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: Eric who wrote (1493065)	10/12/2024 2:03:14 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586493

try looking up this judicial term: "Standing"

To: Eric who wrote (1493065)	10/12/2024 2:25:42 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Respond to of 1586493

>> But if you have knowledge of voter fraud why have you not brought evidence of it to courts? Because fraud is not a proper measuring stick. If you have ever dealt with fraudulent acts, you know that it is extremely difficult to prove. For example, over the last ten years, an average of 600 individuals have been convicted of tax fraud per year. It is hard as hell to prove. Because you have to prove the act was one of intent, and showing anyone's state of mind in a tax proceeding is insanely difficult. The same is true of Election Fraud. Someone has to be caught "dead to rights" to prove fraud. Yet, that is the standard that is established. How do you prove a voter intended to commit fraud? The problem is the only cheating that can occur in an election requires not only evidence of the crime, but proof of a specific intent. So, this judge in Texas four years ago wanted to mail ballot requests to last known addresses, even though there was way of knowing whether the voter was alive, or somewhere else, or whatever. Worse, Houston then requested and received a vast amount of money from Zuckerberg to pay for this carefully designed vote-getting operation -- which targeted 2,000,000 voters who were, of course, Democrats (within the city limits). This was seen by Zuckerberg's CTCL as an opportunity to "flip" Texas. The largest single chunk of Zuckerberg money went to this effort -- which was, luckily, blocked by the courts. So, while this scam was clearly an attempt to radically upset the electoral process, how do you prove that intent, the state of mind, that qualifies it fraud. You can't. That's what these battles are about. We simply don't have laws against election rigging. We should. But we don't. So, when you insist that someone must be convicted of the crime of fraud, the bar is very high and that it why it doesn't occur very often.