SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (194638)2/23/2021 1:34:13 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (3) of 355415
 
A "win" in court may be nothing but a tick mark. Justice Thomas made it clear in his dissent yesterday (I believe Alito joined), the Supreme Court is NEVER going to give Trump a fair hearing which makes the entire process a sham.

But it is clear: They made their decision earlier -- after the justices put their heads together -- that they would not get involved in the election at that point, and that was why they denied the earlier cases (the big Texas case, actually). Thomas clearly anticipated that if a case presented post-certification, they might choose to decide it -- and they should have. He made it pretty clear that something had to be done about mail-in votes. Which is, of course, correct -- there isn't a way to rehabilitate it sufficiently to allow it to persist.

It is possible, however, that Democrats will have to be stung by it before it will go away.

I think anyone who has been involved in the design of secure systems realizes that we don't have a way to meet the criteria required of voting utilizing ballots that are bulk-mailed to last known addresses and mailed in without further contact.

It just cannot be secured with today's technology to the level we require (which includes guaranteeing there is no ballot harvesting underway, which is how this election was stolen by Democrats).

But there was no will to do better this time around. When signature acceptance was coming in at nearly 100% while a much higher rejection rate is the historical level, it is stolen. You know that. You haven't explained because you cannot other than to say the standards were relaxed. And that would be a tacit admission of election theft.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News