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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (221084)	12/27/2021 1:47:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 363004

>> YOU DON'T KNOW THAT HE DIDN'T! Of course we know that. We've known that since right after the election. Google was doing the same thing -- undermining Trump -- but in different ways. We know that. Google set up a "working group" to find ways to use Google's resources to undermine Trump. This is well documented: #DELETED: Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election: Bokhari, Allum: 9781546059301: Amazon.com: Books You should read the briefing here. If you are a supporter of free speech, and I don't think you are, this will turn your stomach. The briefing document is reproduced here: 'THE GOOD CENSOR': Leaked Google Briefing Admits Abandonment of Free Speech for 'Safety And Civility' IN the end, of course, Trump was censored by all tech essentially, pursuant to similar plans at twitter, facebook, and of course, google. So, what you claim, that there was not an effort with CTCL to change the outcome, is absurd on its face. Everything Zuckerberg, Google, and Twitter had done prior to the runup to the election had been about making sure Trump wasn't reelected. Now, suddenly, it wasn't? Who is dumb enough to believe that? You have to understand the role of David Plouffe in these contributions. This is not some nonpartisan, nonpolitical guy. He is the most astute player in the big money business of Democrats. Plouffe was the driving force behind the Zuckerberg money -- Z made the money available, Plouffe figured out how to use it. It was Plouffe who dug up CTCL which was previously operating on a 1 million dollar budget, nearly broke, and said, in effect, "We'll give you money, and you'll stay alive, but we will tell you how it is to be spent." Back to your issue, the distribution of the money: While money was supposedly given out regardless of political leaning, but Democratic areas received massively more funding than Republican counties, whether you look at it in terms of total dollars or per capita amount. Most of the money went to blue areas. AP reported that CTCL's donations "have predominantly been in areas where Democrats depend on votes". And the AP report pointed out that while blue areas got their money early, red areas got theirs late. That mattered. The analysis (so simple, as you pointed out) really falls apart when you start looking at allocations based on who benefits from money. Essentially, by 4-1 that money feel into blue areas, e.g., in GA. If you think CTCL wasn't calling the shots? "As far as I'm concerned I am taking all of my cues from CTCL and work with those you recommend" -- Celestine Jeffreys, chief of staff to Green Bay's mayor. This was in an email that was previously posted here. Following is a legal complaint filed by some of the people working in these offices in Wisconsin. You should read it if you actually want to know what the evidence is. WEC-Complaint-FINAL-Draft-4.pdf (fox11digital.com) This is stuff you won't read because the truth isn't part of what you want. I doubt if a one of you will actually read this point, so none of you has grounds to deny anything in it. These are facts, not subject to question, well-documented, and the available data is voluminous and readily available.