thefucnjosh

Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.

As long as it does not indicate an "imminent" threat You are correct, I was to broad.

I really appreciate how much I learned from this reply thank you.

Michael Sherwin, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, told the Associated Press: "All of those charges [sedition, unauthorized access, theft of federal property] are on the table... We’re not going to keep anything out of our arsenal for potential charges. We will bring the most maximum charges we can based upon the conduct." https://apnews.com/article/arrests-district-of-columbia-crim...

Sedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH

Imagine thinking this is related.

Comparing the Junior Congresswoman to the President of the U.S. does not lend credence to your follow-up statement especially given the ridiculous & slanderous coverage she's been given. No further discussion with you is warranted. one-tab.com/page/tE5DJcsOQFiJQtKjGFH8wA

this

If you seem to serious about it, you should be more worried about the FBI & Secret Service than Twitter

Break-up doesn't stop collusion

Soleimani

Which is wrong, and given Twitter's stance of issuing corrections for tweets, probably should have made her a ripe target. However, that doesn't excuse Trump's use of terrorism.

This is a very strange case. But nevertheless it can't be said if she was killed for that. And the incident was not part of any kind of protest or riot.

"Ramirez said in the Fox59 interview the two groups separated because they realized people in each group were armed. He said both groups then fist-bumped and went their separate ways. But someone opened fire from a nearby bridge and struck Doty-Whitaker, Ramirez said. He said the shooters then ran away. Ramirez said he fired back but did not hit anyone. When contacted by IndyStar, members of Doty-Whitaker's family declined interview requests."

The suspects have been caught and charged. Dorn was not a Trump supporter and wasn't killed for political reasons. Debra White told the paper that her father opposed much of Drumpf's rhetoric and policies, including "the things he said about Colin Kaepernick, the kids locked up in cages, the racist remarks." Dorn's daughters stated their father did not want to support the "law and order agenda".

As they should be, equality under the law should include the President. And the things he said were not protected speech.

As well as the authority of the person spreading it. The fact that we've decided the President is above libel, slander, and felony charges is a new thing. Thank god people stopped this nonsense when he started advocating terrorism. Equality under the law, implies MORE scrutiny for the powerful. Unfortunately, up until this point we have normalized the opposite.

Falsehoods that lead to this situation. People who post beheadings on Twitter should be banned. People who incite violence should be banned. Nothing was said about U.S. Presidents.

Sedition, terrorism, and advocating the overthrow of the government ARE NOT PROTECTED SPEECH. If the government did tell Trump he was banned it wouldn't violate any liberal principles. It's not personal that's just the law. And it's litterally the law in every country on earth.

Let's hope they don't.

I don't disagree with anything you said. But terrorist violence & sedition are not protected speech. Whether they banned him for the right or wrong reason, he still needs to be banned.

I'm not disagreeing but are we making section 230 into a sacred cow? Surely the world isn't going to just fall apart if it is repealed.

People are so afraid of such silly things sometimes, like those people afraid of a U.S. government run twitter. Who has more freedom to express their opinions a normal person at work whose boss can fire them for any reason, or a government worker who has legal guarantees for their speech? Who is less likely to start a war by banning a dangerous world leader from a platform, Twitter, or an independent non-profit entity run by the state.

Is this a parody or do you actually have nouns like names that you can use?

When did the Ayatollah advocate for the abolition of his own government?

Who has died? Can you name names?

And that grey area is admittedly harder to give context to when the medium for it is text....but since he's the president and he's been physically SAYING falsehoods that lead to this situation, he should have been banned sooner.

Yeah their hesitation shouldn't have happened. They shouldn't have issued those weird corrections to his statements either, they would have had MORE credibility had they come down sooner by actually assigning someone to give the public legitimate reasons for them to ban him.

I don't disagree. But sedition isn't protected speech. So if they didn't ban him they're opening themselves up for lawsuits. In no country on earth is it legal for anyone to publicly advocate the overthrow of their government. And there's already decisions on the books proving this, as well as the legal precedent of cold-war anti-communism laws.

I live in Alaska....litterally every car here is sold with summer tires.

What experiences have you had in the world that make you think things are so complicated? From what I've seen in my short time, it seems like when you get "experts" in a room you get closed-mindedness because everyone thinks alike. I can't even begin to think of an example were a voter would need to be an expert to be informed. But I can think of dozens of examples of bad policies that experts have backed. Book bans, carbon credits, moral hazards in our stimulus packages, bad trade deals, eugenics etc.