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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1452737)4/18/2024 5:34:37 PM
From: i-node1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Broken_Clock

  Read Replies (1) of 1576474
 
>> Zuck going around adding polling stations and explaining to people how to vote.

So, what was your view on Citizens United? I don't remember. Seems to me most Dems had a fit over it. Then, HRC used it to raise about a billion dollars in 2016.

Here is the thing: You cannot have partisan money running the elections. You just can't do it and have fair elections. Which is why it was cheating, and why it has been outlawed.

If Zuck wanted to go work in a polling place on election day that is acceptable. But dumping a half billion dollars that HE CONTROLLED into the elections is cheating, any way you look at it. Dems had cow after cow about the Koch Brothers, and they NEVER did anything on this level at all. They simply contributed money to political parties for advertising.

What Zuckerberg did was election theft. It is intuitively obvious to an idiot that if someone can purchase access to polling places, install people who will sell turnout in BLUE areas but NOT red areas, it will shift the vote to the BLUE area. WE cannot have private individuals doing this. If the money had been distributed on some reasonable basis, evenly to all areas, it could have been tolerable. BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL DECIDING HOW THE MONEY IS DISTRIBUTED OR WHAT IT IS TO BE USED FOR. And that is precisely what Zuckerberg did.

He gave money in Red AND Blue areas, but in blue areas there far MORE money AND tight control over expenditures that would "close the deal". A person walks into a storefont, a lone Democrat employee explains that she can vote right now, how she mark her ballot, and carry it directly to the dropbox on the corner.

He closes the deal on the spot. Like any high-pressure salesman. But the "spot" has a 5:1 Blue:Red ratio. That is why PA was bombarded with money. Or Fulton County. Or even Harris County in Texas when they thought there was a chance of stealing it.

I should not have to explain this manipulation to you.

BTW here is an interesting article that detailed what was done in Wisconsin.

WillLawFINGER-ON-THE-SCALE.9.pdf (will-law.org)

I know you're not stupid. But don't be naive.
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