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 (1451783)	4/12/2024 2:03:31 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571367

>> In the case of Georgia, if you don't like the way they ran their elections, tough luck. Unless you can prove that fraud occurred, you'll have to accept that their rules are just as legit as the rules of any other state. I do take issue with fraud being the standard. The reason is simple: Proving fraud is not possible but in the rarest instances. Because it goes to state of mind: It must be proved that the defendant had a specific intent to defraud, which is exceedingly hard to do. It is so hard, in fact, that typically, IRS is able to prove only a few thousand cases of tax fraud in a given year out of the millions of tax returns filed. Fraud doesn't account for the cheating that Mark Zuckerberg did. Clearly, changing the outcome of the election by putting a half billion cash into selected voting precincts, buying the right to control the election process. That was huge. So much so, half the states have now, four years later, outlawed it -- of course, the blue states haven't because blue states mostly never saw a cheat they didn't approve of. It is a problem that states have so much control over federal elections. I have long stated on these forums that I believe an interstate compact would be useful in the case of federal elections to create some stringent rules against cheating. But you would never get California or New York or other blue states to sign on to something like that.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1451783)	4/13/2024 2:50:48 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Respond to of 1571367

Each state can and should be allowed to run their elections as they see fit. In the case of Georgia, if you don't like the way they ran their elections, tough luck. Unless you can prove that fraud occurred, you'll have to accept that their rules are just as legit as the rules of any other state. The purpose to an interstate compact would be to get states like Georgia, NY, PA and others to adopt standards that support the constitutional aim of fair elections. One of those provisions would need to be a standardized process of accountability. Interstate compacts are by definition voluntary.