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 (194965)	2/27/2021 12:40:33 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362866

>> Universal suffrage, supposedly guaranteed to all us citizens, in the face of continued voter suppression. It's a tug of war with elemental democracy at stake. Except there was no commitment to "all citizens". The focus was on those who would vote for Democrats. The money flowed to Democrat strongholds, with tidbits thrown around to make it look good. As I think we discussed the other day, if the objective were in fact universal suffrage, the money would have been contributed to nonpartisan organizations to distribute funds as needed to promote that cause. That is not what happened. What happened was that a plan, an outline, published by David Plouffe in March was followed. A plan that delineated a method to weaponize the pandemic to take the election from Trump, unfairly, but perhaps legally. Of course, Plouffe didn't think it was unfair because there are no rules in the Democrat game -- there is only "getting caught" and "getting away with it." As a predominantly Republican voter, I would be outraged if Republicans had done something like Democrats did here. How can Democrats stand idly by and accept the wrecking of the democracy like this? I see you as a person who, as a general rule, puts fairness near the top of her list of important things. My wife is that way to the extreme, as well. It is hard for to understand one turns away from that principle only to condone what was done in connection with Nov 3. It seems like it must be contrived, yet I don't see a hint of that in your comments. It is as if you believe Z spent $400 million to make the election more fair. Which makes no sense in the context that the key objective of the money was to increase the number of votes that we know are more likely to be manipulated in some way. This isn't a subject of speculation: It was the stated objective. I can't really figure out your rationale for finding this acceptable.