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 (197581)	3/31/2021 8:44:46 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361982

>> Nothing to do with processing issues like custody of votes I really understand when someone, say, CJ, doesn’t understand that systems are building on designs that have to be respected from end to end, or they break down. If chain of custody is not treated with respect it creates a security hole. The question that must be answered is, “Why can you not produce the required documentation?” And if the documentation isn’t produced, there must be consequences — in this case, all undocumented votes denied. Period. This is how the process should, must, work, if you are going to have secure elections. Disenfranchisement is the punishment for cheating. Without which, voters have no motivation to solve the problem. You cannot allow cheaters to go unpunished. The reason I, and millions of others, do not believe this election was fairly conducted is there were a large number of such security holes(more than in any election in your lifetime or mine), and the overwhelming evidence is that many of them were created intentionally as weapons to defeat Trump. That is, these aren’t just strange coincidences. They were as-designed in the few months prior to the election when it became apparent (David Plouffe's book) Democrats couldn’t win utilizing legal voting procedures. In the case of GA, it was apparently a one-off, but seems apparent the other states intend to make this their model vote theft program. They can do it with the utterly stupid notion that the country is well served if EVERYONE votes, an intuitive bad idea that ought not be embraced. I’m not sure why you aren’t inquisitive about this. I’ve worked in the fraud detection business in the past, and it seems to me that lots of huge security holes just naturally draw your attention.

To: Lane3 who wrote (197581)	4/1/2021 3:02:18 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361982

>> If you're so keen on that being the reason for the "steal," I'd think you'd be on top of all those cases. Believe it or not, I actually have a full-time job and other responsibilities that prevent me from spending much time on court cases, other than the most essential. My point, from the get-go, has been that the current system does not permit a proper challenge for a stolen presidential election. What there is is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a lawsuit and discovery. There was never any discovery allowed (actually, "never" is an overstatement -- in a couple instances there was, I believe, but the artificial time constraints are insurmountable. Plouffe's strategy encompassed that awareness -- that you don't have to win, all you have to do is convince people you won, as no legitimate challenge to the findings will be permitted. And they were correct. The USSC slammed the door shut, even before state courts had allowed any examination of the evidence in hand. It was pathetic. One day there will be a proper re-investigation of it. I doubt I'm going to reading any of those cases I haven't already read, unless something new develops. The race was clearly stolen. Now, you guys have do deal with what you created. Trillions in debt, reversing Trump's economic success with corporate tax cuts, 20,000 children in cages on the border -- perhaps soon to be 200,000 (which seems perfectly fine with you now, although I'm guessing you disapproved four years ago when a fraction of those numbers were housed for a few days, providing transparency). I think the entire lot of Democrat voters are just duplicitous from the ground up.