1st A - Nahh, who wants that... Kamala H Calls for Twitter to Silence Trump and Delete His Account

Did he ask for his impeachment? What popular vote? We don't run campaigns that way....only a Stalinist would talk about a vote that doesn't matter and isn't even how people campaign for President.

How has he made any steps towards censorship? I'm all for Tweeter being free to keep the President's post up...it's Harris, the lawmaker, pushing for him to be censored

 

Impeachment is a constitutional process. Is the Constitution Stalinist? Trump called him an illegitimate President, so yes, he didn't accept the results of the election. He also tried claiming that the Electoral College was a travesty and that there should be some sort of revolution when he thought Republicans had won the popular vote and Obama had won the EC.

You obviously know what the popular vote refers to.

No one said we did. Although Trump said we should (and then changed his mind).

1) Your definition of "Stalinist" gets more absurd and divorced from reality with every post. 2) Even if you were right, that would once again make Trump a Stalinist. He's talked about the popular vote a lot, and only a Stalinist would talk about the popular vote. Uh oh.

By encouraging his WH to look into amending the 1A, by repeatedly suing people for exercising their 1A rights (even suing a guy for calling his building plan ugly), etc.

The problem here is that you are ONLY for Twitter being "free" to make the decision you want. You don't want them to be free to decide that Harris is right. In other words, you have no respect for the company's own free speech rights or their private property rights.

 

True, but far more vocal with the left! they are not shy at all when attacking Americans rights!

 

You ever hear the phrase " depends on whose or is gored" ? The anti abortion rights are just as vocal as the gebonees who are against gun rights.

 

No argument there, other than censoring might be a tad different ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Perhaps, or perhaps they also infer that ms Kamala would in fact create the legislative mechanism to force say Twitter to exclude the President's tweets, you know, like she pines for the way they do it in China.. Just an example. She seems awfully close to that Maoist version of Tyranny you know...

 

Um.. no, actually that hasn't been the case. So, as with so many other narratives, your's fails for the basic fact that it is baseless. Why on earth would Trump ever want any of his opponents censored? The more the merrier in fact, because in demonstrate their incivility, their lack of support for our constitution and our nation. Why would anyone want that censored? If anything it should stand out in stark contrast to the actual law, the uniform society that the US has developed instead of this constant need by liberals to create civil unrest to support their tyranny. So no pot here, just you.

 

If you have examples of Kamala trying to use legal force to control speech, feel free to provide examples. I can't think of any. I can think of examples of Trump trying to use legal force to control speech. Guess that makes him a Maoist tyrant.

 

And at the same time, a private business cannot be made, by ms Harris to censor the words of others who offend her. Also not in the cards. So why do you seem so willing to help her in her little tyranny?

 

Can you quote anything backing up your accusation against Moonglow in that last part or were you just seeing what would stick?

 

I guess that you like other people with no sense of sensibility can prove I have ever helped the Drug War soldier biotch in any way...If you can't then leave yer lies in that box you use to hide the rest of yer blackmail materials...

 

Not all impeachment is fine, it’s just when the Stalinist try to ignore the constitution and people’s constitutional rights...like Shifty and his klan.

Trump has never talked about “amending” the first amendment...is this parody?

The popular vote is meaningless, we don’t run elections that way...Cuba did...ironically the dnc supports that...

 

It seems you don't understand the OP or your own response. Did Trump not weigh in his opinion the the NFL should fire Colin Kaepernick?? And the righties cheered this act of attempt to squash free speech by a president no less. Pot kettle applies.

 

Ridiculous. Sometimes I wonder why you folks even bother with this level of pettiness and false equivalency...

 

Pot, kettle...

 

I don't know about you, but I've never met a politician with whom I agreed and supported 100%. Have you?

 

O... I see, (lol) tks. for the opportunity to underscore that assertion (within the purview of PPF rules - Of course...)

- So my 'private platform' is that you @ "yardmeat" may be misinformed as per the particulars of our USA Constitution... and / or - your assertions just not to my 'particular liking'... (is 'this'... - 'my private platform' protected by the 1st Amendment in the same way as your assertion against it...?

 

I honestly can't even tell what you are trying to claim. Look, if you understand that a forum like PF is allowed to have rules of conduct and that those rules are not violations of your 1A rights, then you understand what I'm trying to tell you and the OP. The 1A means you can say those things; the 1A does NOT mean you can force PF or Twitter to publish your views. Simple concept that somehow is lost on the fringe right these days. Your right to free speech does not entitle you to someone else's bullhorn. Get it?

 

Not at all...but their view on the 1st amendment is a huge one

 

The 1st amendment has literally nothing to do with Twitter shutting down Trump's account, which they haven't even done, but could because they are a private for-profit business that is under no obligation to provide anybody with a presence on their product. While I don't use Twitter and never have, I'm sure there's a clause in the user agreement that more or less says your Twitter account exists as long as they have decided you can have one.

 

"Vote Trump, y'all. Yeehaw! My cousin-wife and I done gone vote Trump in 2016 and I reckon we done gone vote Trump again, 'cause he speaks to the real 'Murican like me. I'm a simple country man and I don't know about no fancy things like 'rule of law' and 'evidence,' but gosh, that rich yankee from New York City gets me and how can I not vote for him? He's muh bud!"

 

In their eagerness to be victims, Trumpers never grasp this simple fact.

 

It has everything to do with the first when it’s a lawmaker like Harris pushing it

 

Throwing a temper tantrum because you got caught in your own hypocrisy?? Funny that.