Why Isn’t Hillary Banned from Twitter for Her Election Disinformation

0
664

Hillary Clinton, a two-time unsuccessful presidential candidate and onetime carpetbagging senator who is now a full-time paranoiac has repeatedly fallen foul of the social media zeitgeist regarding election integrity.

Clinton can also be seen on video in resurfaced footage that will make you laugh or cry depending on whether or not you have already joined me for a brunch-time Bloody Mary.

If you haven’t been paying attention since the early hours of November 4, 2020, then questioning the results is a major social media sin.

Crying “Stolen election!” is right out.

A month after the totally above-board/no-questions-asked 2020 presidential election, YouTube announced that it would “ban content questioning the outcome.”

Facebook (now Meta), which was close to YouTube’s heels, said it would eliminate any content that mentioned: “Stop the Steal.” Meta-owned Instagram also did the same.

It’s not just about social media.

After Robert Unanue questioned the results of President-elect Joe Biden’s election, Goya Foods barred him from all media appearances. Unanue said the magical words of banning: “With an unverified electoral, and the big prize the United States.”

One assumes that he would come out and engage in sexual conversation with second-graders, rather than being silenced.

Two things are certain:

The first is that our elections are so completely free of taint, corruption, or reproach that no questions ever need be raised about them. The second is that such questions ought to be banned because of reasons.

Comrade, there aren’t any questions worth asking. So why should you worry about banishment?

This is why Hillary Clinton should be immediately banned from social media until she retracts and deletes statements such as the one she made in 2019

“You can run a great campaign. You can even be the nominee. And you could have the election stolen from you.”

The verboten Clinton statement is currently freely circulating on Twitter.

She called for recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin shortly after Clinton’s 2016 disaster. She got U.S. intelligence officers to question publicly whether Russian hackers were behind the results.

We actually got RUSSIA for three years and more, and we still have it, even after all the evidence was disproven so thoroughly that Clinton’s campaign was fined.

That’s what I call questioning an election’s results.

Clinton continues to tweet and has never had to remove or retract any of his posts.

The Oder has she?

“Republican officials are determined to make voter fraud a real phenomenon rather than a mere pretense to suppress votes. They keep doing it.”

It was almost yesterday when Clinton stated that a campaigner such as herself — she assures that the best one — could win an election.

Now, she tells us that the claims of voter fraud are nothing but a “flimsy pretext to suppress voters.”

Presumably, they are Democrat voters. These are the people who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, or who switched to Donald Trump.

Please know that I have the answer to your question, Hillary, before you ask.

It can be whatever it needs at the moment.

Voter fraud can occur when it is necessary, but it is not otherwise present. Elections can only be stolen if the right candidate wins. It is not permissible to ask a question of another person.

However, I urge you to not forget about Stacey Abrams (The Real Governor of Georgia)