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 (221069)	12/27/2021 10:20:29 AM
From: Sam	4 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Brumar89 CentralParkRanger Ron Respond to of 362953

Are you arguing that having a wealthy man inject money into voting operations, while specifically choosing which sites qualify and how much they qualify for, with some (let's say ANY) requirements (strings attached), however small, isn't inherently corrupt? 1. The places that got his money applied for the grants. 2. The grants were awarded based on need. 3. The need was frequently created by the fact that Republican legislatures did give those places enough money to ensure that the election would run smoothly. 4. Number 3 above is where the corruption actually exists (in addition of course to gerrymandering, which effectively deprives many citizens of their vote). I ask this, because if you don't comprehend this fundamental premise I'm not seeing how there is any thing further to discuss; with that, you have effectively said you don't know the basics. 5a. It is astonishing how often you can repeat the same thing. In virtually the same words. Over and over and over again. 5b. You really should have yourself checked for OCD. But I guess you are too busy repeating yourself to do that. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic, and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions) and/or behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over. nimh.nih.gov

To: i-node who wrote (221069)	12/27/2021 10:29:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362953

Are you arguing that having a wealthy man inject money into voting operations, while specifically choosing which sites qualify and how much they qualify for, with some (let's say ANY) requirements (strings attached), however small, isn't inherently corrupt? We know that a wealthy man injected money into voting operations. We know that grants have selection criteria. We don't know what those selection criteria were. If the selection criteria were reasonable and objective, then I don't see how it would be corrupt. Did Hemingway report the selection criteria in her book and did any of them suggest partisan bias? Well, did she? if you don't comprehend this fundamental premise I comprehend it just fine. I just don't see it as inherently corrupt. There are plenty of opportunities for corruption, surely, so it's important to keep a watchful eye. But that's not the same thing as disallowing gifts altogether. Surely you wouldn't rather tax those guys to death and then let the government decide where the money goes.

To: i-node who wrote (221069)	12/27/2021 2:27:41 PM
From: combjelly	6 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Brumar89 CentralParkRanger Sam Terry Maloney and 1 more member Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362953

It is funny. You have spent the past 5 or more years claiming that the appearance of corruption isn't enough.. The only thing that matters is if it has been proven in a court of law to be corrupt that the charge of corruption can stick. Now you want to argue that just because you can imagine something is corrupt that it must be. Funny how your standards change and is dependent on whose ox is being gored.