to threads. I can express opinions today contrary to yesterday which is great. I can be a republican one day and democrat the next. I can even choose rep v dem on given issues in the same day.
Luyten 726-8B: @Crait: Biden isn't. But there are places literally boarding up so no observers can watch
Crait: It's not hart to fathom mail-in ballots in blue areas being overwhelmingly in support of Biden
Luyten 726-8B: Or at least the GOP ones can't
Deimos: Jo Jorgenson 2020
Rhea: Ban glean yes thats the beauty you can actually be intellectually honest as opposed to just choosing a team and going with it
Rigel: That's just simply factually incorrect @Ganyemede idk where you get your information from and @Kamino literally every polling place has observers from both parties
Craag An: Boarding up so we don't get another Brooks Brothers Riot
Rhea: Riots have entered the chat
Craag An: Ya don't see liberals trying to stop the count in Arizona
Rhea: Ya dont see R cities boarding up. Who cares? a couple of crazies
Craag An: Name an R city
Crait: It's funny because a lot of people knew this would happen
Crait: Mail-in votes are not counted early due in large part to rules crafted by R legislatures
Rigel: If you're arguing we should stop votes you're anti-democratic and you need to face that
Crait: Votes counted late break overwhelmingly blue
Crait: Rs complain
Crait: And Trump calling fraud since he knew he was going to lose
Rhea: Trump is going to go down as whiny little child and we will be hearing from him for the next four years nonstop
Crait: Also Russia collusion is inapplicable to this discussion
Craag An: Raleigh does begin with the letter "r" :)
Crait: Trump's DoJ was investigating
Rhea: Bottom line is that the dems wouldnt have accepted the election regardless had trump won. (Neither would Rs) but let us just be honest
Craag An: Lets see how "individual 1" fares post election
Crait: Some Ds overhyped it but it wasn't a withc hunt
Crait: And Trump very likely obstructed justice
Wolf 359: 138,339 votes went 100% for Biden. Attempts to point it out on Twitter were censored. In the end they called it a "data error." Convenient.
Crait: Although they (Russia team) made the right call not accusing Trump of it because of the OLC memo
Craag An: Good grief, i can't believe people are foolish enough to fall for that 139k line at HLS
Craag An: https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/michigan-election-ballots-mail-absentee-hour-count-update/6161367002/
Rhea: America is fractured for the long term and I see no way out. And both sides are equally to blame
Crait: Don't think both sides are equally to blame
Alderaan: lets cool it with the false equivalency. Biden would've accepted the result of this election had it gone the other way. both parties in decay but one clearly worse
Crait: Dems have caused harm, but Trumpists have done way more
Wolf 359: Biden and Obama spied on Trump's campaign. Come on. Trump is worse in that he actively damages the norms. Dems are worse in that they sanctimoniously pretend to follow the norms when they are no different.
Craag An: DNC has caused harm, progressive ideology has not
Craag An: under a federal investigation =\ "spied on"
Rigel: For 100s of years we've trusted the states to do their due diligence. These are purple states that do not lean one way or the other yet only one party is screaming that there's irregularities. That's not just being a sore loser that's dangerous to our democracy. we don't even know who won yet. Calm down and get some perspective!
Vega: I think there is harm being caused by the idea that all people who voted for Trump (or insert other candidate) are awful people. I see people posting about it on social media a lot about how they will remember the people who supported him and will never be friends with them again or whatever and I think that is damaging to the country coming back together.
Wolf 359: If everything is 100% above board why not let Rs in to the count? Then the conversation is over.
Rigel: There are Republicans observing the count both Fox and CNN are reporting that!
Crait: People really think Comey, a R who actually harmed Clinton's election chances out of fear of being labeled partisan, was trying to undermine and spy on Trump?
Wolf 359: "Observing" from 20 ft away
Rhea: Dagobah exactly
Craag An: "iF yOuR nOt HiDiNg AnYtHiNg WhY cAn'T i GeT mY wAy AnD cHaNgE hOw ThInGs ArE dOnE"
Crait: Also you can dislike the other side; my concern is that we are living in two different realities half the time
Rhea: Either way, media is most to blame
Rhea: the hyperpartisanship is their fault entirely
Rhea: look at how CNN and Fox report on the news. Such BS
Crait: Media is partially to blame for being so anti-Trump, but it's not their fault entirely. Also people need better sources than CNN and Fox
Vega: @Sullust I'm not even pro-Trump but I hate the idea of just discounting 48% of the country as mean/sexist/whatever and I'm worried about what's going to happen with that. I think it's an overreaction. Do you have any ideas how to fix this?
Deimos: everyone should start watching NEWSNATION they're trying to be a truly independent news source. full panel of advisors from both sides that vet stories
Crait: NPR, Reuters, WSJ are legitimate and still discounted as fake by the right when they don't like the news
Deimos: NPR is a disaster
Wolf 359: Abydos agree
Crait: NPR is a bit more left-leaning, but Reuters is center and WSJ is center-right
Rhea: NPR and reuters are disastrous
Rhea: WSJ opinion is way right wing
Vega: WSJ is pretty fair
Crait: WSJ is not WSJ opinion
Rhea: their news side is pretty centrist
Crait: News =/= opinion
Deimos: but that's the opinion section
Crait: WSJ opinion is way right; their news is fine
Rhea: But if you think NPR is fair I have a bridge to sell you
Wolf 359: Essentially nobody but the New York Post was willing to even ask a question about Biden's son. Twitter locked accounts and deleted any attempt to tweet about it. You think people are stupid? They see what is happening.
Crait: Lol yeah the unverified emails that have a ridiculous origin story?
Crait: MSM should look into it more, but there's almost certainly nothing there
Wolf 359: I hate Trump's personality and civics. HATE IT. But what shocked me the past four years is that his presidency exposed that the corruption is the norm. It's absolutely pervasive.
Crait: Except possibly foreign interference
Rhea: I think the Hunter Biden stuff is BS but the repsonse from twitter and the rest of the media is appalling. They gave far less credible stories way more airtime
Wolf 359: Biden himself never even denied the Hunter Biden stuff. The campaign did not either.
Wolf 359: To be clear - the Hunter Biden story is dumb. I don't think anybody should have voted for Trump or against him based on it. But the double standard is maddening.
Sateda: @Ganymede if you cannot recognize the rampant corruption within the Trump enterprise then you argument loses total validity
Crait: There is a double-standard by tech (way overblown by the right I think) but it's in part because of fear of repeating last election where they propagated a bunch of misinformation like pizzagate. What are you going to do though?
Wolf 359: Of course there is rampant corruption in the Trump enterprise
Crait: Also the press did fine with the story; what was there to report other than than NY post reported this
Crait: Not verified in any sense and the supposed story of how Giuliani got it is ridiculous
Wolf 359: Celestis - we will never know because they never asked. Contrast with the effort to Trump.
Crait: FBI looking into it Ganymede
Wolf 359: Tara Reade is another great example.
Crait: Would not put it past Giuliani to have been dumb enough to publish information by Russian agents
Wolf 359: Celestis - great. But the point is that the liberal media and tech oligarchs shut it down as quick as they could.
Crait: He's really lost it cognitively
Crait: Tara Reade was reported too late I agree that was bad
Crait: The bias isn't like the MSM is pushing verifiably fake stuff though; which Trumpists do regularly
Wolf 359: The corruption on both sides is horrible. The reason I'm particularly worried about it from the left is that (a) it is not acknowledged in the same way (b) the left controls the main channels of thought and speech in this country (MSM, social media).
Wolf 359: Celestis - disagree
Ross 154: i wish all of you would shut up
Wolf 359: One more thought for now: FWIW I'm not convinced the right would be better stewards of the MSM/academica/social media etc. if they held those levers of power. But I think we all should be troubled by efforts to curtail speech, thought, etc., from *whatever* the source, and right now the censorship, cancel culture, etc. is unquestionably coming from the left.
Ross 154: no offense just feels like all you do is use threads for is to argue
Athos: Barnards Star - what else is threads for if not to express opinions that people don't hear in other forums?
Rhea: Barnards Star doesnt like hearing anything they don't agree with
Ross 154: Athos – threads should be a forum for introducing an argument. that's it. then the professor should assign a group of students to defend and oppose that position in class. that way people can learn in class. at this point threads is just a place for people to argue their own position as truth and learn nothing
Ross 154: Sullust – what's your end goal? to get people to hear things you have to say? to argue aimlessly? or is it to use threads to facilitate discussion in class?
Deimos: Bernards star that's a great idea
Ross 154: @abydos appreciate that homie
Ross 154: it's far better than whatever threads is being used for now (complaints about being silenced, calling people names, etc.)
Athos: Barnads, I think the point is to put out ideas that people won't likely confront elsewhere and then hopefully to be able to engage with them without fear of retribution, being cancelled etc.
Ross 154: Houtborg – then we agree. that's not what's happening here. you fix that when prof gets involved and randomly assigns a position to each student. The idea gets out -- there's no fear of being canceled.
Athos: Agreed that if this just becomes a shouting match then it's useless but I don't think that is where this is at right now, I think there is a mostly respectful if admittedly impasioned back and forth between people who disagree but are being required to engage rationally with each others' opinions and use their reason to try to make their case before their peers
Ross 154: If that was the case Houtborg – why is this conversation happening every class? why are people complaining about being silenced in class?
Athos: @Barnards Star: In theory that might work but in practice the best arguments will not come forward using that method.
Deimos: I think we have hit upon an important point. I heard that law school makes you defend all sorts of opinions even those you may disagree with. Ive yet to see that in a class. it would be a great exercise in critical thinking
Athos: I think people are referring to the general phenomena happening across the US
Ross 154: I trust that my Harvard Law peers will be able to articulate positions they disagree with. You're also assuming that some people wont be assigned the position that they do agree with
Saturn: Interesting thought
Ross 154: idk if Prof Nesson still reads these but this would be the one to read
Deimos: Can someone please bring this up in class. I think it is very important
Ross 154: Hopefully, Gaia or Anthony can do that
Vega: I see the utility of threads outside that though. there is something about actually getting to articulate your beliefs and make arguments for them that threads makes possible to an extend that classes don't for most people
Deimos: Dagobah I agree with that but after a while the utility goes down
Vega: I just feel like at least here I can say what I think about all the stuff going on right now and hear others' real thoughts. Social media (at least mine) is an echo chamber
Deimos: thanks Anthony. and when the student is chosen at random. they shoudnt open with "I don't believe in this" because then the walls come back up
Asuras: With the thing about taking other people's opinions and arguing for them on Zoom. Don't people think there would be a lack of comfort with possibly being recorded and taken out of context? Especially if threads brings out hot takes
Messier 83: Agreed Abydos. That's a run-around of the whole point
Vega: Earth I can say for myself only that I'm definitely not worried about that
Messier 83: Earth, if that were to happen to someone, you'd have the rest of the class as witnesses as to context.
Athos: Sunflower - yeah right.
Athos: The video will come out 20 years from now when the student is a SCOTUS nominee and the class won't come to their defense because they disagree politically.
Rhea: Houthborg isnt wront
Ross 154: You realize the probability of nobody in a 50 person classroom saying something in that 1 in a million chance someone in that class is a SCOTUS nominee is like 1 in a billion right? so for a 1 in a billion chance we shouldn't do something that benefits everyone?
Wolf 359: Obviously it's just a colorful example. The chances that someone in this class is going to end up somewhere important politically is high.
Ross 154: if you're really scared about that happening, we can all sign a contract stating the rules of discussion. that way when you're up for nomination you'll have a written document in your support
Wolf 359: Houburg is dead on
Wolf 359: Contract means nothing. The damage is done whehter or not there is a contract and if you are on the right side politically you will stand to gain far more than you lose by violating the contract.
Ross 154: its just a written document to refute your statically improbable example
Dillingen: maybe people do in fact respect contracts
Vega: Are people seriously concerned that some argument they gave about the Confrontation Clause in a law school class is going to ruin their SCOTUS nomination?
Ross 154: *video leaks* *nobody speaks up* *you're accused of defending a position you took in a law school classroom* *you say "hey, actually, we were just arguing a position assigned to us–here's a written document signed by everyone in the class saying we agreed to do so*
Rhea: Alright alright
Rhea: I agree iwht professor nession but we wont make progress until people learn to respect other peoples beliefs even thoguh they dont agree
Dillingen: threads needs a feature that'll allow you to post memes and gifs
Wolf 359: Haha I completely disagree Oberon.
Wolf 359: We need real discourse. One of the worst things Twitter did to us as a society is train us to expect that serious issues can be discussed in posts of 140 characters or less.
Dillingen: sometimes a gif is the best response to a controversial opinion
Ross 154: you can't force people to respect other people. you can't legislate love or respect and you cant ask for that to happen in a classroom. What you can do is use threads to facilitate discussion
Wolf 359: I am genuinely curious for an example of when you think that would be the case
Dillingen: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wolf 359: lol well played
Wolf 359: But I did not think my opinion was controversial :P
Wolf 359: Also I do not think that your post qualified as a GIF :P
Ross 154: me when i heard that SCOTUS argument: https://giphy.com/gifs/reaction-waka-flocka-g3vAZUNKIk61a
Wolf 359: It's funny but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes. I actually GIF use is corrosive. It does not attempt to engage with and refute an argument/debunk it on its merits - it usually attempts to mock/ridicule.
Vega: Random, but does anyone know anything about how the end of year papers work for his classes?
Wolf 359: The more I think about it the more I realize GIFs are a huge part of the problem. I bet a statistical analysis would show that the vast majority are used to insult/mock/ridicule a perspective.
Dillingen: Ok but what if it's a logically relevant GIF? like a response that actually works as a counterargument
Dillingen: it could also be funny as a bonus. Nothing wrong with that
Wolf 359: I am just strongly in favor of trying to use substance to argue rather than style. I think the more we get away from the merits of an argument the worse we are for it.
Wolf 359: I completely agree that humor has a place in our discourse, but only if that humor is good spirited. Lord knows we could use a lot more of that.
Ross 154: just argue in class and theres not gifs or nothing
Rhea: Maybe we should do online poker together to facilitate trust
Wolf 359: Oral argument > GIFs. Written is best. Realize of course that it is not practical to carry the majority of our discuourse through bland written words. But just imagine for example how much better the argumentation would have been in the political debates had they been written (again, not claiming this is at all practical). So much of the theatre is because it's oral. People talked about Trump's interruptions and the mute button and the fly and Kamala's body language and "I'm speaking" and "come on man" etc etc etc - all such a waste
Rhea: Prof Nesson loves poker
Wolf 359: **I realize of course that...
Mars: this is an interesting thread lol
Craag An: Dagobah - seconding your "how does the end of year paper work" question
Vega: Lol no one said anything
Craag An: i know - i'm just trying to find out too - haven't written a single letter
Rhea: so no buyers for poker?
Hoags Object: Motion to submit our threads discussion as a group paper
Vega: And is that our entire grade?
Hoags Object: Motion yes
Craag An: i have no idea - i might go to office hours to ask next week, have been kinda embarassed to ask
Vega: It would be great to get some clarity on grading/ final paper. It's a bit stressful this semester not really knowing how everything will work out so it would nice to get some more info sooner rather than later
Dudno: To me the greatest tragedy of the Trump presidency is that, to my dismay, he has proven to be so remarkably right about so many of the issues he has sounded the alarm upon - and yet, because he is so *wrong* about so much (and because he speaks so crassly), we are incapable of accepting the fundamental truths he is speaking. It is indeed a supreme irony - a tragedy - that the man who promised to drain the swamp is himself so corrupt. But put somebody of honorable character and intellect in his stead and I think we would lose the blinders and realize how fundamentally correct he is about nearly all of the basic grievances he is raising – even if he exaggerates their scope or raises them in a partial, self-serving manner. Trump, for instance, is right about the media: on the whole, they *are* corrupt. Same for big tech. Samefor the military-industry complex. Same for politicians on *both* sides. Et cetera et cetera. Sure, much of what Trump et. al. say is bogus. But we are only fooling ourselves if we simply block our eyes and shut our ears (as the MSM, big tech, academia et al are teaching us to do) to the reams of actual evidence he points to when crying foul. This election is but the latest example. Perhaps Biden won. Almost certainly, the voting fraud Trump is pointing to is not as consequential as he claims. But I just do not understand how you can look at some of the evidence Rs are pointing to and just dismiss it as baseless out of hand. Seriously put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself if your opinion would be the same if it was Republicans doing this. (And *yes* for what it is worth I *do* believe Republicans engage in voter suppression, election interference, etc. as well. I think I would be a much stupider and less honest person if I didn’t admit that. It is incomprehensible to me that all those in the establishment left who fancy themselves as people of intellectual honesty and integrity cannot do the same). I challenge you to look at some of the issues being flagged in these links (random small sampling) and insist with a straight face that there is not at least possibly an issue here. If we permit (or even celebrate!) the active censorship or coverup of these issues by big tech and MSM, and in mainstream discourse, then we are killing our capacity for free and honest thought and speech. Those to me are the most fundamental freedoms of all – free thought and speech. They should be important enough to fight for them regardless of which side of the aisle they are coming from; if we don’t, the day *will* come when the thought police we unleashed on our political opponents end up turning against us. We’ll regret it. https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324216584219623424 https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324237476186202113 https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324243089909833728 https://twitter.com/adamhousley/status/1324428702269071366 https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324237476186202113 https://twitter.com/RonColeman/status/1324385096691077128 https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1324239926641262593 https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1324476669793587201 https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1324174186366074880 https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1324094532795854848 https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1324404658660659201 https://twitter.com/aricnesbitt/status/1324105401814626304 https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1324411235329191936 https://twitter.com/KenWebsterII/status/1324376486271438852 https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1324115792699543554 https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1324180583875072000 https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1324286015570210817
Rhea: Agree with all of the above
Craag An: https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/0dd425c5
Craag An: A Twitter user called Essential Fleccas claims that three people who are already dead voted for Joe Biden in Michigan. According to the video published by the handle, June Aiken (120 years old), Donna Brydges (119 years old) and William Bradley (118 years old) voted for Biden via absentee ballots. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, also claimed that dead people voted in Michigan. This false information is used as evidence of voter fraud. We found that all three people are alive and most likely are relatives of the people born in the early 1900s and inherited relatives' names. William Tarnley Bradley lives in Michigan, and he is 61 years old. His ZIP code is the same as the ZIP code of his passed relative, William Bradley, born in 1902. Donna Bridges lives in Michigan, Ludington, and is 75 years old and June Aiken lives in Michigan and is 94 years old.
Cloud City: Polaris - it's OP here (Tethys). I hope you are correct about those specific people. It is strange that (to my knowledge/research) not one of them has surfaced to clear the record. Can be sure the MSM is searching hard for them and would give them all the air time they want. To be clear I do not have a vested interest in believing there was fraud. Quite the contrary. I do want Trump to win (despite my many, many reservations about him) because I believe, on balance, that his policies would be better for the country (shocking, I know). But I do NOT want to believe that an election could be stolen. If that is true it is far, far more damaging than whatever damage I believe Joe Biden could inflict through his policies - obviously! More than anything else I want the truth to come out and I want to live in an environment where I feel like it is not being actively suppressed if its gets in the way of one's political preferences. Maybe you are right about those three voters. I want to believe it. I am not convinced yet. But at any rate this is a drop in the bucket. There are just too many big questions here. Observers not being allowed to watch ballots within eyesight. AG claiming before election that Trump can't possibly win. Election officials wearing Biden paraphernalia, cheering when R observers are sent out, tweeting that we need Biden to win in a landslide. Eyewitness accounts of ballot harvesting. Unprecedented sudden stops in ballot counting and releases coupled with odd explanations (not in all cases but in several). Etc. Etc. My quick summary does not do it justice. I hope the courts will. I hope in my heart that team Trump is just lying about this all - in which case I do NOT want Trump to be president. But my personal assessment as someone who came into his presidency disliking him is that in most cases where it's been MSM/pollsters/academia/Big Tech/cultural elites against him over the past four years, he's been mostly vindicated and they've mostly been exposed for the partisan shills that they are. I have next to no faith that the Democrat run election machinery in the states in question would steal this election if they thought they could get away with it. If the Democrat establishment would do it to Sanders they absolutely would do it to Trump.
Centaurus A: As a follow up to Jakku - look up Benford's law folks