I watched the first 6 minutes of it (thus far). She says many deaths would not have happened -- but it's not clear why they would not have happened -- she drops the subject instead of completing it. Obviously she means "because of lies" but she doesn't identify a particular lie that makes sense in the context. Or at least I didn't get it. Close to that, she talks about how there _are_ treatments for C***d beyond what we are told -- and that's believable, but maybe not as significant as she indicates. It may be that _hospitals_ can't offer all the treatments because they don't have enough trained staff to handle all the cases. (I mean, I can see how "treatments" relates to "deaths would not have happened" but she doesn't make the connection really clear and the amount of significance or the context seem a little fuzzy to me.)

(But here's a treatment that anybody can do at home: "proning". I saw a video about it circulating around and I think it looks plausible. I think the public should have been told about that. But all I know about that is the one little video which appears to be common sense.)

She (Dr. Simone Gold) talks a little while about how the name changed from W***n v***s to C****-** and she calls that a Big Lie but I am unimpressed. It's not _that_ important to me what the disease is called. But I can understand why a phrase like "Chinese v***s" used by a person like Trump in a country like the U.S. could be inflammatory in a wrong way -- and have been hearing how that is playing out from an Asian-American I know -- and _that_ is significant.

Then she talks about hydroxychloroquine. I looked it up. My understanding (and I'm not a doctor, I'm just a person who reads sporadically) is that in places where malaria is a big problem, taking hydroxychloroquine is a lot better than not taking it, because malaria is so much worse than hydroxychloroquine. However, hydroxychloroquine has numerous side-effects, some of which could be serious ( https://www.drugs.com/sfx/hydroxychloroquine-side-effects.html ), so, taking hydroxychloroquine in a place where there's very low risk of contracting malaria might be worse than not taking it.

An additional factor in the significance of hydroxychloroquine during this p******c might be a false assurance that it's effective against C****-** -- but I only listened for 6 minutes, so if she addressed that point then I haven't heard it yet.

In your own post you say "real actual, practicing doctors, rather than political hacks, who have ties to Bill Gates". I don't know a lot of doctors really well up close. I have my own doctor in Kaiser. Would you think he is a "political hack" with "ties to Bill Gates"? I think he's a real "front-line doctor" whether he joins an organization by that name or not. He told me a few weeks ago that every other person he sees (meaning: 1 of every 2) (or: 50% of his patients) is a C***d case. He's just a medical doctor, the kind where I get my annual physical checkup; he's not a C***d specialist. He didn't tell me any of these things you or that Dr. Simone Gold says.

There's another doctor acquaintance I have and what he says about C***d is to take lots of Vitamin D. He has to take C***d seriously because his hospital's running low on capacity because of so many cases of it. I don't have any reason to think he's a "political hack" with "ties to Bill Gates". He weighs in sometimes on informal discussions about C***d and he doesn't say anything like what you or that Dr. Simone Gold are saying. He mentioned that he has a meter (that would be a CO2 meter, most likely) by which he can estimate the amount of risk of C***d t***smission in a room.

Regarding "ties to Bill Gates": Are we supposed to be suspicious of Bill Gates -- why? You didn't spell that out. Are we supposed to think a lot of people have "ties to Bill Gates" -- why? Is it because he's a billionaire -- and unlike the one in the White House, this time it's supposedly an _untrustworthy_ billionaire? (there's some sarcasm in that).

One could think Dr. F***i might be a "political hack" only because he has a position in government (and anything "government" might have a "political" element). However, I think the opposite. In my opinion, Donald Trump is the political hack and Dr. F***i has been a moderating influence and a real expert in infectious diseases (whereas Donald Trump's expertise is in manipulating gullible crowds). And _somebody_ should have such a position (as F***i's) in government -- that doesn't automatically make them a "political hack".

Dr. F***i has been an okay communicator but maybe not a really good communicator. If so, it might be because a lot of people at his level of government get fired by Trump from merely speaking the t***h openly; so, he had to be careful how much he said and how he said it. Also sometimes scientists aren't good public communicators -- the sk**ls needed for doing research aren't the same as the sk**ls for public speaking, and some people don't have both. Also, I believe Dr. F***i was (wrongfully) _prevented_ (by the Trump Administration) from speaking more often to the public.

The Trump Administration's been bad for scientific communication. " 'LIKE A HAND GRASPING': TRUMP APPOINTEES DESCRIBE THE CRUSHING OF THE C.D.C.
BY THE NEW YORK TIMES | DECEMBER 16, 2020
Kyle McGowan, a former chief of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his deputy, Amanda Campbell, go public on the Trump administration’s manipulation of the agency. " https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/hand-grasping-trump-appointees-describe-crushing-cdc

- ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~

I've seen a few nurses and doctors on video and I've seen some of what they're saying in the news. One thing they've been saying a lot since the p******c started is that they don't have enough medical equipment such as masks. I had some extra N95 masks left over from fire season, and donated them to nurses, because they need such equipment more than I do, and there hasn't been enough of it to go around.

I don't know how anyone can look at the news regularly and not think that doctors and nurses -- a great many of them working on the front lines -- are very concerned about the spread of C****-** and do take it seriously and want us to "stay home" and -- when we do go out -- "wear masks" if we have to go out in public among people.

I'm retired and don't have to work now. Since the p******c started, I stay away from people almost all the time, wear a mask when I'm out in public, and support my trusted favorite cafe which now has only take-out, no dining in.

I think my "mask" ideas are realistic; the mask isn't going to stop _me_ from catching C***d; what's going to stop me from catching C***d (knock on wood) is not being around people in rooms more than just short times or rarely. What's going to stop me from t***smitting C***d to _others_ (if I do catch it -- then I could be contagious even when I don't know I've got it) is (1) my mask and (2) hardly ever being near anyone, especially not in small rooms.

I hope I don't break a bone or get any other medical condition requiring a doctor, because there might not be a doctor available because the hospitals and medical staff are being stressed to the breaking point, and also if I do have to go in then I might catch C***d there.

I've already lost one friend to C***d (death), expect to lose one more during the next several months (death by C***d -- that's what I think will happen), and have been hearing second-hand about several deaths due to C***d (people my acquaintances care about). I hope that my family stays safe -- we're spread out, living in different places.

Looking at your title: "Now that the e******n is over - C***d hysteria is evaporating": Your phrase "C***d hysteria is evaporating" might be ambiguous. (Of course we would want _hysteria_ to evaporate and be replaced by, say, reason. But we don't want to trivialize a really serious situation. The p******c's real. Hysteria would be an unhelpful response to it.) I hope to be less ambiguous. The p******c keeps getting worse. We are lucky to have a president who behaves responsibly about it. All the indications I see show that we are in for a hard time for the next several months at least, because of this p******c and the fact that, thus far, there hasn't been an adequate, coordinated national response to it. It will take a long time to undo the damage.

I'll start with just your first two sentences.

The way that one police officer was hurt and died is an example. It illustrates the danger of the mob. There were also people in the mob, in the capitol building, either joking about h*****g Pence or seriously intending to do so (we cannot always know what's going to turn out as a mere joke and what's going to be a murder, but we can illustrate the risk by how the one officer died). I didn't go into all the details about how they were looking for, for example, Nancy Pelosi and so on. A lot of it was a reflection of the way Trump talks about the people.

"I thought you wanted to defund the police." You are generalizing too broadly. Also, when you say "I thought you wanted to defund the police" you are not close to the topic at hand.

Anyway, since you brought it up: "Defund the police" is what some people are saying, but I'm not one of them. "Defund the police" is a handy slogan and conveys a sense of outrage (and I agree that outrage is appropriate), but a lot of us think that to say "defund the police" is over-simplistic and maybe even irresponsible. We (including me) think there should be a _change_ to how police work, probably including a change to details of funding. Police misconduct is a serious matter but "defund the police" is probably too blunt a response to it.

When you say, "Why are you so upset about one police officer? I thought you wanted to defund the police." it looks like you're missing the point (probably deliberately pretending to miss the point), and it looks like you're trivializing a serious matter. It gives the impression that your response probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

The mob k**led one C*****l P****e officer. Maybe his family should just ignore that; after all, aren't people entitled to believe differently than they do? Sarcasm intended here.

The mob threatened hundreds of congresspeople. That's our Congress they were threatening. The mob threatened our very government. Our entire nation could have collapsed. People in the mob, inside the Capitol building, were looking for congresspeople. If they had caught even one, we might be in a hostage situation right now, or possibly a situation involving a dead congressperson -- even if not deliberately -- all it would take would be one drunkard with a gun in that mob.

As it was, they appear to have been mostly-chemically-sober but malicious and k**led one person by throwing a fire extinguisher, then jeopardized national security in as many ways as they could manage to do. (begin sarcasm) Oh well, they don't believe like we do, so we are supposed to tolerate those things (end sarcasm): No! Wake up; there were extraordinary physical things going on there, and they have to be addressed, not just tolerated. You thought we wouldn't know that; you thought we were just fools, because we "tolerate" some things.

You characterize a "party of tolerance", as though if it tolerates some things, then it should tolerate all things.

The r**t happened in large part because of a belief that the e******n was s****n. After _recounts_, _audit(s)_, and _dozens_ of _failed_ Trump _lawsuits_, even the Supreme Court, even stacked with Trump-nominated appointees, didn't find Trump's case about the e******n worth much. But a lot of Republican officials (including Trump) _continued_ to fan the flames of falsehood, logically leading to the i**********n on J*** 6. In that way, those Republican officials acted so irresponsibly that they should resign. People who act like that don't belong in those positions in our government. They have disrespected both Congress and the Judicial Branch. That leaves one of our three branches of government that they might respect: The Executive Branch. But Trump doesn't even follow the advice of his own Administration and disrespects _them_.

So what kind of government does that mob and those Republican officials respect? They respect a Dictatorship. And they're willing to o*******w our Government so they can have a Dictatorship instead.

Ah, well, but they're not _socialists_. Sarcasm intended here.

Large gatherings are relatively unsafe during a p******c. Attending the inauguration in person is unnecessary. So, it would be foolish to have a large gathering at the inauguration during a p******c. A lot of people would _like_ to be there, so I'm sure somebody thought up a symbol to represent all the people who wanted to attend but stayed away (or were kept away) for safety because of the p******c. That symbol is f**gs. I like it better than just an empty space. And it surely costs _way_ less than all the air fare and various other expenses of attending in person.

There's an "alternate reality" in which the p******c doesn't exist (or is extremely different from what people such as Dr. F***i, W.H.O. officials, and most other people are describing), and in that "alternate reality" the explanations for a lot of things come out different. I think it's like what Alice encountered when she went down the rabbit hole. There's some kind of logic going on down there, sometimes, but it's not the kind she was used to.

"covered up"? I doubt it.

"slipped up" -- possibly -- most people and organizations slip up from time to time. That is, they make mistakes.

Some people these days seem hell-bent on believing that certain other people are deliberately evil. What kind of people believe such a thing? Are the people who believe that way usually: Trump supporters? Republicans? Political Conservatives?

Why would an organization such as W.H.O. want to cover up a v***s?

If anybody _did_ "cover up" the v***s, I think it would be Trump. You can read about it and hear the recorded interviews about it. The place to read about it is the book "Rage" by Bob Woodward. I've heard a few little excerpts of the recorded interviews -- I found those online -- and I've read that Bob Woodward is making the whole recorded interviews available.

So, why did Trump do that? Was it because he was deliberately evil? No, I don't think so. I think he slipped up big time. He says he didn't want to cause a panic. But that was a bad strategy. He should have told us the t***h instead.

You don't have to totally "trust" W.H.O. or Trump or anyone in particular. Listen to them a little, learn a little, and judge for yourself which parts of what they say seem credible and which parts don't. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.

I agree with woodguru where he said:

"WHO gives us an inside view into newly emerging v***ses and health problems. ..."

I think I agree with Canuckus Deploracus where he said:

"... They reported the information they were given... The WHO doesn't make suppositions..."

That seems likely.

I don't totally trust _anyone_, not even myself (because I make errors just like anybody might). I don't totally trust my doctor about everything -- but I do listen to what he says, and usually I follow his advice. I believe doctors have a tendency to over-prescribe drugs. With doctors, sometimes it's tricky. You have to know what questions to ask, such as, "Are there any side-effects?" or, several years ago, "Is this v*****e stored in multi-dose vials or single-dose vials?" (At one time, one had a potentially harmful preservative and the other didn't -- but it's not the same situation for all times, places, and v*****es, so now there might be some other relevant question instead.)

I'm a lot better off with my doctor, and with W.H.O., than without them.

Are there some deliberately evil people in the world? Maybe, but they're probably rare if they exist at all. I think Trump, McConnell, and the heads of some large corporations are somewhat evil, but even they probably think there's something good about what they're doing. And besides, they're not totally bad; for example McConnell has a nice voice -- he probably ought to sing in a choir. And he gave a good speech recently -- not that it makes up for all the bad he's done, but it was a good speech anyway -- he said some right things. And Trump -- in one way, Trump is honest -- if he doesn't like someone, he might just say so (insults and all), which is not always a good idea, but at least it gives a clue to what he's really about. (It would have been better if he'd been honest about the p******c.) There's probably some redeeming feature about each of Stalin, Hitler, and Pontius Pilate -- I believe that an omniscient God (knowing the entire past and thought processes of each person) forgives them all. We still have to prosecute such people on Earth though -- just as we can't let the baby to play with a loaded gun or to sit next to the red button that starts World War 3 -- there are practical considerations.

If it's truly a "Muslim ban" then of course it should be reversed. It makes no more sense than a "Christian ban".

Somewhere I saw that it was a ban having to do with 7 countries that were predominantly Muslim (not precisely a "Muslim ban"), and so, theoretically, it might not really have started out as a "Muslim ban" by definition. But the spirit of it, this time, seems to have been a "Muslim ban", that is, a discrimination against people based on their religious affiliation.

Could a ban based on religion ever be a good thing? I doubt it. Has there ever been a real religion which is _so_ dangerous or _so_ malignant that such a ban would be necessary? I don't think so. That's because a religion is some combination of thought, worship, theology, and philosophy, but is subject to interpretation and judgment before it leads to action. Actions can be outlawed; thoughts should not be outlawed.

I've gotten to know a few Muslims. They and their religion are no worse than Christians are. I can't say I've studied Islam much; I do have a Koran which was gifted to me, which I care for as an honored gift and religious symbol, but I haven't read much of it yet. (I also have several Bibles, including one that belonged to one of my parents and one that belonged to one of my grandparents.) I _have_ read straight through the Bible from start to finish, and it's bad enough (and there's some good in it too); and I've attended hundreds of Christian worship services, and they're both good and bad -- bad enough to put some of the blame on them for some of the wrongs in the world. (I'm thinking primarily of genocidal theft of land, in the Old Testament, which is still celebrated in Christian churches now.). (The fact that it's _pious_ genocide doesn't make it seem any better to me -- it makes it seem _worse_ to me.)

A few of the worst things Christians have done are what the Conquistadores did in what's now Mexico and Peru and what the Spanish Inquisition did.

Would it make sense for Iraq to have a "Christian ban"? Think back to 2003. The U.S. pretended Iraq had something to do with the deliberate plane collisions, into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon, in 2001. The U.S. also pretended Iraq "had" or was developing "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (heaven forbid that they might bomb some places as the U.S. did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- or that they would have anything to deter U.S. aggression). Iraq didn't have anything to do with our "9/11" (11 of the 14 hijackers were Saudi Arabians -- I don't know what nationality the other 3 were) and it didn't have WMDs. The U.S. (and the so-called coalition of the willing, led by the U.S.) invaded, bombed, and shot up Baghdad, k*****g lots of innocent people, and for no good reason at all. How many of those U.S. soldiers were Christians? How many of those U.S. soldiers (or their commanding officers somewhere up in the chain of command, maybe even Bush himself) thought the invasion and k*****g were at least partially justified by the fact that they themselves were "Christians" and the people in Iraq were "Muslims"? Some of them (or their commanding officers) thought that way.

After all that, would it be right for Iraq to have a "Christian ban"? I don't think so; Christianity, like most religions, is mainly a way of thinking or a philosophy or a way to worship or a theology or some mixture of those things. Christianity, and Islam, and probably most religions in general are subject to interpretation and judgment!

So, being a Christian does not automatically make you an invading k**ler in Baghdad. A criminal act should not be judged based on whether the perpetrator was a Christian or a Muslim or of some other religion. The act should be based on the act itself (in my opinion), regardless of wh**ever the perpetrator's religion may or may not be. So, in my opinion, Iraq should not have a "Christian ban".

No; that would involve a Christian ban and a Jew ban.

a. "78". So? Compare with the other choice (obese, and it's hard to know how literate that one is -- I know Biden is literate because I saw a paper he wrote) (somebody had posted it online -- that's how I happened to see it).

b. "campaigned from his basement". And you have no idea why, because for you the p******c doesn't exist?

c. "unpopular VP"? at least moderately popular, I think. She seems capable. I'd v**e for her over Pence. Even though I don't particularly _like_ her.

d. "most v**es..." Both Trump and Biden each received record-breaking numbers of v**es. It's to be expected. There was a lot at stake, so people turned out to v**e (some of them even standing in line for more than ten hours to do it). Even in more typical times, each e******n can be expected to have slightly more v**ers than the one before, anyway.

e. "empty inauguration". See b, above.

f. "25,000+ troops to protect him". You slept through J*** 6? That was the day they _didn't_ have 25,000+ troops at the ready. They trusted you. Guess that approach didn't work out well enough. More about J*** 6 below.

About J*** 6 (r**ting, armed Trump supporters trash Capitol, threaten many officials (terrorized them, I think), k**l a C*****l p****e officer, jeopardize several kinds of national security) (and some r****rs later said they'd do it again):

J*** 6 is linked to an idea about the e******n. Imagine a country far away, and you are there as an observer; it has an e******n; how would you know whether the e******n was correctly done? Would you sue in court about it? Would you demand recounts? Or audits? Would you only believe the officials in _your_ political party? Would you insist that there be a paper trail? Would you take exit polls? Would you shoot some people and hope for the best? How would you know which people to shoot? Would it matter? When you sued at court, what if you thought the judge was being unfair -- what if you thought the whole mess of judges were being unfair everywhere -- would you take the matter to the highest court in the land, where you know you'll get the most fair treatment possible because you yourself nominated and got appointed the most fair, impartial, competent, qualified judges you could find ;-) ?

I see it has something to do with "a number of reputable [though unnamed here] PhD statisticians". More about them later.

If the allegation is true, can anyone point to a person who has been prosecuted for committing such a wrong? Or who, if not prosecuted, has at least been _named_?

I understand your post is about "dumps", not necessarily called "v***r f***d". Part of my argument here is that Trump has already led us down the garden path (phrase explained below) about "v***r f***d" and wasted our time on that topic, so now I'm understandably reluctant to be led down yet another garden path about "dumps" which looks like it may have also been just conjured up, as is usual with Trump and so many of those who support him.)

("Garden path" refers to the saying "to be led down [or up] the garden path", meaning to be deceived, tricked, or seduced. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence ) )

In my opinion, Trump (and some of his supporters) just makes up things (about v***r f***d and some other topics) and his supporters either just believe wh**ever he tells them or say likewise with their own disregard for t***h.

It takes very _little_ effort for Trump, or anyone, to just make up something and say it. It sometimes takes an _enormous_ amount of effort to do all the fact-checking and correcting of all the damage done in the ripple effects from a President's false or misleading statement. Trump and his gun-toting window-breaking supporters can always say they were just joking, but it still has consequences (e.g. one c*****l p****eman dead, many people threatened, an entire democratic process threatened, and entire peaceful t******r of p***r threatened, in the world's superpower country -- oh, well if it's just a joke, that's ok, why should we care about a little murder here and there and a little overturning of an e******n here and there.) --

There are people who try out plenty of outrageous statements and acts; occasionally they might hit on one that works; and when it doesn't work, they can always say, "Oh, I didn't mean that seriously." --

Despite the title which I'm about to cite, those people are not all r****ts, just some of them are. Here, the point is that consequential behavior may be done in a lighthearted way, but that doesn't excuse it. See: "From lynchings to the Capitol: R****m and the violence of revelry" subtitled "The history of the US shows us that, when it comes to w***e s*******y, entertainment and violence go hand in hand." At:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/1/13/from-lynchings-to-the-us-capitol-us-r****m-and-the-violence-of-revelry

I insert this dividing line to break up the long reply into sections:

- ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~

Some, perhaps most, of my information about e******ns comes from the book "How Trump Stole 2020" by Greg Palast (gregpalast.com). Greg Palast is an investigative reporter who investigates, sues, and writes about various forms of e******n wrongs. The main wrongs he writes about are wrongful mass purges of legal v**ers, and those purges are done by e******n officials.

There is a connection between the two topics "purge" and "v***r f***d". The reasoning (or excuse) for a mass purge is often that it's to prevent v***r f***d.

(There's potential for humor in that. Mass purges involve many thousands of v**ers (so when a purge is wrongly done, it's significant). ("Dumps" as alleged in your post could also be significant because of the large numbers of b****ts allegedly involved.) --

but "v***r f***d", so often cited by Trump and his supporters, normally interpreted to mean incidents involving one v**e at a time, are unlikely to be significant, because they take so much more effort to do and involve so few v**es (that's the humor: the relative smallness of it is such a contrast to the relative largeness of the numbers of wrongly purged v**ers) --

there are very small numbers of confirmed cases of v***r f***d, though very large numbers of unconfirmed cases of it are spun out of thin air by Trump and his supporters. But I bet I can say a larger number than they do! I've had training. Googleplex! There, that ought to do for starters. Top that! (And no, a trivial answer such as "Googleplex plus 1" is not allowed.))

I am not there with my nose in the evidence to see it first-hand for myself, although the book (the aforementioned "How Trump Stole 2020") does reproduce some of it quite convincingly. Palast does win some lawsuits about e******ns. It's not just him doing the work; he assembles a team, for example, a team of "address hygiene" experts to find out whether v**ers really moved or not.

Well, my point here (to be more firmly established by the end of this reply) is that there is evidence of wrongs in e******ns, but the most solid evidence is not in Trump's favor. To put it mildly.

(I wish I could SCREAM at Trump supporters. I would scream: "THIS is what EVIDENCE looks like! Look over here at what Greg Palast is proving! Look over here (to be described below) at what the Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor is talking about! Significant evidence involves specificity and is more than just hearsay. You guys got NUTHIN'!" But I'm too polite and cautious to scream -- and there will always be some "one more" piece of "information" I may not know yet, and the "one more" and "one more" and ... goes on forever.)

- ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~

Outside of the Palast book, there were actually a few v***r f***d cases uncovered in Pennsylvania. Read it and weep: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pennsylvania-lt-gov-fetterman-relentlessly-trolls-dan-patrick-seeking-1m-v**er-fraud-bounty/ar-BB1cayv1 Some people (including me) think it is funny, but here's a more serious part: "it documents how truly rare v***r f***d is and how impossible it is to truly pull it off". (Palast has also said that v***r f***d is very rare; he quotes a professor who is an expert on it --

that's in the same book, on page 28, where he writes: "Rutgers Professor Lorraine Minnite, the nation's top v**e f***d expert, found just six verified cases of v**er impersonation [that's just one kind of v***r f***d, I suppose, but maybe it's the _main_ kind] over 12 years of our nation's e******ns. The 'E******n Law Journal' reported that 'the proportion of the population reporting v**er impersonation is indistinguishable from that reporting abduction by extraterrestrials.'")

Above, I mentioned "few v***r f***d cases uncovered in Pennsylvania". Here is the name of one of those people being charged with v***r f***d: Bruce Bartman. (I want to scream, his _*_NAME_*_ is ...) ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/21/pennsylvania-man-charged-with-v**er-fraud-for-casting-b****t-for-trump-under-dead-mothers-name/?sh=6608bdcf59bf ). The other two are Ralph Thurman ( https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania-e******n-trump-lawsuits-porter-wright-court-linda-kerns-biden-20201113.html ) and Robert Lynn ( https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/luzerne-county/man-arrested-for-v**er-fraud-in-luzerne-county/523-7fc4fd2f-9105-47e7-a510-2b5ff176ab2c ). More about them in a bit. But first, a brief aside:

Meanwhile, here's what happens (or fails to happen) when Trump supporters talk about v***r f***d:

"Despite the president’s continued rhetoric about widespread and systemic v***r f***d in the state, his campaign’s legal filings have thus far failed to lodge even a single allegation — let alone provide evidence — of one b****t being deliberately cast illegally." ( https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania-e******n-trump-lawsuits-porter-wright-court-linda-kerns-biden-20201113.html )

Now back to those three identified real v***r f***d cases:

All three of the above _identified_ (but not identified by Trump's campaign nor by his legal team), _charged_ individuals are either "registered Republican" (Robert Lynn and Ralph Thurman) or later “explained that he cast a v**e in the name of his deceased mother to reelect President Donald Trump.” (Bruce Bartman) ( As previously cited: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/12/21/pennsylvania-man-charged-with-v**er-fraud-for-casting-b****t-for-trump-under-dead-mothers-name/?sh=6608bdcf59bf ).

- ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~

So, what kind of person commits v***r f***d? Three is a rather small sample, but this sample would indicate that Republicans and people who v**e for Trump are the same kind of people as those who would commit v***r f***d. Does it fit the personality type? --

It kind of makes sense, because Trump himself suggested illegally v****g twice: "Trump suggests supporters illegally v**e twice to test mail-in v****g" ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-urges-nc-supporters-v**e-twice-test-mail-in-v****g/ ) and we know that Trump supporters are really committed to doing what he wants them to do. What a kidder, that Trump. It might destroy an e******n, but why should he care -- he's already in the seat of power. And what's _he_ got to lose -- as soon as he's out of power, he'll be prosecuted up the kazoo for the rest of his life, and with no p**********l immunity. Might as well mess with the e******n -- the _e******n_ that might _unseat_ him from the presidency -- he doesn't want one of those. --

Maybe he can mix it up enough that his lawyers will be able to exploit some cracks in the system in case he loses and needs to overturn it. I think that was his strategy, going into the Nov. 2020 e******n. The more doubt he can sow about the e******n, the more it benefits himself. The more vague and undefined the doubts, the better, because he wouldn't know exactly what he might need to exploit later -- the vague and undefined can be twisted to fit what he needs, later. The _precise_, though, would work against himself, because people can be held accountable for precise statements. That's why the Trump campaign and his legal team don't even try to name people who committed v***r f***d -- making precise statements is not what they do.

- ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~

And now, about that statistical work:

In your post, it quotes this: "Ten-sigma jumps have a probability of 1 in 1023". That terminology and those numbers seem odd to me (I wonder whether they're just making something up without knowing what they're talking about). If it's a Normal Distribution then anything as far as ten sigmas from the mean would be much rarer than 1 in 1023. So I tried looking up similar numbers to see how they compare. At https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-5-sigma-means-0423423/ , I find "Around 0.1% of the population is 4 standard deviations from the mean" which means: 1 in 1,000 at 4 sigma. So at 10 sigma I would expect much less than even 1 in 1,000,000. Something more like 1 in 100,000,000 would seem more reasonable to me, to correspond to "10 sigma".

Well, okay, so maybe it's some other distribution, not the Normal Distribution. Or maybe when they say "sigma" they're NOT talking about Standard Deviation. Or, maybe, those statisticians you didn't name got their PhD's the same way Trump got his.

I mean, sure, it could be some other kind of calculation I don't know about, but I've learned to be suspicious -- there's so much bogus "information" circulating around these days.

"The unit of measurement usually given when talking about statistical significance is the standard deviation, expressed with the lowercase Greek letter sigma." ( https://scitechdaily.com/explaining-sigmas-role-in-statistical-significance/ )

(Maybe it's the new enhanced Republican-Sponsored Distribution ! Ha ha ha ha ha....) (Anonymity Shields up? Check.)

(A little later, I noticed this in your post: “1 in 10117 — or 14 Powerball wins in a row”. Who thinks 14 Powerball winds in a row has something to do with "1 in 10117"? Does that look realistic to anybody? It looks downright silly to me. I think 14 Powerball wins in a row would be _very_ unlikely: maybe the chance of it happening is something like 1 in a trillion. But "1 in 10117"?? Bah. Can you lasso one of those statisticians and make him show his calculation?)

"Can The Forces Unleashed By Trump's Big E******n **e Be Undone?"

Yes, eventually.

It's likely that they will just fade away over a few decades until the "Trump supporting" people have forgotten, or are forgotten. They will forget what they are thinking now and will become occupied with some other newer thought, which might even be the opposite of what they're thinking now. And they'll keep thinking they're right, throughout the entire process.

However, there's a less likely but more optimistic scenario: that the t***h will be revealed in such a way that everybody can agree on it, within a few months. This is what I think happened in the time leading up to Nixon's resignation.

At that time, I did not read nor listen to news. Most people my age were better informed about those kinds of things. I found out about it later. My interest in Nixon is in how what happens in more recent times compares with what happened then.

In 1972 Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein "did much of the original news reporting on the Watergate scandal." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward )

Since that time I haven't encountered anyone who disagrees about Nixon. It seems everyone agrees that Nixon behaved very badly and needed to be removed from the Presidency. (But prior to that time Nixon had had enough supporters that he got elected to the presidency twice.)

Now the same Bob Woodward has written the book Rage and made available the recordings of his interviews with President Trump.

The logical and necessary step for our country is to get Trump tried under oath. Not like in early 2020 where he didn't even have to appear. More like Clinton testifying in his impeachment trial, but not about Clinton things, instead about Trump things. I mean, Clinton sat there under oath and was questioned and answered the questions. That's what was good about the Clinton impeachment. (Unfortunately the choice of topic was unworthy.) The trial of Trump has to be done (a) fairly, and (b) in a way that also _looks_ fair, and (c) thoroughly. And (d) openly, so that the general public can understand and trust it. The main purpose of the trial is to reveal important t***hs so that the nation can come together in agreement about them.

Nixon resigned instead. But his bad behavior had been exposed so much, anyway, that people were able to agree that he had to be removed from office (so if he hadn't resigned he would have been impeached and then, presumably, convicted and removed from office).

I'm not sure of the exact fit of the "v***r f***d" idea with the Trump impeachment. Of course they are related. In my opinion the best source of information about "v***r f***d" and other e******n-related fraud-like things is Greg Palast whose website is gregpalast.com.

So if we could get some mixture of (a) Greg Palast's team's work with (b) a real, thorough impeachment trial of Trump, that might lead us out of the current mess in which there are competing notions of "reality", with violence and putsches or c**ps. Then we'd come together about reality and there would be much less violence, putsches, or c**ps.

(Another thing: The people with guns need to go out somewhere far away and shoot at each other, and leave the rest of us out of that. There should be no guns in the impeachment trial room, and the process should have as little intimidation as possible. To get t***h we need clear statements on the record, not some contest about who makes the biggest threats of violence.)

Yes.

I don't think he will, though.

It seems to me as though President Trump and Julian Assange are in two different worlds of thought. I can't imagine President Trump even thinking about Julian Assange. I admit he must have thought about Assange in some way in some passing moment, but he doesn't talk and act like people who do obviously care about Assange (and want him freed).