David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan) profile picture
Joined November 2021
Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)Photo by David StonesFan (@DavidStonesFan)
Replying to @jay_kobbe
The 40% error rate is the baseline The other 60% can be in error too
1
2
78
Look who is whining about people practicing free speech and making edgy jokes now.
"Basic human empathy" starter pack:
217
4,276
12
51,821
299,509
David StonesFan retweeted
The First Amendment doesn’t allow the governor or state schools to punish First Amendment protected speech
1
9
David StonesFan retweeted
Replying to @vladgothgirl
Because as a public university, UTSA is restricted by the First Amendment and cannot punish her for that speech
1
1
2
31
That’s not how burden of proof works.
1
12
63
David StonesFan retweeted
You’re a fucking retard. 1. 40% of names don’t even exist as voters. Meaning 40% of the names given by the DOJ are patent nonsense. 2. The remaining 60% are simply names *that exist*. Not known fraudulent voters.
1
1
14
161
David StonesFan retweeted
You are an idiot. This does not mean 60% of people in the list are “non citizens”. Why do maga’s always prove that they are the most stupid people on earth? 🤣
1
1
26
849
This was a list of POSSIBLE names lmao. If they completely fabricated 40%, what makes you think they’re magically telling the truth about the other 60
1
1
1
12
David StonesFan retweeted
Replying to @mdkellner @BullyEsq
The other 60% are citizens the DOJ flagged as noncitizens for no reason.
2
1
7
1,084
Replying to @mdkellner @BullyEsq
Yes. But not necessarily non-citizens All this shows is the DOJ list is wildly inaccurate
1
3
345
David StonesFan retweeted
Replying to @BullyEsq
can you not read and comprehend a single sentence
1
3
330
David StonesFan retweeted
People are completely misreading this headline. The Trump DOJ claims nearly 21,000 suspected noncitizens are registered to vote in California. But an independent analysis found MASSIVE problems with the DOJ’s list: - 42% (8,880 people) couldn’t even be matched to California’s current voter rolls. - At least 22 people were confirmed U.S. citizens. - Thousands more may be naturalized American citizens wrongly flagged as ineligible. - DOJ omitted voter ID numbers, making accurate verification more difficult. - Local election officials found major discrepancies, including canceled registrations and people born in the United States. - DOJ demanded action within 48 hours, threatening election officials with prosecution. - Federal judges rejected DOJ’s demands to segregate the ballots. Most importantly, DOJ has NOT established that 21,000 noncitizens voted, or even that 21,000 noncitizens are registered. The Trump administration is attempting to interfere with ballot counting using a deeply flawed list that threatens the voting rights of American citizens. That’s what this story is actually about.
202
426
32
2,084
186,217
Replying to @BullyEsq
So the DOJ list is incredibly inaccurate? No surprise there
1
1
124
David StonesFan retweeted
BREAKING: Minnesota police chief personally orders Flock's AI surveillance cameras physically unplugged after the company allegedly “ignored” the city's decision to cancel its contract.
59
193
19
2,086
77,812
David StonesFan retweeted
Yet AGAIN, @glangley and @flocksafety refuse to stop surveiling communities that have shown them the door. Their purpose is not safety. Their purpose is involuntary surveillance and data collection/indexing.
BREAKING: Minnesota police chief personally orders Flock's AI surveillance cameras physically unplugged after the company allegedly “ignored” the city's decision to cancel its contract.
1
27
94
2,040
David StonesFan retweeted
Replying to @Emmaiid11
And she is still protected by the first amendment
1
2
5
54
Replying to @Phelya_e
Conservatives hate free speech when the free speech is about their favorite dead transphobe
3
4
71
4,384
Replying to @dom_kwok
You can't pull it off.
61
12
3
781
55,189
David StonesFan retweeted
This sounds like a pretty clear First Amendment violation for several obvious reasons. The most obvious is that there is no history of "amplifier liability" for speech and the First Amendment prohibits the creation of new theories of speech liability.
1
1
3
604