Traitor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Stolen from Dan Bongino

The past 24 hours:
- Twitter permanently suspends President Trump
- Twitter suspends "POTUS" government twitter account
- Amazon employees call for company to stop hosting Parler through AWS
- Google removes Parler from Google Play, Apple considers following suit
- YouTube Bans Steve Bannon
- CEO of Mozilla says we need more than deplatforming

Me
Big tech is out of control. If you think the thought police will stop at censoring the right wing people who disagree with their world view, you are a fcking idiot.
Yes, first they came for the insurgents, but I thought the insurgents were dangerous lunatics and I did nothing.

If we all stopped supporting hate speech and white supremacists what sort of terrible world would we live in?
 
Twitter did not suspend these people or organisations for hate speech and speech promoting white supremacy. They and many others were suspended for questioning the integrity of the US election.
Youtube said a week ago or more that from January the sixth they would suspend the accounts of anyone alleging election fraud.
Sidney Powell and Gen Flynn have also been suspended by twitter, I'd challenge anyone to find examples of hate speech or white supremacy speech from those two.
 
Sponsored Links
Here's one found in two minutes. Scroll down for the actual court judgement.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news...lt-certification-of-detroit-election-results/
That's a perfect example of the corrupt system at work. A judge reading afffidavits and forming a judgement based on that, without giving any of the witnesses their day in court. That case was dodged by that judge after a preliminary hearing without allowing it to go to trial.
That will have been appealed up to the state supreme court where it will have been dodged again due to lack of standing or whatever other excuse they could come up with.
Find me a case where the judge actually listened to the evidence in court before forming a judgement. There are none, because no witnesses have been heard in any court, at any time.
 
Find me a case where the judge actually listened to the evidence in court before forming a judgement.

No point, it is a corrupt system. Roll on the 20th.
 
Here is some pretty damming evidence for you to pooh pooh.
If it turns out to be kosher, you may all owe me an apology.
This guy is an Italian and her gets his months mixed up right at the end.

https://video.parler.com/Y3/iW/Y3iWk7KPgwNj.mp4
Parler

Are you having a laugh?

Parler is home to right wing extremism, right wing populists and any other nasties.


Have you anything credible at all?
 
Parler is home to free speech, left wing or right wing, as long as it is not pornographic or hate speech.
Did you even watch that video? Before dismissing it based on what platform is prepared to show it.
 
Some of the more intelligent are a little more discerning about what is truth and what is lie, you demonstrably don't fall into that category

Another go to argument used by conspiracists.
 
Yes, show me a court where the affidavits were considered but dismissed.

I did that and you changed the goalposts to this...

A judge reading afffidavits and forming a judgement based on that, without giving any of the witnesses their day in court.

That's not how it works. Go read affidavits for Dummies.
 
You couldn't make this up....

Update on Georgia ballots: DHS had been trying to move forward this week. Two days ago FBI jumped in claiming jurisdiction. Yesterday 3 PM FBI took control of shredding truck and materials, directed they be returned to shredding operation and the shredding job completed.
Posted by Patrick Byrne on Twitter

Those ballots are supposed to be kept for twenty two months after an election before being disposed of, I believe that's a federal law not just a state one.
There was a team of forensic experts who had to go to court to stop them being shredded and to be given permission to examine them, then the FBI stepped in. hahah
 
So, if I could show you where the affidavits were considered but dismissed as poor or non existent evidence that would be a start? I've asked you this before.
Yes my understanding was affidavits were thrown out as they lacked substantive proof.

Republicans got rather angry when reporters started asking for some proof, any proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top