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: Lane3 who wrote (194652)	2/23/2021 3:40:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355434

>> The states make the rules for elections. Of course, as they should. But States Rights doesn't give a state the right to violate create a violation of the Bill of Rights or other constitutional provisions. To the extent mail-in voting creates an Equal Protection violation, for example, it clearly must be struck down. The Court refused to do it for reasons of its own. This must be fixed. And I think in due course it will be. But I expect the Court doesn't want to act in a way that would negate the outcome of the election and hence call into question Biden's legitimacy. Just guessing, but that would make sense. It is fine for ME, at the same time, to call into question his legitimacy because my voice has no reach. We know that mail-in voting is not secure, and can't be made secure. Just intuitively, there not a way to do that. You must know that. A key function of the polling place is to guarantee there is no ballot harvesting. There is no undue pressure to vote one way or the other. And by law, there may not be. It simply isn't allowed. There is not any way to provide that in a mail-in voting scenario without having SOME ACTUAL CONTACT with the voter. As was done in FL, for example. These states that want to just mail out ballots en masse need to be stopped before they get started or we will never have another fair election. BTW, if you can suggest how my conclusions are wrong I'd be interested in hearing it although I'm not sure I'm persuadable.

To: Lane3 who wrote (194652)	2/23/2021 4:05:09 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 355434

I just want to mention one other point on this election fairness topic. In life there are times when things matter, but where the perception matters more than the actual thing. This is one of those times. You can have fair votes all day long, but if the votes are not perceived to be fair, actual fairness is irrelevant. I'm going to tell you that even though most Trump supporters have acquiesced, most perceive the election not to have been fair. Some for the wrong reasons, but it doesn't matter: Perception is truth in this instance. Election officials have a responsibility to deliver fair elections but also the appearance of fairness. You cannot have truly fair elections without the perception. And they failed -- nothing about these elections appeared to be fair. IMO, because it was not fair, but I understand as partisans you cannot afford allow your mind to take you there. You would have to admit Biden was wrongly elected, and that is insanely hard for people to do. So, that's where we'll likely stay until the proof is undeniable.