Apply Now!

The Trump Card...

Shotcallerj

Shotcallerj

Rookie Expediter
Owner/Operator
Turtle said:
There were a lot of weird things, irregularities, if you like, that happened in several states. All of them Battleground, or Swing States, coincidentally. See, in slam-dunk states, the solid red or solid blue, it would take massive, dare I say, widespread, voter shenanigans to flip the state. But in battleground states, just a few things here and there, in targeted voting districts, a little bit of shenanigans with mail-in ballots here, with drop boxes there, maybe a little bit of vote counting issues here and there, and before you know it you've changed the outcome of the election, all thanks to last minute "pandemic" voting rules changes that made it a lot easier for shenanigans to happen.

We've got voting laws in place of and in process now that will go back to pre-pandemic rules, and rules that close up some loopholes that made cheating a lot easier.

Incidentally, Georgia enacting voting laws that are literally less restrictive than Delaware is nor voter suppression, not is it Jim Crow 2.0.
Click to expand...
Check this out.....

Becker News

Truly Independent Journalism.
beckernews.com
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and muttly
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
No, they aren't.



In this particular instance that's largely irrelevant ... due to the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Due to the circumstances? The only circumstances where argumentum ad hominem is a possibly valid argument and not fallacious is in the realm of morality and ethics, and even the philosophers who argue that, past and present, are in the minority. In this case, if Favorino found voter irregularities that are verifiable, then what he thinks on other issues, including Kavanaugh, is not a valid argument against the irregularities he found. The guy's been a nonpartisan voter integrity activist for many years.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT, muttly and danthewolf00
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Shotcallerj said:
Check this out. Apparently the White House doesn't want people to get information that doesn't help promote their agenda. If this isn't another red flag I don't know what is..... This is the kind of crap that third world dictators do.

www.fox2detroit.com

White House says Facebook needs to work harder to censor COVID-19 misinformation

The Biden administration on Thursday slammed Facebook for not working hard enough to censor misinformation about COVID-19 and its vaccines.
www.fox2detroit.com www.fox2detroit.com
Click to expand...
They apparently have a list of people they want banned.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Shotcallerj and RLENT
Ragman

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
  • Like
Reactions: dalscott and RLENT
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
So ... your initial assertion wasn't really correct then: Biden (and company) didn't actually ban anyone.
Click to expand...
In the process of banning. I.e.. gathering a list, monitoring those people on the list. Pressuring Facebook and other social media to ban listed ones from their platforms.
Psaki spilled the beans. You haven't heard?
 
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
muttly said:
In the process of banning. I.e.. gathering a list, monitoring those people on the list. Pressuring Facebook and other social media to ban listed ones from their platforms.
Psaki spilled the beans. You haven't heard?
Click to expand...

:tearsofjoy:

Fox News’s Peter Doocy pressed the press secretary over the administration’s relationship with Facebook, with Psaki saying that the White House doesn’t block anything on the platform.

"We don't take anything down. We don't block anything, Facebook, and any private sector company makes decisions about what information should be on their platform. Our point is that there is information that is leading to people not taking the vaccine," Psaki said.
Click to expand...

Psaki says administration is working with Facebook to limit misinformation
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The Supreme Court ruled just two years ago that the government can't censor speech by getting a private entity to do it for them. That's why Jen is so quick to say, "Hey, even though we're working closely with them, it's not us, it's the social media companies making these decisions."
 
  • Like
Reactions: danthewolf00 and muttly
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Turtle said:
The Supreme Court ruled just two years ago that the government can't censor speech by getting a private entity to do it for them. That's why Jen is so quick to say, "Hey, even though we're working closely with them, it's not us, it's the social media companies making these decisions."
Click to expand...

Right ... so no harm, no foul.

Seems like she's saying they just keep an eye on it and do their civic duty and report it to the social media companies when they find something amiss.

Eliminating these types of public health misinformation certainly falls into a legitimate area of concern of government I would say.

Now I realize that might seem rather draconian to those on the extreme rabid right ... given that it's their modus operandi and part of the overall infrastructure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top