ed with it and retracted it, that's, you know, he may have some scheme going on there in terms of communication style, but there's no way he thinks that's a good idea.

Trump said that he would leave office if he loses the electoral college. Of course, that's a big if, I suppose, but I think at this point we should review our predictions. If you predicted that Trump would lose in the electoral college and remain in office or even try to remain in office, you need to check your ability to predict. I would say anybody who made this prediction that Trump would fight to remain in office even at the risk of violence if the electoral college said he lost, you really have to check your ability to predict because you're terrible at predicting.

If you had not predicted that Trump would get elected in 2016, I would say that was pretty reasonable. Like you're not a bad predictor if you got that one wrong. I think you're probably a good predictor if you got it right, but there wouldn't be anything dumb or stupid about getting that wrong. Right. Likewise, in this last election, no matter who you predicted was going to win, if you got it right or you got it wrong, it's not saying too much about your predictive ability because the odds are it was going to be close.

But if you predicted that the president would use violence to try to stay in office, you really have to ask yourself if you're good at predicting because you might be really, really bad at predicting. I don't think there was anything more predictable than the fact that he wouldn't do that. It's not even close to something that seems in the neighborhood of possible. All right. I still could be wrong, right? There's always a nonzero chance anything could happen. But I think you really have to check yourself if you predicted that.

USA Today says this: Nonpartisan investigations of previous elections have found that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. State officials from both parties as well as international observers have also stated that the 2020 election went well. That is pure propaganda. Let me break it apart.

They say nonpartisan investigators looked into the election. Who is a nonpartisan investigator? In 2020, USA Today is trying to tell you, a thinking human being who lives in the world, that there exists such a thing as a nonpartisan investigator into our elections. Okay, USA Today, we're not idiots. There's no such thing as a nonpartisan investigator. There might be somebody who lied to you and you're dumb enough to believe it. There are no nonpartisan investigators. None. None. They don't exist.

And then they say previous elections have found tha