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 (194671)	2/23/2021 5:27:25 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 355576

>> To the extent that's the case, the time and mechanism for doing it are when the process is established and using the state courts. That court ruling in PA was right on point. If some process is a problem to be challenged, you do it when the process is established. That's dumb, of course. Not saying that it isn't the allegation by the PA cheaters. But the Supreme Court has the right and responsibility to strike it down whenever it is challenged. I do believe that case was inadequate, so it is likely to come again before the Court. IN the case of Equal Protection, the Sct has that prerogative although a court of original jurisdiction does, as well. That is a really bad claim by PA. I would call it stupid. In the first place, no equal protection violation actually occurs until someone votes pursuant to the new law. More significantly, however, is it may not be detectible until an actual election occurs and the "bug is found"; obviously, you wouldn't deny Equal Protection because someone discovered it late. The Court decided not to intervene, apparently, on the basis of "just don't want to get involved". That would seem to be what Roberts was saying in the dissent. That seems wrong-headed to me, but the Court IS political. Nothing new there. The Court often waits for the "right" case to come along. That is a prerogative that was established when it took on deciding which cases it would or wouldn't hear. >> I expect the Court is savvy enough to know that Biden won the election. I see no indication of that. It may be that they, like all deep-staters, would PREFER that Biden won the election. >> The only votes that count are one vote for each person on the list. Period. No one votes who is not on the list. This is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. There is an essential requirement that the "persons" on the list are the same persons who vote. That requires considerable additional monitoring. In addition, it is the duty of the elections process to ensure that undue influence is avoided. You say the list must be well-maintained, but can you name voting jurisdictions where you believe that is the case? I can't. Do you know of one, for example, where every death certificate generates a notification to the entity charged with maintaining voter roles? Or when a voter moves from one place to another? These are pretty easy things to do today, yet I would venture to say the existence of these operations are minimal if they exist at all. Perhaps in FL. But there isn't money and there isn't the will in most counties. I appreciate your sincere belief that the election was won, fair and square, but there simply is scant evidence to support that claim. In that 3-4 cities that produced the couple hundred votes that decided the elections, I would guess at this point there is ZERO evidence. We certainly haven't seen any of it. If you were in my place perceptively, you would be furious that no proof has been produced of Biden having won the election. None, at all. The Left wants to treat this as a criminal trial where alleged killer is innocent until proved guilty, and that is not how a fair election operates: It must be a different standard -- that each and every election must be proved to the satisfaction of voters, the election was fair. Not a simple majority of voters. Not ALL voters. But enough that we can have collective confidence in the elections system. In America today, we do not have confidence. And should not. No one has earned it.