Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hugh Bett who wrote (12650)	1/27/2021 11:47:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Life is too short to watch dozens of hours of politicians on such an issue. If you watched it all, and they made any good arguments, you can pass those along, and I can evaluate it, but if your only response is to link to dozens of hours of video then that's even worse than those who tell you to go read a book as their argument. I think I misunderstood what you were arguing for, but having realized that doesn't really change my mind on the above point. I'm not going to watch all of that. If anything it strengthens the point about making the argument in the post itself. To clarify your point is that there was a serious attempt to commit mass election fraud and that the election might have been stolen as a result, right? That really wasn't the main point I was arguing against. If the election actually was stolen it slightly strengthens my argument, but still is mostly a side point to it. Assume very little election fraud and no net change of relative vote totals (fraud for both sides canceling out, or perhaps even going more to Trump), and it still the case that saying "the election was stolen" is not reasonably classified as "calling for violence" or "inciting insurrection". Anyone should be able to make such a claim, whether or not its true, and whether or not its even honest, without it being considered some type of crime.