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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1451752)	4/12/2024 4:15:46 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571281

What is that supposed to mean? Zuck can't conjure up votes out of thin air. All he can do is "get out the vote," which is a basic part of the campaign cycle. No, that's not correct. Like so many, you don't understand the gimmick. David Plouffe planned the operation by finding a far left 501(c) organization (CTCL) out of Chicago, nearly broke, looking for something to do. They were out of money and would do whatever they could in the "election effort" to stay alive financially. Overnight, they stumbled into more than $300 Million, Plouffe giving the marching orders -- to distribute the money in grants to voting districts. They had to make it look good, which they did, but the money when to blue areas like Phillly, where over 1000 "remote" voting storefronts were leased, in predominantly blue areas, where people could come in and get "information", and cast their ballot on the spot. Grantors (CTCL) had approval rights over the location, hours of operation, personnel, etc., and made sure there were drop boxes right out front. But the key criterion? Blue voters. It was important to get out the vote, but only Democrat votes. In Texas there wasn't a lot of interest, or in California (everyone's going to vote for Biden there anyway). The swing states mattered. However, the biggest single expenditure wasn't in a swing state. It was in Houston, where two key things changed CTCL's view overnight -- 1) A judge announced a plan to sent mail-in ballot requests to the LAST KNOWN ADDRESS of people found in unpurged voter roles, some for years. The people in those houses were mostly Hispanic, could have moved, could be dead, could be anywhere -- and anyone could return the ballot request and get a mail in ballot back in the mail, no questions asked; and 2) In hearing this was happening in bright red Texas, it was seen as an opportunity to flip Texas to a blue state (with Austin turning bright blue), so CTCL flood money into Houston in response to the judge's announcement, such funds solely directed at polling places serving the population of potential blue voters with the belief it could change the election outcome. After the grant was made, the judge was prevent by the courts from spending this money, so they were allowed to reallocate the money to other blue areas. When the grants were finished, Zuckerberg had spent 5x as much for each blue vote as for each red vote, clear evidence that the plan had a sole objective in mind. As previously pointed out, this is now outlawed in red states but most blue states would not dare. However, PA did enact a version that should prevent a recurrence. No person should be able to contribute money to election operations and dictate how that money will be spent, ever. Zuck did that. So, yes, Zuck's money conjured up votes out of thin air. The plan worked precisely as designed.