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 (195009)	2/28/2021 8:35:21 AM
From: Lane3	4 Recommendations Recommended By bentway CentralParkRanger combjelly Terry Maloney Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 364854

I think we can stipulate that Zuck had unlimited resources to hire lawyers to make sure nothing illegal was done. Indeed, I considered making that point myself in the post to which you responded. I agree that it's very unlikely. The question is whether the election was STOLEN. They are not the same. Huh? Stolen means having taken something that belonged to someone else without the right to do so. You have not alleged single thing that was done that was inconsistent with the election law or any other rules. Do you know of a situation where someone was improperly persuaded to vote one way or the other? When Jimmy Carter's own commission determined that mail in voting is the greatest threat to election security, and then you used that specific technique to steal an election Even if you allow a situation that has more risk than some alternative, risk is just potential, not an incident. If a woman accepts an invitation to his hotel room, she is taking on risk greater than had she stayed with him in the bar, but that doesn't mean she was raped. You can't claim rape unless an incident of rape occurred. That there is potential for something to have happened doesn't mean that it did. You can't claim theft without some evidence that the potential event was effected. I think the word you want is not "stolen." It is "outmaneuvered." Trump's team was outmaneuvered and that burns you up. I get that. But to claim the election stolen you need some evidence of improprieties. A lot of evidence of improprieties. Zuckerberg has a lot of money to contribute to whatever causes he wishes. So do lots of Republicans. If you want an investigation, get some donor to fund it. If the investigation turns up something, then you have grounds. Now all you have is disappointment and suspicion. Now that I mention it, don't you think it's odd that no one has apparently done that, funded an investigation? Maybe because the people rich enough to do that are also smart enough that there's no fire, just smoke, rational enough to be grounded in the real world.