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 (224911)	2/4/2022 1:22:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356340

>> WRT the predilections of the actors, you cannot reasonably assume that a partisan actor in any given act has his finger on the scale. We know that dads can fairly call balls and strikes on their kids and are assumed to be doing so until evidenced otherwise. Besides, you don't even know that Z is a D partisan. You just assume it. Of course you can and you should. If Z had wanted partisan cooperation, he could easily have gone to raised more money to fund the election from Republicans. He could have been open about what he was doing. He wasn't. He could have had an independent board decide how money should be distributed equitable. Instead, he bought a far left nonprofit that was going out of business and provided them with instructions. To suggest that Z was somehow even handed required assumptions that utterly absurd. As this was going on, his Facebook platform was shutting down Trump's ability to post, false-fact-checking any post that mentioned Trump and sometimes preventing its posting, taking down messages that did represent the leftist view, and in the fake fact-checking operation, had NOT ONE legitimate fact-checking that wasn't extreme left of center. On top of all that, he spent 4-5 as much per Democrat voter as he did for Republican voters. If you understand anything about ethical behavior, you ought to be able to see from a mile this was anything but. One of the difficult problems with ethical issues is that some people don't have any. I would not have previously put you in that category, but if all your comments on this topic are summed, the lack of ethical sensitivity is astounding. I'd expect it from some people. Somewhere back there you admitted it was not the "optimum" way to run an election. We have election laws which must govern elections. Today, we have a choice: a) Outlaw what Z did, or b) Permit it and expect it, from all parties, large and small. Would either of these be optimal? Or do you think you want to wait and see if only Democrats do it, or whether Republicans choose to do it as well?