You would know better than me, since I'm pretty sure that's where you live. 😛 [lol, I actually had to Google it, so no idea. I think they were spawned separately but probably cross-pollinated at some point]

Finland not existing is just a conspiracy to make fun of other conspiracies. No one takes it seriously. And it's a shame, because of this tactic of ridicule, a lot of people are being blinded to the real truth exposed by other "conspiracies". Birds aren't real, for example. And, what I consider an even bigger global game changer: giraffes don't exist. I mean, seriously, how did we all fall for an animal half horse half ostrich, with leopard spots and weird antennae things? "Yeah, that looks right." Our education system has failed us. In terms of brainwashing the global population, Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big Illuminati have a lot to learn from Big Giraffe and Big Bird.

Noticeably absent from the graph of conspiracy is spontaneous human combustion (or SHC, to my fellow in-the-knows). Confirmation confirmed!

We attended a business conference in October that would have been closed to us normally. It's an international conference that moves every year, this year it was scheduled to be in Paris. That's...not possible. lol. Truthfully even just across the Mississippi is not possible right now (even without Covid). Maybe we could swing it for one person, but definitely not both. But! It moved online! And without travel expenses, it was totally doable. And our good luck continued!: My DH applied to give a talk, even though it was quite a long shot. And the amazing happened, they accepted his proposal! So not only were we able to attend a normally-impossible conference, he was actually a speaker at it. So. that was pretty awesome for us, lol.

Re anxiety: I don't necessarily have anxiety around current events, but I'm under the gun on the business and trying to learn a bunch of new skills to make it happen. (If you look at my posting word count over the past 2 days, you can guess how well it's going, lol) So my stress-relief recipe: Ingredients Mr Rogers Neighborhood on in the background The grocery market is now having sales on Valentine's Day chocolates.... Instructions Mix ingredients liberally. For optimal results, multiple sample boxes (WITH the flavor key) along with know-what-you-get chocolates should both be included. It took me at least 3 different attempts before I got the proportions just right, but thankfully it looks like there's another few weeks of chocolate sales so I can perfect the recipe well before then!

I count 8 statements. Two of these statements were made as "opinion"('I think' on #6, and #8 is certainly gut-based unless proved otherwise) but the rest read as facts. I already gave a response to 1, stating that there was no real movement saying that he didn't win, only that he shouldn't have won (anger about electoral college). There is no comparison to the 2020 movement "Stop The Steal" movement. If you want to show otherwise, please do. 2. No, I cannot find ANY source online for this, please send me a link. My Google results 3. No, HRC campaign did not ask for the recount in Wisconsin, Stein did and then the HRC campaign later got involved from an integrity point of view. From an article, "Clinton was presented with evidence from electoral experts that her vote totals in counties using electronic voting machines was 7 percent lower than those using hand-counted paper ballots and optical scan voting systems, both considered more precise and reliable and less open to miscounts or hacking than the electronic machines... The Russians were accused of hacking email accounts during the campaign to benefit Trump. There was a concern, although no evidence existed to indicate this had happened, that the voting machines might have been hacked. ... The Clinton campaign chose not to exercise its own right to call for a recount after failing to find compelling evidence of voter fraud or result manipulation." This is a COMPLETELY different approach and stance than then last 2 months of rhetoric from the losing side. I mean... nostalgia in waves now. Another article addressing 5 state recounts altogether: "Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is behind recount efforts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, states where Republican Donald Trump won narrowly over Democrat Hillary Clinton. In Nevada, a partial recount of the race was requested by independent presidential candidate Roque De La Fuente. Clinton won in that state. And a motion was filed Tuesday in central Florida by three voters who say that the election in Florida, which went to Trump, was marred because of hacking, malfunctioning voting machines and other problems.." 4-8. At this point, I do not want to fact check any more statements. I started on #4 and was getting frustrated because I cannot find anything but *maybe* you were interpreting some weak statement about the Mueller investigation during an interview as a "speech"? I was engaging in good faith and trying to recreate a faithful narrative of the past since you seem so focused on showing how 2020 is the same as 2016. You're making a lot of loaded posts and statements without sources. I feel I am working towards this alone, so I think I am going to stop here. edited for easier skimming.

Um...I'm almost afraid to ask, but Wayfair the online store is a World Order conspiracy similar to reptilian overloads? Do they sell really bad knockoffs or something? Is this a legit case of "their prices are too good to be true"? What have I missed?

Well THIS has been a surreal Google search. Some of my favorite excerpts: Anti-Trump protests, some violent, erupt for 3rd night nationwide : The protest was mostly peaceful until demonstrators met with an anarchist group, after which demonstrators vandalized buildings, kicked cars and knocked out power, KGW-TV reported. On Twitter, Portland police said many protesters were "trying to get anarchist groups to stop destroying property" and that "anarchists" were refusing to do so. Demonstrators repeatedly chanted "peaceful protest." Officers ordered protesters to disperse after the demonstration turned into what they called a riot, citing "extensive criminal and dangerous behavior." At least 26 people were arrested. Police said the crowd, which included many people armed with bats, threw projectiles at officers, who responded by pushing back against the crowd, then making arrests and using flash-bang devices, pepper spray, rubber projectiles and types of smoke or tear gas to force people to disperse. However, most concise information is found on this Wikipedia Timeline of Protests Against Donald Trump (which likes to highlight the more notable and violent protests especially). Overall, I will cede there was some violence at the news of his election. This violence, I feel called to note, was in the vast minority of the demonstrations and protests. Notable parts from this refresher (that I didn't know previously from my 2016 conservative news fed) is that a lot of the chants were similar to "Love Trumps Hate" etc. There were a few things that were funny like, "We reject the President-Elect!" which sounds fun to chant because it rhymes, but ironically is acknowledging his legitimate status. I do think I've cited the most violent protest above, though, with the Portland "riot." --- Frankly I feel a bit nostalgic for 2016 now. ETA: re "protests for years" -- no, it seems that the protests were only for months. Protests after his election weren't about his actual election or legitimacy but more about policies/stances and his general character/personality, which after checking Obama's protest Wiki (not as fleshed out unfortunately) does seem to just be par for the course of a president. I can also vouch for this on a personal level since I know multiple people who attended anti-Obama protests whenever he visited their area.

I would say protested, yes. As in people were horrified or surprised by them, in a surreal type of way. Lots of wringing hands "about what it means", etc. And I do remember people calling out for an end to the electoral college with a lot of "this shouldn't have happened." But I don't think too many people said it didn't happen. So, protested, yes. Disputed, no. (This is where I feel obligated to unfortunately note I voted for Trump in 2016 and so don't have a particular reason to forget my impressions from the time. I need to look up the "violently" part you mention though because I don't remember that, and I was still plugged into some of the more conservative news at the time so I find that surprising. Not questioning as much as wondering what I missed.) edit because I completely forgot about Russia: yeah I do think there was Russian influence on the election. But at the time I don't remember that being a big storyline (or it was suppressed by my conservative news sources, take your pick), and I don't know if "influence" is the same as "stealing." I don't remember any marches or calls to stop the steal of the election, and I remember HRC giving a pretty prompt concession once it was clear how the numbers were going.

Okay, so the problem I see with this -- not you, just the situation -- is absolutism, very true. Both sides want a pristine election (as we all should!) and so are assuming that the election either was *pristine* or *rank with defilement* without ceding maybe it was *clean enough to invite Grandma for dinner and her pet bloodhound but not for the CSI team*. <-- ie, there were little things wrong but nothing that would remotely invalidate the results. Because, by proving just 1 or two old grannies died and their kids filled their ballot would not make the election fraudulent. So we don't need an absolute, really, to make a judgement on this. As time goes on, and we see there is no credible evidence of massive or system fraud -- despite the investigations being conducted by those who want to find it most -- and we see only few-ballot mistakes being turned up by massive rechecks... at what point do we say, "the possibility is there, but the probability is not." ? When do we resign and say, "Sure, a few ballots were miscounted, Jim Bob stole his mom's ballot, and a bunch of people used purple ink so they messed up their count, but by and large this is what happened." [I am totally making up these things.] When do we say that it has been proved, to borrow a much loved American ideal, "beyond reasonable doubt" ?

What am I, chopped liver? Am I posting into the void? I'm sincerely trying to engage and show how we can constructively investigate "the possibility" so you don't hold it in your head. I am not asking you to provide proof, I am giving the space to address this "possibility" and how to either prove or disprove your opinion and address your BS-o-meter with facts. What am I doing wrong?!

Wait wait wait. We were just talking about evidence and questions. Let's keep it there! Don't jump away from fact-sleuthing because you don't like the smell!! Come back to me!! We've gone from "There have been hacks of other things in the past so is it possible the election was hacked?" to "A hospital I know was hacked. Lots of big companies and government systems have been hacked. So it is suspicious to me that the election wasn't hacked." That is a HUGE difference of approach. You are going into one looking for answers to a question, and the other you are priming yourself to be suspicious of anything that does not confirm your suspicion. You are going in to prove you were correct that it was hacked. WHY doesn't "most secure presidential election in US history" not smell right? Put it into words. If you have a sincere doubt, let's name it! Let's get it on the table! People have been scouring this topic for months so I'm sure we can find something to address it.

{{{}}}} I'm so sorry for your family's loss. Grief makes us do unreasonable things and want unreasonable things. She is being unreasonable, yes. The perspective of your daughter: she lost her cousin, someone she loved and was close to. Now for her, it must feel like she is losing her aunt because she isn't allowed to see her, and in a way her family, because she is not allowed to take parts of events. Her grief is different from your sister's, but it is no less real, and she is much younger and unused to such emotions; it is not fair to compound her grief with punishment for her looks. I think you need to grieve with your sister as much as she needs, but you need to protect your daughter from more fallout. Grieving with your sister does not mean giving in to wrong requests.

Okay, I actually don't have a problem with you posting it *like this* because you give at least a nominal reasoning for your concerns. You point out a precedence of hacks that have happened recently. Moreover, your question has a way of being checked. Because you have *doubt*, that is asking for evidence, not a *conviction*. So, I would point out as someone else already has, that we have individual state elections, so we could focus on the ones that you seem most suspicious. Then go through voter logs, look at the different checks they used, we could read the statement and steps taken by the one guy that was in charge of cybersecurity during the election and said there was a safe election (who was fired? or resigned? soon after). IOW, we can address and investigate your concerns. At the end, though I would hope that if the overwhelming evidence points to no issue, you could accept it. The problem I have seen now is that people are refusing to accept evidence that goes against conviction. That is when it crosses into conspiracy. I know I don't speak for everyone on this, and I do agree that the stifling of questions like this is longterm bad; but I find that people are tired of dealing with these questions when they are consistently from the friend or relative who won't believe anything you say that goes against their view. For me, it's not the question that bothers me, it's the attitude and the presumption that there can't be a logical explanation or evidence to the contrary --> it's not a question, it's an implication posing as a question just to get you to engage.

...Yes, obviously? Nothing I said would be in the way of progress. Quite the opposite. I don't feel like pulling up scientific evolution of knowledge and people knowingly sharing demonstrably false "thoughts" to further their social or political side are comparable. Things that were taught as fact before were in part flawed because of the beginning bias they were formed under. So, I agree, it was taught and presented as fact. But as more evidence -- more accurate, less biased evidence -- was shown, that fell to the wayside [mostly]. Why should it be different in a political or social climate? Why should we allow people to cling to old "evidence" that was biased in its inception even if it's been disproven with more accurate and unbiased methods? Just because something has happened in the past and we are continually learning and adding to our knowledge doesn't mean we should allow things that are demonstrably wrong to be taught as a viable option. That doesn't stop human or scientific progress and I don't understand why we are trying to draw a false equivalence. Just because "people aren't accurate about what's fact and what's opinion" doesn't mean it's OKAY to allow it if you can show them the difference. How do you expect this wanted human progress to happen if we don't step up to these most basic corrections? I am not saying "Stop All Questioning", I am saying "Stop Spreading Lies Pretending To Be Opinions." I did not say anything about vetting and I am concerned that I was read that way.

I don't think we should encourage people to be wrong. It's become convenient to label lies and misinformation as "a difference of opinion" and I think that's where the problem comes up. I think there's a difference between opinion and facts. If it's demonstrably wrong, then no, I don't see why it should be allowed to spread unchecked. I'm fine with people thinking we should prioritize different things -- strong military vs strong social programs, education over economy, environment before infrastructure, etc. That makes for good debate and a better overall policy. I also think it's to be expected people who prioritize the same thing, like education, will have different and sometimes opposing views of what should be done. That's a good thing too. But I think we should try to stop people from being wrong -- ie, not have correct facts to draw their opinions and priorities and plans from.

So, my husband is actually the child of a Cuban refugee. I've been interested to see the stats of the Florida Cubans and their voting this election. Disclaimer: everything I say is anecdote just based on my being allowed to view the culture as an outsider, and I have not been a part of it for the past 1-2 years as my husband has distanced himself from his family. And Florida Cubans seem to be a much different kettle of fish because they have kept more insulated than those who settled in this area. The word "socialism" and "socialist" are definite triggers. Many of those that fled Cuba were wealthier than the socialists who took over, there is a lot of pain and anger around the revolution still and everything they lost (I know, for example, exactly how much money and what goods were taken from DH's father and grandmother, 40-50 years after the fact). Castro is the devil (said in very fervent Spanish). But what's interesting to me is that while Castro is a dictator, but he is seen as the embodiment of socialism even moreso. And really, it's the socialism that they fear more than a dictator. I remember being expressed a view that if THEY had had someone stronger than Castro, the revolution wouldn't have happened. I agree the it is a very easy fear to whip up in this group, and the most effective propaganda for the group would be to paint the opposing side as socialists who want to take away their wealth again. They've already experienced the loss once -- they know it is possible and so to them is even more likely to happen again, and they will do quite a bit to stop that.

I mean....

OMG...I really did completely miss that. I was never on that train, but erroneously believed that the train had a point of destination. Mind blown, 12 years late is better than never! Thanks!

There were five people who died in DC on Jan 6 from the insurrection. 1 was a police officer, 1 was a woman insurrectionist who was shot by a police officer, and 3 were insurrectionists with medical problems that died from them. No one from the DC insurrection went in to neighborhoods and shot children, attacked families, went after businesses. The insurrection was over within hours and the government has been extremely serious about going after those at the insurrection (but also, the insurrection is still continuing with vows and plans to do more in the coming days). The insurrectionists are even being put on the no-fly list and are being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. --- Others have addressed the rest of this so I don't need to. But thought we should be more specific, since you are complaining about unequalness by using an equivocation. It sounds like you actually are anxious and stressed. I suggest re-reading this thread with an open view to see what you can do to lessen this. Quite the opposite from your view this thread should not continue, I hope it does for your sake.

*chef's kiss*

I know doom scrolling is bad... but have you seen the QUALITY of the doom recently?? lol

Since we're an education board, I thought others would be interested in this: PBS: Classroom resource: Three ways to teach the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol It is geared towards a classroom with discussion but most of us are used to adjusting as necessary. Also, at the end of the webpage they list other resources, and some videos and articles that give more first-hand accounts if you like to work with original sources. How have you guys handled talking about this with your kids? Are you a news-savvy family and this is just part of your daily life? What about for those of you who don't watch news and discuss politics often as a family? We don't have TV, I don't talk politics too much (well, before this year, anyway). I've been striving to hit the balance of talking about this with the passion I feel, and imparting how important all this is (they haven't really done any government learning past School House Rock), and also assuring them that this is not something they need to stress about and they are safe. Mostly I think I've succeeded, but if/as things progress over the coming couple weeks I think the tightrope will be harder to walk.

Late 60's. Her sister is mid-60's; we have not heard any update on her for a few days but last one wasn't good. We had another death in the family on Tuesday (my 50yo cousin) but we don't have a confirmed cause of death yet. Another 2 people in the hospital, one Covid, one unrelated. It's been a hard few days on the family side.

My mother's cousin died late December, confirmed Covid. She was a couple years younger than my mom. The cousin's sister is currently in the hospital (she was admitted the same time as her sister). Both sisters had to be taken to different hospitals in the state (200+ miles away) because our small regional hospital can't do anything more (our ER is 4-6 beds, to give you an idea of the size).