(09-26-2021, 06:59 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(09-26-2021, 05:08 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Please explain what you mean by cracking down on election contributions and social media.  I don't see how you can do that without violating the First Amendment.

I have been all in on election fraud because the numbers just don't make sense. The turnout numbers didn't make sense and the drop in rejected ballots didn't make sense. I wanted an explanation for that, and the best form of it came when I realized how Zuckerberg was manipulating the voting precincts with his "charity." The dude almost single-handedly swayed the election, even if there was machine voter fraud, as so many people believe. Here is a great read from NPR about the role this dude played in "saving" the election, lol. 

How Mark Zuckerberg's Millions Made Election 2020 Go Smoothly : NPR

Pay particular attention to where he donated funds in that link. You can see he primarily contributed to cities in PA, MI, WI, and MN... even NC to a lesser degree. He spread out 350 million dollars all over the country. He contributed donations across many different districts to make it look like he was being even-handed. He even donated money to more red states and districts than blue. However, the guy donated significantly more money PER VOTER to blue districts, and it's not even close. The end result is a process that looks fair, but contributed significantly more to the cause of democrats than republicans, which is how it made it past the legal system. Take a look at how donations were distributed in PA.



If you take it at face value, you can argue that he's just making sure all these counties are funded, but the truth is that he is swaying the election by giving significantly more to blue districts. This would be the equivalent of someone making a pizza for 10 people, then making it so that he cut one quarter of that pizza into 6 slices, then divided the other 3/4's to the remaining 4 people. And, you can't say that these districts are larger, because the money is split up PER VOTER, not per district. 

So what did he do with that money? He came in and trained workers how to accept ballots. The rejection rate went from 3% in those blue counties in PA, WI, and MI to .3%. That's an insane amount of swing in counties that favor Dems. Combine that with ballot harvesting that is almost certainly occurring (we know it's happening in MN illegally and Cali legally), and you have the conditions to tile the election in your favor. It's almost impossible to prove. And Zuckerberg is just one person. You can't tell me there weren't others doing this.

I want big money out of elections. I think we limit campaign contributions to 100 bucks a person and that's it. No other contributions. I think you take private money out of the electoral process (that parts that are supposed to be run by the government).

I don't agree with your conclusion.  All he did was expedite the process.  He didn't drive more voters to the polls, or anything like that.  He gave money to local governments to ensure that ballots were counted within a reasonable amount of time, so the process wouldn't take many weeks, and lead to even more questions about accuracy and fairness.   

Secondly, I have heard this "take big money out of elections" idea for many years, and I have always opposed it.  Restrictions of that sort are a violation of the First Amendment.  For example, I am restricted as the the amount of money I can give personally to a Presidential candidate.  But am I restricted from renting a billboard and expressing my political views?   Can I buy a newspaper and express myself that way?  What's the difference in all these things?  Nothing.  There's no difference.  You cannot tell a newspaper what they can or cannot say.  That's an obvious violation of the First Amendment.  So any rich person can buy a newspaper and say what they want to say.  They can buy a newpaper for $100 million and print as many pro-candidate editorials as they want.  There's no restriction on that and there never can be.  So why am I personally restricted from giving a personal contribution over a certain amount to a candidate?  It doesn't make sense.  I don't think it's constitutional to tell me, or a corporation, or any other entity, that they cannot give as much money directly to a political campaign as they want.

---