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 (221034)	12/26/2021 6:47:30 PM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway CentralParkRanger Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362897

"Bought" doesn't imply I had you cash in exchange for your personal vote. That's not how I intended it. I thought perhaps that by providing a nice voting experience the voter might be grateful and want to thank the provider, who was showing them respect and attention unlike their state budgeteers. Bernie Sanders has bought votes -- very successfully - with free stuff like promises of higher minimum wages and numerous other "freebies". Well, that's out of context here. Bernie was not at the polls. You're getting your issues mixed up. Surely the election officials manning the nice Z facilities were not in a position to promise the voters anything other than maybe a nice facility again next time. In your other context, if Bernie is "buying" votes, then the R's are also "buying" votes when they promise tax cuts. Or any politician who brings home a library or airport. Besides, volunteers at the polls in heavily Democratic neighborhoods are likely to be Democrats, who, if they were to stray from their duties and try to influence voters, would influence them towards the Democrats with our without Z's money. Your complaint makes no sense. But it is NOT okay for private contributors to fund voting operations at those sites. We've been over that before. They were funding locations that had been shortchanged by their states in terms of facilities and operations, locations that in most states run by Republicans, were poor and black. That poor and black people tend to vote Democratic was coincidental. The most you could support in claims that the D's found it fortuitous, thus didn't stand in the way. Had Z funded D communities that weren't disadvantaged, then you'd have an argument that it was partisan. But there's no indication that happened. If you want to obviate the problem, get your team to play fair with their budgets and facilities. Then no angel would feel a need to step in.

To: i-node who wrote (221034)	12/26/2021 8:44:40 PM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By CentralParkRanger Respond to of 362897

In this case, Zuckerberg bought facilities that were placed in accordance with his own data science operation's planning so that it was known, statistically, those facilities would bring in Democrat, but not Republican, votes. And you have proof of this? Or is this another of you :just making shit up"?

To: i-node who wrote (221034)	12/27/2021 8:47:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362897

Actually, that is how it DID happen. What is how what happened? What might corruption look like at a Z funded polling place? What might be considered evidence? How about complaints to any election board that Z had replaced the usual volunteers at polling places with his people, outsiders, who chatted up the voters in line re how they should vote? How about any complaints to any election boards about any changes in the facility or the processes that could be attributed to Z's money? How about any signage at or around the polling places touting the source of facility and operational improvements? How about complaints that consultant associated personnel snagging people on the street and urging them to divert to the polls on their way to wherever? How about complaints by grantee election officials of heavy-handed pressure from Z funded people on how they set things up? How about any complaints at all from any of the participants? Anything like that in Hemingway's book? Or it was just that the funding for facilities and operations came from by a D favorable source and the expert consultants were thought to be D favorable rather than non-partisan and the funding landed in D districts disproportionately, yada yada?