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 (214560)	10/12/2021 6:14:27 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365776

Do you or do you not believe that was a corrupt act? Lordy, have you still not learned to read? I... have not seen indication of corruption in this case OMG, you find that ambivalent? No means no. And "I have not seen indication of corruption" also means no. influx of private money in this way in a crucial election with a pack of lies for bogus justification pursuant to plan developed by Zuckerberg and his employee and former Obama employee. There is nothing inherently corrupt in any influx of money. There is no evidence of any bogosity in the justification. All your charges were addressed with reasonable explanations in previous discussions. Quick tiptoeing and just put your cards on the table. My last post was my case, in summary, straight out, as I said. I repeat it. Try reading. I've already written you dozens of posts on this alleged corruption. I have said that elections should be fully funded by their states so that private donations would not be suggested. I evaluated all the material you provided and have not seen indication of corruption in this case beyond it being unusual, thus raising one's antennae. Even one on the links you offered said that it wasn't illegal on its face and there's no evidence of any particular occurrences of hanky panky. (typo--should read one of the links, not on the links) Make your case for that NOT being a corrupt act. You can't prove a negative. That's why we have innocent until proven guilty. You know, that old default thingy. Everything that we know for a fact happened is plausibly cricket. Thus it is considered cricket until shown to be otherwise, not simply suspected by you of being otherwise.