I am a woman and independent who would not be oppressed by a woman president. I also have a master's degree. I would never vote Hillary. Never...

> The article doesn't really say what he posted.

> Why did I get shadowbanned?

> Beats me.

> But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.

It was literally the second paragraph of the article...

That's pretty vague, he "feels something he might have tweeted about Clinton supporters"? That's not specific enough, that's why I said it was uncertain.

He's also been saying recently that he supports Clinton, because if he didn't then he'd be assassinated.

So it's quite possible that he's actually mentally ill. On the other hand, it could just be a schtick, as I saw him bring interviewed recently on a right wing video blog and he was much more subdued than his written 'character'.

Why make the assumption that he is mentally ill? As I see it it is just a reference to the very popular conspiracy (theories?) that several of Hillarys problematic staff and opponents has died under wierd circumstances, like shot in the back of the head during a robbery with nothing stolen from the victim, shotgun suicides, guccifer hung in his cell in Russia and much more.

Furthermore Hillary has suggested that Julian Assange should be dronestriked: http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

Dude, your snopes link has a big red "UNPROVEN" right up there at the top.

Unproven != Disproved

Yeah, unproven is different than disproved, but a source noting that a claim is unproven is hardly support for the claim being true, which is how you offered it.

How did I offer this as truth when I mentioned that it could very well be conspiracy theories?

$0.10 was deposited to your CTR account.

It was just unsubstantiated. If you want to suggest something might have happened, linking to a debunker website that says its unproven makes your claim less likely, right?

"The article doesn't really say what he posted."

Support for Trump. Isn't that enough?

Why would "support for Trump" be bannable when "being Trump" is not.

I wonder how much Trump is responsible for Twitter's traffic these days.

I know I had tuned out of it a while ago because Twitter didn't have any content that interests me. Now it's like reality tv for the election

as any school bully would know, you have to pick targets that are weaker than you.

One is a choice, the other was how he was born.

No, support for trump is not enough to get banned of course. That guy from brietbart who got banned from twitter had been attacking people for a long time, and urging others to attack people like leslie jones. I thing this is the kind of thing that eventually adds up to a ban on twitter.