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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (193076)	2/4/2021 12:31:22 PM
From: CentralParkRanger	1 Recommendation Recommended By combjelly Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361775

i-node, here is ABC on fair election in established democracy like USA. If you don't have trust in the process, if you consider most of election workers criminals, then everything is possible, and any election results cannot be trusted. That's why so many reasonable people objected to efforts of Trump and cultists like you, screaming "Trump cannot lose. It's FRAUD": without any facts or hard evidence. That's what you are doing, and what your Supreme Leader did - to undermine the trust in our election process and kill democracy in this country.

To: i-node who wrote (193076)	2/4/2021 3:48:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361775

You can't claim fraud didn't occur. I think I can, at least not meaningful fraud. Were that not the case we would know about it by now. Something would have been found and either reported or leaked. Errors were found and corrected. The fraud that did occur is being prosecuted. We have state officials who have certified their elections. We have high level officials like Krebs and Barr who have assured us. Yes, I think it's safe to say it didn't happen. You have worked in polling places and know something about internal control processes. I have never worked in a polling place. Even if I had, there are hundreds of jurisdictions, each with their own procedures. Some are likely designed better than others. Some are likely managed better than others on the ground during the operation. I am working from a profound knowledge of system design, in general, what I have absorbed over the years about how elections are operated, and common sense. (Speaking of common sense, do you still think that the D's are busing illegals into polling places? Or have you moved on from that figment?) Re your enumerated items, it's true what you say (1) about re-connecting a separated ballot and (3) observing from far away. But your notion that the only meaningful control over any of that is having a Republican looking over the shoulder of every election official at each step at the time of execution is partisan and paranoid and ridiculously slow and costly. The time for partisan weighing in is when the procedures are set and officials designated. Then partisans can dispute the processes or the players and sue for a remedy if not satisfied. After things are settled, you let the well-considered process play out as designed. You may recall one of the rulings in PA, I think it was, that, it was too late to raise an issue, that it should have been raised at the time the legislature made its decision. It's really bass-ackwards to do what you're suggesting.