I Fear For Justice Thomas’ Life

[Rigby5]

16. “Clarence Thomas blasts Section 230, wants “common-carrier” rules on Twitter
Thomas claims Twitter's "right to cut off speech" may be First Amendment problem.


"Much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech," Thomas wrote. Google "can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results," while "Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person's information flow through similar means."
Amazon, "as the distributor of the clear majority of e-books and about half of all physical books... can impose cataclysmic consequences on authors by, among other things, blocking a listing," he wrote.



Arguing that lawmakers could impose common-carrier rules on digital platforms, Thomas wrote, "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms."


"That is especially true because the space constraints on digital platforms are practically nonexistent (unlike on cable companies), so a regulation restricting a digital platform's right to exclude might not appreciably impede the platform from speaking," Thomas added. Thomas also wrote that his common-carrier analysis does not mean "that the First Amendment is irrelevant until a legislature imposes common-carrier or public-accommodation restrictions—only that the principal means for regulating digital platforms is through those methods."
Clarence Thomas blasts Section 230, wants “common-carrier” rules on Twitter

Clearly Thomas does not understand what a utility is. It is generally impractical to have competition with utilities because it is impractical. You cannot have multiple companies stringing utility wires or digging up streets. No tech companies need to do that so they are not utilities. If you don't like Google then there is Yahoo or Bing or other search engines. Facebook and Twitter are the same way. There are no barriers to entry to create your own version of Facebook or Twitter. Amazon has been a major innovator and that is why they are No 1.

Clarence Thomas is full of bull. There are no similarities between common carriers or public accomodations. This would be socialism and nothing else. The fact is that the barriers to entry are not very high. All you need is the internet. Clarence Thomas displays his ignorance or perhaps it is his fascist tendencies. He wants to impose his will on tech companies because a large number of people decide to use them.

Totally wrong.
Actually anything large and using the internet is a common carrier because it is bound by the FCC fair use regulations, but even if it was not, no one open to the public can discriminate based on politics.
That is no different or better than a lunch counter in Alabama refusing to serve Blacks.

The only way censoring would not be illegal is if they did not censor the person completely, but merely objected to the accuracy of specific things posted. The internet provided can censor posts that could be proven wrong, harmful, slander, or inciting violence.
That is all.
They can not pick and choose who they will or will not allow to use their site.

 

[meaner gene]

The trouble is that these companies are not common carriers. The court has no say in this and will prove themselves to be socialists if they do. That is why not 1 justice concurreed with Thomas.

And even if they were the equivalent to common carrie, like FCC regulated broadcasters, they would have tighter requirements about the truth of what they convey, than they imposed on themselves.

Broadcasters are responsible for selecting the broadcast material that airs on their stations, including advertisements. The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading.

 

[meaner gene]

The only way censoring would not be illegal is if they did not censor the person completely, but merely objected to the accuracy of specific things posted. The internet provided can censor posts that could be proven wrong, harmful, slander, or inciting violence.
That is all.
They can not pick and choose who they will or will not allow to use their site.

They can't pick and chose beforehand. But they are free to ban people for violation of terms of service.

 

[Rigby5]

Only the government is prevented from censoring anything. Free speech rights do not apply to private entities.

They think everything is censorship.

Just try to get a pink car from a major carmaker.

This is nothing like making a special demand on any vendor, like a pink car.
This is like where you refuse to sell your product to anyone of a particular group you want to discriminate against.
And that is just as illegal over race, religion, age, or gender, as much as it is over political affiliation.
It is still illegal.

 

[busybee01]

13. In order to steal the election, the Wehrmacht......er, Democrats
a. named every death in America on the imaginary Wuhan Hoax
b. unleashed hordes of thieves, rioters, arsonists, assaulters...and made certain they went unpunished
c. established illegal voting
d. censored the truth about the Biden Cartel's being bought by our enemies

Ignoring the dangers to himself and his loved ones, Justice Thomas has spoken out about both the illegality of the election, and, in this thread, about the censorship imposed by Big Tech.


Justice Thomas: they should be denied the right to exclude, to silence opposing voices.

“In many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to the public resemble traditional common carriers,” he wrote. “Though digital instead of physical, they are at bottom communications networks, and they ‘carry’ information from one user to another. A traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people. Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way. And unlike newspapers, digital platforms hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public. Federal law dictates that companies cannot ‘be treated as the publisher or speaker’ of information that they merely distribute.” Justice Clarence Thomas Suggests SCOTUS Will 'Soon Have No Choice' But to Rein in Ability of 'Dominant Digital Platforms' to Moderate Speech Online



Section 230 shields them from being sued for content.....this must be changed if they desire federal protections.

Would any common carrier be allowed to exclude individuals based on ideology? Of course not. And internet companies do not create content of their own….they simply carry content from one person to another.



“Thomas’s views appear to align closely with the GOP’s recent broadsides against the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which many on the right (Trump among them) have sought to repeal. Indeed, many on the right praised his concurrence on Monday.” Ibid.

13.a. That canard has been played out. The coronavirus has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
b. No one unleashed anything. The vast majority of protests were peaceful.
c. There was no illegal voting.
d. The story was provided by Trump supporters such as Bannon and Giuliani who distributed informatipon provided by Russia.

Clarence Thomas is a fool. There were no major illegalities that changed the results. Tech companies are not censoring anyone. They are not common carriers.

There is a huge difference between telephone companies and Twitter and Facebook. Telephone companies have to lay wire or dig up the ground. Twitter and Facebook do not. That is why the barriers to entry are low.

digital platforms do not sell themselves as distributing speech. They sell themselves as social media companies. They have the right to decide what speech goes on their platform. They pay for THEIR infrastructure.

Repeal of Section 230 would not force them to accept other opinions. They would have to crack down even harder. They allow individuals to communicate with others. They do not allow for these platforms to be used to spread false information.

 

[Rigby5]

The trouble is that these companies are not common carriers. The court has no say in this and will prove themselves to be socialists if they do. That is why not 1 justice concurreed with Thomas.

And even if they were the equivalent to common carrie, like FCC regulated broadcasters, they would have tighter requirements about the truth of what they convey, than they imposed on themselves.

Broadcasters are responsible for selecting the broadcast material that airs on their stations, including advertisements. The FCC expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading.

Wrong.
When you are open to the public, like Twitter and Facebook, then discrimination is illegal.
The carrier like Facebook or Twitter is NOT at all verifying any of its users, so then can not illegally start discriminating against those selected due to their political affiliation.
They can however discriminate against libel, slander, or attempts to incite violence.

 

[busybee01]

Twitter had every right to limit the distribution of a questionable story on it's platform. The sources are questionable and have links to the Trump campaign.

This what corporations often do to avoid government passing a law to address the problem. No different then when the movie industry created the "Hays" code, and then the MPAA rating system. And the record industry used the PMRC.

The what the industry does to itself, is always 1,000 times better than what the government would do to the industry.

Twitter was forced to start moderating it's forums was because it's platform was being used by right wing terrorists to distribute lies and hate speech.

 

[Rigby5]

Twitter had every right to limit the distribution of a questionable story on it's platform. The sources are questionable and have links to the Trump campaign.

This what corporations often do to avoid government passing a law to address the problem. No different then when the movie industry created the "Hays" code, and then the MPAA rating system. And the record industry used the PMRC.

The what the industry does to itself, is always 1,000 times better than what the government would do to the industry.

Twitter was forced to start moderating it's forums was because it's platform was being used by right wing terrorists to distribute lies and hate speech.

There is nothing wrong with proper moderation, but that never included just banning people based on their political beliefs.
That means deleting posts that are libel, slander, or inciting violence.
You can't just delete a poster because you don't believe or agree with them.

 

[busybee01]

not at all. I know polls are rigged and set up to provide a necessary response. I wasn't born yesterday like all of you. i was born the day before.

I remember this from the election.

Poll shows Trump losing, it was rigged to discourage Trump voters. Poll shows Trump winning, it was rigged to give Trump voters too much confidence and feel like they don’t even need to vote.

No matter what happens, it’s rigged. Perfect logic.

again, like I said, the polls are for shit. ANY of them. I don't agree with Polls that show in my favor. I'm consistent that no poll is good. None, nadda , K?

Consistency isn’t a virtue if it’s paranoia.

consistent is consistent. look it up, what's that definition say? here for your eyes.

acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate.

Thomas addressed and denied that solution.


10. Understand….Justice Thomas is not a Liberal….so his plan is not about using government to solve the problem.

Conservatives like Justice Thomas do not want to regulate or break up the Tech companies in order to increase government power. No, the argument is the inalienable rights argument, the invaluable importance of freedom of all sorts, particularly speech.



We've all heard 'These are private companies.....let the other side create their own.'

Thomas rejects the free-market competition as what will limit the tyranny of Big Tech. He states that the very size and power of Big Tech limits ‘substantial barriers to entry’ by would-be competitors:

“Nor did Thomas buy free-market absolutists’ argument about competition limiting Big Tech tyranny. He pointed to the “substantial barriers to entry” facing newcomers. The fate of Parler proves the justice’s point. When the Twitter alternative offered a censorship-free platform, Big Tech colluded to crush it.”
Justice Thomas shows how we can end Big Tech censorship for good



No….Thomas argues that it is the natural rights of citizens that demands an end to the tyranny.

Thomas keeps showing what a fool he is. Thomas sounds like a socialist. He is using government to nationalize Twitter ans Facebook. Twitter and Facebook were snall companies once too. There is no tyranny and no Big Tech. This goes along with your fantasy of a deep state.

There are not substantial barriers to entry. Twitter and Facebook did it. The reason Parler failed was they tried to take a shortcut. They relied on someone else for network services and they violated Amazon's terms of agreement.

 

[busybee01]

15. Earlier, some moron attempted to shield the Fascists, with this:

“There’s thousands of places where people can speak on the internet, this place among them.

I dare you to find a sector where there’s more competition.”



Let’s check:

The venues at issue serve some 3 billion people; Google search engine owns some 90% of the market, and is beyond competition.

"Similar to utilities, today’s dominant digital platforms derive much of their value from network size," writes Thomas. "The Internet, of course, is a network. But these digital platforms are networks within that network. The Facebook suite of apps is valuable largely because 3 billion people use it. Google search—at 90% of the market share—is valuable relative to other search engines because more people use it, creating data that Google’s algorithm uses to refine and improve search results. These network effects entrench these companies. Ordinarily, the astronomical profit margins of these platforms—last year, Google brought in $182.5 billion total, $40.3 billion in net income—would induce new entrants into the market.

That these companies have no comparable competitors highlights that the industries may have substantial barriers to entry."

He says that gives companies with only a few principal players, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, for example, and Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Google, for another--both examples Thomas cites--"enormous control over speech."



"if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms."

Justice Thomas: Facebook, Google May Need Common Carrier Regs

Said power to suppress speech is concentrated in edge players

www.nexttv.com

Big Tech begins to resemble what Lord Acton stated:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You are the fascist to start with.

The reason why Google is popular is because consumers have chosen to use it. The government and judges have no business interfering. Maybe you want BIG Government but I do not. There are not substantial barriers to entry. Thomas is wrong when he says they have control over aspeech. They do not.

The only thing that is corrupt ids Clarence Thomas and his right wing battle axe.

 

[busybee01]

Twitter had every right to limit the distribution of a questionable story on it's platform. The sources are questionable and have links to the Trump campaign.

This what corporations often do to avoid government passing a law to address the problem. No different then when the movie industry created the "Hays" code, and then the MPAA rating system. And the record industry used the PMRC.

The what the industry does to itself, is always 1,000 times better than what the government would do to the industry.

Twitter was forced to start moderating it's forums was because it's platform was being used by right wing terrorists to distribute lies and hate speech.

There is nothing wrong with proper moderation, but that never included just banning people based on their political beliefs.
That means deleting posts that are libel, slander, or inciting violence.
You can't just delete a poster because you don't believe or agree with them.

Yes they can. It is their platform and they do not have to allow the use of their platform to spread false information.

 

[jc456]

Twitter had every right to limit the distribution of a questionable story on it's platform. The sources are questionable and have links to the Trump campaign.

This what corporations often do to avoid government passing a law to address the problem. No different then when the movie industry created the "Hays" code, and then the MPAA rating system. And the record industry used the PMRC.

The what the industry does to itself, is always 1,000 times better than what the government would do to the industry.

Twitter was forced to start moderating it's forums was because it's platform was being used by right wing terrorists to distribute lies and hate speech.

Terrorists? So no debating skills eh?

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong.
When you are open to the public, like Twitter and Facebook, then discrimination is illegal.
The carrier like Facebook or Twitter is NOT at all verifying any of its users, so then can not illegally start discriminating against those selected due to their political affiliation.
They can however discriminate against libel, slander, or attempts to incite violence.

Which is akin to the FCC requirement that broadcasters only broadcast truthful content, including commercials.

 

[meaner gene]

There is nothing wrong with proper moderation, but that never included just banning people based on their political beliefs.
That means deleting posts that are libel, slander, or inciting violence.
You can't just delete a poster because you don't believe or agree with them.

They weren't discriminated because of the political beliefs, but because their political beliefs were based on "fake news" Qanon, and conspiracy theories. All of which relied on false or disputed statements.

 

[busybee01]

The Left has been known to stop at nothing.


1.While the Supreme Court as a whole embarrassed itself in refusing to confront the theft of the election, the clear refusal by some swing states, Pennsylvania in particular, to observe the mandates of the US Constitution, the most courageous and conservative, the most brilliant of Justices, Clarence Thomas called out the injustice.
This week he did more, putting his life on the line in confronting the cash cows of the internet. Corrupt individuals will, I fear, not give up their $billions, their control of the dissemination of information without a fight. A bloody fight.



2. Justice Thomas is an originalist, a textualist, and a believer in our God-granted unalienable rights, the single most prominent one being free speech. Thomas called out the control by big tech, and the oligarchs allied with the Democrats/Progressives who have stolen our freedom.

“ On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court soon will have to put an end to Big Tech tyranny. Amen. If the high court fails to act, it could mean the end of free speech in the 21st century and the shriveling of our constitutional rights to mere “paper rights” — still there on paper but functionally hollowed out.”
Justice Thomas shows how we can end Big Tech censorship for good



3. Just three unelected power mad Leftists….Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Jack Dorsey deserves dishonorable mention, control Facebook and Google…..and have the power to disappear every opposing voice in the United States. Even the Commander in Chief.

Justice Thomas correctly claims that the Supreme Court must do what the spineless Republicans didn’t do….reign in this unaccountable tyranny.



4. The totalitarians and their Libertarian go-alongs claim that these are private companies, and government should never impost restrictions on any privately owned endeavors. But there are clear examples that fly in the face of that excise.

“The Skyway was operated and maintained by the City of Chicago until January 2005 when Skyway Concession Company, LLC assumed its operations under a 99-year operating lease. The lease agreement between Skyway and the City of Chicago was the first privatization of an existing toll road in the United States.”
The Skyway – Chicago Skyway

Anyone willing to pay the toll gets to use the skyway.
Who would make the argument that you cannot use that skyway based on your political views?




5. The Big Tech companies are information highways. The aim of these companies should be to increase the amount of information, communication, speech, available…..not just the state version of speech.

Justice Thomas, taking them on, is akin to Mel Gibson’s character in ‘Braveheart,’ shouting FREEDOM!!

The DemNazis were so sure Hillary Rotten Clinton had it rigged that they offed Scalia imo, because they wanted to flip the courts. Also why Obama Bin Spying left 400 plus bench seats unfilled.

It certainly was strange, and unexpected.


But the recent inaction by the Supreme Court per the stolen election seems to indicate that the Wehrmacht....er, Democrats had nothing to worry about.


Best hopes for Thomas, the bravest of the Justices.

There was no stolen election. That is what you wanted the Supreme Court to do.

Clarence Thomas is the craziest of the justices.

…evidence of carefully planned theft of the election.



1. I voted early, and the lines were enormous. On more than one day the lines went as much as five blocks, with lots of people bringing lawn chairs, and settling in for the duration.

Imagine two hypothetical voters..

Voter A is willing to wait on the long line, get up to the ballot and mark the presidential, and then go down the line, usually along party lines. As I did.

Voter B is an apparatchik of the Bolshevik Democrat apparatus, there for one reason: to do what he had been instructed to do to purloin the election for Biden. This individual need to fill in tons of ballots, and doesn’t plan to spend a great deal of time on each one. It’s quantity, not quality.



2. Person B is essentially a spy for the Democrats, which is fitting as their presidential candidate has been bought and paid for by a foreign government.



3. Here comes the circumstantial/mathematical evidence, specifically from the Georgia election: how do you explain 95,000 votes with only Biden marked…..the rest of the Democrat candidates for office ignored?
Only one way: the Democrat agent was sent in to win the election for Biden, and spent no time on any other aspirant.





4. “In most elections, the majority of votes are cast “down the ticket” – meaning, a voter supports both party’s presidential nominee and state Congressional candidates. In fact, according to Pew Research, “overwhelming shares of voters who are supporting Trump and Biden say they are also supporting the same-party candidate for Senate.”

Typically, this means that that the number of votes for a presidential candidate and that party’s Senate candidates are relatively close. …the number of votes cast for Joe Biden far exceeds those cast for that state’s Senate candidates in swing states, while those cast for Trump and GOP Senators remains far closer.

In Georgia, there was an 818 vote difference between Trump and the GOP Senator, vs. a 95,000 difference between Biden and the Democratic candidate for Senator.” Why Does Biden Have So Many More Votes Than Democrat Senators In Swing States?

In Michigan, for example, there was a difference of just 7,131 votes between Trump and GOP candidate John James, yet the difference between Joe Biden and Democratic candidate Gary Peters was a staggering 69,093.

Why Does Biden Have So Many More Votes Than Democrat Senators In Swing States?
Via ZeroHedge In most elections, the majority of votes are cast “down the ticket” – meaning, a voter supports both party’s presidential nominee and state Congressional candi…
www.theburningplatform.com

There were no extra votes cast. The number of votes cast were approximately the same as the number of voters. You are the one who is programmed.

You think you can slander people because they don't agree with you. You are spreading misinformation provided by Putin you Bolshevik.

What you describe is interesting but it is not proof of anything. The US Attorneys were instructed to look for voter fraud. The AG said there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the election. There are no mathematics involved.

 

[busybee01]

Twitter had every right to limit the distribution of a questionable story on it's platform. The sources are questionable and have links to the Trump campaign.

This what corporations often do to avoid government passing a law to address the problem. No different then when the movie industry created the "Hays" code, and then the MPAA rating system. And the record industry used the PMRC.

The what the industry does to itself, is always 1,000 times better than what the government would do to the industry.

Twitter was forced to start moderating it's forums was because it's platform was being used by right wing terrorists to distribute lies and hate speech.

Terrorists? So no debating skills eh?

The fact is that right wing terrorists killed more people than Islamic terrorists during the Trump years.

 

[Bush92]

The Left has been known to stop at nothing.


1.While the Supreme Court as a whole embarrassed itself in refusing to confront the theft of the election, the clear refusal by some swing states, Pennsylvania in particular, to observe the mandates of the US Constitution, the most courageous and conservative, the most brilliant of Justices, Clarence Thomas called out the injustice.
This week he did more, putting his life on the line in confronting the cash cows of the internet. Corrupt individuals will, I fear, not give up their $billions, their control of the dissemination of information without a fight. A bloody fight.



2. Justice Thomas is an originalist, a textualist, and a believer in our God-granted unalienable rights, the single most prominent one being free speech. Thomas called out the control by big tech, and the oligarchs allied with the Democrats/Progressives who have stolen our freedom.

“ On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court soon will have to put an end to Big Tech tyranny. Amen. If the high court fails to act, it could mean the end of free speech in the 21st century and the shriveling of our constitutional rights to mere “paper rights” — still there on paper but functionally hollowed out.”
Justice Thomas shows how we can end Big Tech censorship for good



3. Just three unelected power mad Leftists….Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Jack Dorsey deserves dishonorable mention, control Facebook and Google…..and have the power to disappear every opposing voice in the United States. Even the Commander in Chief.

Justice Thomas correctly claims that the Supreme Court must do what the spineless Republicans didn’t do….reign in this unaccountable tyranny.



4. The totalitarians and their Libertarian go-alongs claim that these are private companies, and government should never impost restrictions on any privately owned endeavors. But there are clear examples that fly in the face of that excise.

“The Skyway was operated and maintained by the City of Chicago until January 2005 when Skyway Concession Company, LLC assumed its operations under a 99-year operating lease. The lease agreement between Skyway and the City of Chicago was the first privatization of an existing toll road in the United States.”
The Skyway – Chicago Skyway

Anyone willing to pay the toll gets to use the skyway.
Who would make the argument that you cannot use that skyway based on your political views?




5. The Big Tech companies are information highways. The aim of these companies should be to increase the amount of information, communication, speech, available…..not just the state version of speech.

Justice Thomas, taking them on, is akin to Mel Gibson’s character in ‘Braveheart,’ shouting FREEDOM!!

Liberal's will stop at nothing to seize power through undemocratic means!

 

[Bush92]

The Left has been known to stop at nothing.


1.While the Supreme Court as a whole embarrassed itself in refusing to confront the theft of the election, the clear refusal by some swing states, Pennsylvania in particular, to observe the mandates of the US Constitution, the most courageous and conservative, the most brilliant of Justices, Clarence Thomas called out the injustice.
This week he did more, putting his life on the line in confronting the cash cows of the internet. Corrupt individuals will, I fear, not give up their $billions, their control of the dissemination of information without a fight. A bloody fight.



2. Justice Thomas is an originalist, a textualist, and a believer in our God-granted unalienable rights, the single most prominent one being free speech. Thomas called out the control by big tech, and the oligarchs allied with the Democrats/Progressives who have stolen our freedom.

“ On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court soon will have to put an end to Big Tech tyranny. Amen. If the high court fails to act, it could mean the end of free speech in the 21st century and the shriveling of our constitutional rights to mere “paper rights” — still there on paper but functionally hollowed out.”
Justice Thomas shows how we can end Big Tech censorship for good



3. Just three unelected power mad Leftists….Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and Jack Dorsey deserves dishonorable mention, control Facebook and Google…..and have the power to disappear every opposing voice in the United States. Even the Commander in Chief.

Justice Thomas correctly claims that the Supreme Court must do what the spineless Republicans didn’t do….reign in this unaccountable tyranny.



4. The totalitarians and their Libertarian go-alongs claim that these are private companies, and government should never impost restrictions on any privately owned endeavors. But there are clear examples that fly in the face of that excise.

“The Skyway was operated and maintained by the City of Chicago until January 2005 when Skyway Concession Company, LLC assumed its operations under a 99-year operating lease. The lease agreement between Skyway and the City of Chicago was the first privatization of an existing toll road in the United States.”
The Skyway – Chicago Skyway

Anyone willing to pay the toll gets to use the skyway.
Who would make the argument that you cannot use that skyway based on your political views?




5. The Big Tech companies are information highways. The aim of these companies should be to increase the amount of information, communication, speech, available…..not just the state version of speech.

Justice Thomas, taking them on, is akin to Mel Gibson’s character in ‘Braveheart,’ shouting FREEDOM!!

The DemNazis were so sure Hillary Rotten Clinton had it rigged that they offed Scalia imo, because they wanted to flip the courts. Also why Obama Bin Spying left 400 plus bench seats unfilled.

It certainly was strange, and unexpected.


But the recent inaction by the Supreme Court per the stolen election seems to indicate that the Wehrmacht....er, Democrats had nothing to worry about.


Best hopes for Thomas, the bravest of the Justices.

There was no stolen election. That is what you wanted the Supreme Court to do.

Clarence Thomas is the craziest of the justices.

…evidence of carefully planned theft of the election.



1. I voted early, and the lines were enormous. On more than one day the lines went as much as five blocks, with lots of people bringing lawn chairs, and settling in for the duration.

Imagine two hypothetical voters..

Voter A is willing to wait on the long line, get up to the ballot and mark the presidential, and then go down the line, usually along party lines. As I did.

Voter B is an apparatchik of the Bolshevik Democrat apparatus, there for one reason: to do what he had been instructed to do to purloin the election for Biden. This individual need to fill in tons of ballots, and doesn’t plan to spend a great deal of time on each one. It’s quantity, not quality.



2. Person B is essentially a spy for the Democrats, which is fitting as their presidential candidate has been bought and paid for by a foreign government.



3. Here comes the circumstantial/mathematical evidence, specifically from the Georgia election: how do you explain 95,000 votes with only Biden marked…..the rest of the Democrat candidates for office ignored?
Only one way: the Democrat agent was sent in to win the election for Biden, and spent no time on any other aspirant.





4. “In most elections, the majority of votes are cast “down the ticket” – meaning, a voter supports both party’s presidential nominee and state Congressional candidates. In fact, according to Pew Research, “overwhelming shares of voters who are supporting Trump and Biden say they are also supporting the same-party candidate for Senate.”

Typically, this means that that the number of votes for a presidential candidate and that party’s Senate candidates are relatively close. …the number of votes cast for Joe Biden far exceeds those cast for that state’s Senate candidates in swing states, while those cast for Trump and GOP Senators remains far closer.

In Georgia, there was an 818 vote difference between Trump and the GOP Senator, vs. a 95,000 difference between Biden and the Democratic candidate for Senator.” Why Does Biden Have So Many More Votes Than Democrat Senators In Swing States?

In Michigan, for example, there was a difference of just 7,131 votes between Trump and GOP candidate John James, yet the difference between Joe Biden and Democratic candidate Gary Peters was a staggering 69,093.

Why Does Biden Have So Many More Votes Than Democrat Senators In Swing States?
Via ZeroHedge In most elections, the majority of votes are cast “down the ticket” – meaning, a voter supports both party’s presidential nominee and state Congressional candi…
www.theburningplatform.com

There were no extra votes cast. The number of votes cast were approximately the same as the number of voters. You are the one who is programmed.

You think you can slander people because they don't agree with you. You are spreading misinformation provided by Putin you Bolshevik.

What you describe is interesting but it is not proof of anything. The US Attorneys were instructed to look for voter fraud. The AG said there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the election. There are no mathematics involved.

Mail-in ballots are untraceable and we're only created to stuff ballot drop boxes and steal elections.

 

[meaner gene]

There were no extra votes cast. The number of votes cast were approximately the same as the number of voters. You are the one who is programmed.

You think you can slander people because they don't agree with you. You are spreading misinformation provided by Putin you Bolshevik.

What you describe is interesting but it is not proof of anything. The US Attorneys were instructed to look for voter fraud. The AG said there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the election. There are no mathematics involved.

Georgia Easy Voter Registration Options Break New Records | Elections

The number of overall registered voters increased from 6.657 million in November 2016 to 6.944 million in November 2018.
Georgia has hit a new record high registration level. As of October 6, Georgia had 7,587,625 registered voters throughout the state.

 

[jc456]

Twitter had every right to limit the distribution of a questionable story on it's platform. The sources are questionable and have links to the Trump campaign.

This what corporations often do to avoid government passing a law to address the problem. No different then when the movie industry created the "Hays" code, and then the MPAA rating system. And the record industry used the PMRC.

The what the industry does to itself, is always 1,000 times better than what the government would do to the industry.

Twitter was forced to start moderating it's forums was because it's platform was being used by right wing terrorists to distribute lies and hate speech.

Terrorists? So no debating skills eh?

The fact is that right wing terrorists killed more people than Islamic terrorists during the Trump years.

Where?