那230确实需要重订啊，大平台影响大，像国家安全等问题政府不可能不介入吧。
为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
版主： kazaawang， wh
#45 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
我还是相信平台不会刻意打压某个政治立场，而应该是压制违规行为；也不会刻意放任谣言和仇恨言论，只是平台会放大一切声音。
我也觉得管理方面应该更公开透明，像审查标准、算法推荐之类。对谣言或许可以管得更严一点。仇恨言论不知道现在是怎么管的，大概类似于这个站上的集体攻击，很难确定界限和严格限制？骂人和粗口这些大平台管吗？ 
上次由 wh 在 2025年 9月 30日 14:02 修改。
原因： 未提供修改原因
原因： 未提供修改原因
#46 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
Jabiru 写了： 2025年 9月 30日 12:132020 大选后有一场事实上的政变，trump任期后三个月被彻底架空失去权力，米利公然和中共通话表示不会听Trump指挥，内阁或辞职或完全不听从指挥。所有媒体封杀Trump，堂堂总统完全无法发声，主流媒体完全操纵了话语权。
那么理由是trump不承认选举结果，是trump在政变，质疑选举公正性就是政变。
不知道米利和中共通话，这个不大可能吧，两党不是都反中吗？
社交媒体封杀川普，但新闻媒体还是报道川普的吧，没有封杀他。只不过大都是负面报道。他也不是质疑选举公正性，他是否认选举公正，而且是没有证据地否认。我刚查了查关于大选舞弊的官司，很多是当年年底就判决的。总统这样公然和所有法院作对，这是非常危害社会秩序的。可四年以后他还能当选，至今还有差不多一半的人支持他，也可见这个社会确实严重分裂，有那么多人已经不相信道德、法律等传统社会维稳手段了。
https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsu ... -elections
Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections
The various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit. (Learn more about how the changes that have happened since 2020 will affect the 2024 election and beyond.)
Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23, 2021: "The president and many around him pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and said there is not widespread fraud."
CLC’s researched the cases. Some, as referenced by Rep. Cheney, were withdrawn by the Trump team before the courts ever ruled or dismissed on procedural grounds. But many were decided on the merits.
For a full case tracker, visit Election Law at Ohio State.
Post-Election Cases Decided on the Merits:
Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020) – In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed three of Trump’s four claims under the doctrine of laches. However, it decided on the merits Trump’s claim that voters wrongfully declared themselves indefinitely confined. Ultimately, the court ruled against Trump on this claim because Trump challenged the status of all voters who claimed an indefinitely confined status, rather than individual voters. Trump petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on Dec. 29, 2020 with a motion for expedited consideration, but the court denied his motion to expedite on January 11.
Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020) – The district court dismissed Trump’s claim that Wisconsin officials violated his rights under the Electors Clause because said officials allegedly issued guidance on state election statutes that deviated significantly from the requirements of Wisconsin’s election statutes. First, the court found that interpretations of election administration rules do not fall under the meaning of “Manner” in the Electors Clause. Moreover, even if “Manner” were read so broadly, the defendants had acted consistently with, and as expressly authorized by, the Wisconsin Legislature; their issued guidance did not significantly or materially depart from legislative direction. Thus, there was no violation of the Electors Clause. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion on Dec. 24, 2020. Trump filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 30, 2020 along with a motion for expedited consideration, and the court denied Trump’s motion to expedite on January 11.
King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of standing, the district court nonetheless analyzed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. First, the district court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses by allegedly violating the Michigan Election Code because it found that deviations from state election law are not the same as modifications of state election law. Second, the district court found the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim to be too speculative, finding no evidence that physical ballots were altered. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on Dec. 18, 2020. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.
Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest. First, plaintiff’s evidence failed to show fraud or misconduct—rather, it showed that the duplication process of the presidential election was 99.45% accurate, and that the inaccuracies were caused by human error. Moreover, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show illegal votes or an erroneous vote count. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the Court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.
Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020) – The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ election contest on the merits. First, the plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—failed to prove that there had been either a voting device malfunction or the counting of illegal/improper votes in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the election’s outcome. Next, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the election board or any of its members were guilty of malfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants had manipulated or altered the outcome of the election. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2020) – While the district court found that Trump lacked standing, the court decided to touch upon the merits of his Equal Protection claim, ultimately rejecting the claim. The district court held that different counties implementing different types of notice-and-cure policies (many implementing none) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the clause does not require complete equality in all situations—“a classification resulting in ‘some inequality’ will be upheld unless it is based on an inherently suspect characteristic or ‘jeopardizes the exercise of a fundamental right.’” The district court highlighted the fact that the notice-and-cure policies adopted by certain counties imposed no burden on voters, and that it would be impossible to require every single county to administer elections in exactly the same way. The U.S. Court for Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed this decision on Nov. 27, 2020.
Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of a plaintiff—a registered voter—could be dismissed either for lack of standing or under the doctrine of laches, the court nonetheless ruled on the merits. First, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim because there was no disparate treatment among Georgia voters. Next, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Elections and Electors Clauses claim because Secretary Brad Raffensperger had not overridden or rewritten any state law. Finally, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Due Process claim because there is no individual constitutional right to observe the electoral process (i.e., monitor an audit or vote recount). The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion on Dec. 5, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8, 2020 and filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.
Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020) – The district court largely dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds of lack of standing. However, the court did touch upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were largely based on, “anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” For one, the declarations from poll watchers that the plaintiffs provided as proof of fraud did not actually allege fraud at all, but rather simply raised concerns about the manner and process by which election officials matched signatures on absentee ballots. Moreover, none of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses stated that defendants committed any fraud; instead, they only provided speculative statements about what “could have” happened. Additionally, one of the plaintiffs’ experts relied on a study with no information about its author or methodologies involved. Finally, the court found the plaintiffs’ claim of alleged voting machine hacking to be unconvincing since the voting machines’ behavior could be easily explained by standard voting machine protocol. The plaintiffs filed an emergency petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2020, and the court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency petition on January 11.
Costantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020) – In denying the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud would unlikely prevail on the merits. The court noted that many plaintiffs failed to include crucial information in their allegations, such as locations of alleged misconduct, frequency of alleged misconduct, names of those involved in alleged misconduct, and so on. Overall, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud to be speculative, filled with “guess-work,” and often unsubstantiated. Moreover, defendants provided a sufficient amount of evidence to convince the court that they had acted within the law. This decision was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on Nov. 16, 2020, and by the Michigan Supreme Court on Nov. 23, 2020.
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) – The superior court ordered the Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers to pay legal fees for bringing a “groundless,” bad faith lawsuit challenging Maricopa County election procedures. The court noted that the relief plaintiff sought—an additional hand count of ballots—was not legally available due to the suit’s numerous procedural defects. The court found that plaintiff did not adequately assess the validity of their claims before filing the suit, and thus failed to prove that the county had inappropriately applied the statute in question. The court determined that plaintiff brought the suit for the “improper purpose” of undermining Arizonans’ confidence in election results, rather than to defend election integrity as they claimed.
Given the sheer number of election-related cases that lacked merit, federal judges in states like Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin have begun moving to consider and, in at least one instance thus far, implement sanctions against the lawyers that submitted them. For instance, according to a July 16 article from The Washington Post, a federal judge in Michigan began questioning Sidney Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers to decide whether to sanction the group for submitting a lawsuit crafted on false information that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election. On August 25, the judge imposed sanctions on Powell and the other pro-Trump lawyers, recommending that their respective state bars investigate whether they should be suspended or disbarred.
上次由 wh 在 2025年 9月 30日 14:27 修改。
原因： 未提供修改原因
原因： 未提供修改原因
#48 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
wh 写了： 2025年 9月 30日 14:23不知道米利和中共通话，这个不大可能吧，两党不是都反中吗？
社交媒体封杀川普，但新闻媒体还是报道川普的吧，没有封杀他。只不过大都是负面报道。他也不是质疑选举公正性，他是否认选举公正，而且是没有证据地否认。我刚查了查关于大选舞弊的官司，很多是当年年底就判决的。总统这样公然和所有法院作对，这是非常危害社会秩序的。可四年以后他还能当选，至今还有差不多一半的人支持他，也可见这个社会确实严重分裂，有那么多人已经不相信道德、法律等传统社会维稳手段了。
https://campaignlegal.org/results-lawsu ... -elections
Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 ElectionsThe various claims of evidence alleging a stolen 2020 election have been exhaustively investigated and litigated. Judges heard claims of illegal voting and found they were without merit. (Learn more about how the changes that have happened since 2020 will affect the 2024 election and beyond.)
Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, stated on February 23, 2021: "The president and many around him pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. And that is a dangerous claim. It wasn't true," she said. "There were over 60 court cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and said there is not widespread fraud."
CLC’s researched the cases. Some, as referenced by Rep. Cheney, were withdrawn by the Trump team before the courts ever ruled or dismissed on procedural grounds. But many were decided on the merits.
For a full case tracker, visit Election Law at Ohio State.
Post-Election Cases Decided on the Merits:
Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020) – In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed three of Trump’s four claims under the doctrine of laches. However, it decided on the merits Trump’s claim that voters wrongfully declared themselves indefinitely confined. Ultimately, the court ruled against Trump on this claim because Trump challenged the status of all voters who claimed an indefinitely confined status, rather than individual voters. Trump petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari on Dec. 29, 2020 with a motion for expedited consideration, but the court denied his motion to expedite on January 11.
Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020) – The district court dismissed Trump’s claim that Wisconsin officials violated his rights under the Electors Clause because said officials allegedly issued guidance on state election statutes that deviated significantly from the requirements of Wisconsin’s election statutes. First, the court found that interpretations of election administration rules do not fall under the meaning of “Manner” in the Electors Clause. Moreover, even if “Manner” were read so broadly, the defendants had acted consistently with, and as expressly authorized by, the Wisconsin Legislature; their issued guidance did not significantly or materially depart from legislative direction. Thus, there was no violation of the Electors Clause. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion on Dec. 24, 2020. Trump filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 30, 2020 along with a motion for expedited consideration, and the court denied Trump’s motion to expedite on January 11.
King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of standing, the district court nonetheless analyzed the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. First, the district court was unpersuaded by the plaintiffs’ claim that defendants violated the Elections and Electors Clauses by allegedly violating the Michigan Election Code because it found that deviations from state election law are not the same as modifications of state election law. Second, the district court found the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim to be too speculative, finding no evidence that physical ballots were altered. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on Dec. 18, 2020. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.
Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest. First, plaintiff’s evidence failed to show fraud or misconduct—rather, it showed that the duplication process of the presidential election was 99.45% accurate, and that the inaccuracies were caused by human error. Moreover, the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show illegal votes or an erroneous vote count. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 11, 2020, and subsequently filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the Court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.
Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020) – The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ election contest on the merits. First, the plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—failed to prove that there had been either a voting device malfunction or the counting of illegal/improper votes in a manner sufficient to raise reasonable doubt as to the election’s outcome. Next, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the election board or any of its members were guilty of malfeasance. Finally, the plaintiffs failed to prove that defendants had manipulated or altered the outcome of the election. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision on Dec. 8, 2020.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2020) – While the district court found that Trump lacked standing, the court decided to touch upon the merits of his Equal Protection claim, ultimately rejecting the claim. The district court held that different counties implementing different types of notice-and-cure policies (many implementing none) did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the clause does not require complete equality in all situations—“a classification resulting in ‘some inequality’ will be upheld unless it is based on an inherently suspect characteristic or ‘jeopardizes the exercise of a fundamental right.’” The district court highlighted the fact that the notice-and-cure policies adopted by certain counties imposed no burden on voters, and that it would be impossible to require every single county to administer elections in exactly the same way. The U.S. Court for Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed this decision on Nov. 27, 2020.
Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of a plaintiff—a registered voter—could be dismissed either for lack of standing or under the doctrine of laches, the court nonetheless ruled on the merits. First, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim because there was no disparate treatment among Georgia voters. Next, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Elections and Electors Clauses claim because Secretary Brad Raffensperger had not overridden or rewritten any state law. Finally, the district court dismissed the plaintiff’s Due Process claim because there is no individual constitutional right to observe the electoral process (i.e., monitor an audit or vote recount). The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s opinion on Dec. 5, 2020. The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8, 2020 and filed a motion for expedited consideration on the same day. However, the court denied the motion to expedite on January 11.
Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec. 9, 2020) – The district court largely dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds of lack of standing. However, the court did touch upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were largely based on, “anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” For one, the declarations from poll watchers that the plaintiffs provided as proof of fraud did not actually allege fraud at all, but rather simply raised concerns about the manner and process by which election officials matched signatures on absentee ballots. Moreover, none of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses stated that defendants committed any fraud; instead, they only provided speculative statements about what “could have” happened. Additionally, one of the plaintiffs’ experts relied on a study with no information about its author or methodologies involved. Finally, the court found the plaintiffs’ claim of alleged voting machine hacking to be unconvincing since the voting machines’ behavior could be easily explained by standard voting machine protocol. The plaintiffs filed an emergency petition for extraordinary writ of mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2020, and the court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency petition on January 11.Costantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020) – In denying the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud would unlikely prevail on the merits. The court noted that many plaintiffs failed to include crucial information in their allegations, such as locations of alleged misconduct, frequency of alleged misconduct, names of those involved in alleged misconduct, and so on. Overall, the court found the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud to be speculative, filled with “guess-work,” and often unsubstantiated. Moreover, defendants provided a sufficient amount of evidence to convince the court that they had acted within the law. This decision was affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals on Nov. 16, 2020, and by the Michigan Supreme Court on Nov. 23, 2020.
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) – The superior court ordered the Arizona Republican Party and its lawyers to pay legal fees for bringing a “groundless,” bad faith lawsuit challenging Maricopa County election procedures. The court noted that the relief plaintiff sought—an additional hand count of ballots—was not legally available due to the suit’s numerous procedural defects. The court found that plaintiff did not adequately assess the validity of their claims before filing the suit, and thus failed to prove that the county had inappropriately applied the statute in question. The court determined that plaintiff brought the suit for the “improper purpose” of undermining Arizonans’ confidence in election results, rather than to defend election integrity as they claimed.
Given the sheer number of election-related cases that lacked merit, federal judges in states like Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin have begun moving to consider and, in at least one instance thus far, implement sanctions against the lawyers that submitted them. For instance, according to a July 16 article from The Washington Post, a federal judge in Michigan began questioning Sidney Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers to decide whether to sanction the group for submitting a lawsuit crafted on false information that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election. On August 25, the judge imposed sanctions on Powell and the other pro-Trump lawyers, recommending that their respective state bars investigate whether they should be suspended or disbarred.
当时美国军方和建制派怕川普为了不交权，狗急跳墙袭击中国发动世界大战，所以由米利沟通中国，向中国保证不会首先袭击中国。
#49 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
Jabiru 写了： 2025年 9月 30日 12:132020 大选后有一场事实上的政变，trump任期后三个月被彻底架空失去权力，米利公然和中共通话表示不会听Trump指挥，内阁或辞职或完全不听从指挥。所有媒体封杀Trump，堂堂总统完全无法发声，主流媒体完全操纵了话语权。
那么理由是trump不承认选举结果，是trump在政变，质疑选举公正性就是政变。
大选之后的政府本来就是看守政府，没权的。当时军方和建制派那样做，不过是怕川普狗急跳墙采取极端方式而已。事实上他也的确那样试图了。
#50 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
shanghaibaba 写了： 2025年 9月 30日 14:48大选之后的政府本来就是看守政府，没权的。当时军方和建制派那样做，不过是怕川普狗急跳墙采取极端方式而已。事实上他也的确那样试图了。
他试图干啥了？
#51 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
试图不交权啊。在16的时候，煽动暴民冲击国会以阻止国会认证，同时拒绝出动军警保护国会。后来是议长和副总统联合下令才调动了军警。
这还是他被剥夺了权力的情况下。如果他最后时日真能掌握军队大权，他真有可能发动军事政变或者发动世界大战。
#52 【地位垫底的米华津津乐道米国的法治，犹如肉用鸡歌颂养鸡场】
.
.
【文科掌控的米国司法执法和律师业也是看权势来顺风驶船】
川普处于弱势时，对他极限抹黑，落井下石，就知现实的险恶。
而川普即使弱势，也远比老中企管强几个数量级，更别提锁男。
川普弱势时还有众多支持者。老中不团结还内斗地位必然垫底。
孟晚舟和华为，有中国靠背，也得等加国律师吃饱，才准放人。
地位垫底的米华津津乐道米国的法治，犹如肉用鸡歌颂养鸡场。
.
.
#53 Re: 为啥油管、Facebook和X给川普赔钱？
你们是说当年法庭审判舞弊的案子，有的直接就扔出来了。所谓的法庭就是栽赃川普有93个案子的索罗斯团伙一类吧。川普在台上，不先把这些坏了美国根基的狗法官清理掉，始终是大患
