Facebook says Trump now suspended until at least January 2023

Where is the part you claimed companies don't have a right to free speech? It doesn't say Doctors, Celebrities, Congressman, TV host, either. Are they now unable to practice free speech? Please. This is way above your head if thats what you think.

You don't even remember what your own point was. lol

They do, and have done it over and over which I provided.

You didn't say anything about CNN calling Trump a god. I guess when you can't support your own point, deflection is all you have.

I said that companies have a right to free speech. You said they don't. Try and keep up.

 

That is not what I claimed. I claimed that companies are not required to allow free speech. Do try and keep up.

No they do not. They control very carefully who comes on their stations and what they say. You could never get on CNN and say that Biden was a child molester.

No, I said that companies do not have to allow free speech.

 

Let me put this more simply so maybe you can understand.

Nobody is being denied their right to free speech by being banned from FaceBook, Twitter or any other internet forum/site.

 

Oh, Is that the only qualifier now? Thats all you can think of?

When Pelosi said during a National Governors Association meeting that when a person is involved with politics, you have to be ready to take a punch, and you have to be ready to throw a punch, inciting more violence, while our cities are being burned to the ground and Americans are being killed in the streets?
That doesn't count?

When Senator Tester said that in order to take on Trump, you have to “punch him in the face,
That doesn't count?

When Trump was considering declaring a national emergency to stop the riots Joaquin Castrotx said if he did, Democrats would fight him in the streets?
That doesn't count

When Cory Booker told activists to get up in the face of some congress people during the riots?
That doesn't count?

So while Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Ted Lieu, Sen. Cory Booker, Rep. Joaquin Castro, Sen. Jon Tester, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all make comments suggesting violence or confrontations against Republicans, their Twitter accounts remain active, while the videos themselves are also circulating on the massive social media site.
But that doesn't count because according to you, they weren't talking about a stolen election/

Your hypocrisy is staggering.

 

Hmmm...not just Wray. McConnell and McCarthy did as well, on the floor of the Senate and the House. I'm guessing they may be more interested in protecting a few of their own Congressional members, whom Trump may throw under the bus, in self-defense.

 

Now you are fabricating what you claimed to make a point?

That has nothing to do with being required. You claimed free speech isn't applied to companies. I said it is.

Now who is it that can't keep up? This is the second time your post was caught fabricating your prior claims.

Again, you decided to skirt around your own point. They allow people to come on to their stations and say what ever they want meaning they KNOWINGLY allow them to lie to their
audience. And I provided you with specific false claims they ALLOWED.

No you didn't, you said Free speech is not applied to private companies or websites.
You can't even keep up with your own post?

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to drive here. is it that private companies can do what they want? It's a good point, but hard to take anyone seriously when those companies are in 100% bias of ONE side. Notice I never said they should reinstate Trumps FB account? That's because I also believe private companies can do what they want, but its suspect as hell and when its all in favor of ONE side, people are going to say stuff about it. I think you just made your reply because you wanted to call me a "drama queen". That's cool! I hope it felt good.

 

I can't for the life of me understand why anybody would work for the man or even have any dealings with him at all. Trump is beyond toxic, he isn't just willing to throw people under large vehicles it seems sometimes to be his major pleasure in life. His whole existence is about blaming people
How could anyone like or admire this kind of person? To me, it says a great deal about those people, none of it good.

 

Yes, as in they are not required to provide it to anyone. You are the only one that seems at all confused by my post.

 

IMO...it's a lot of insecurity. He wants to hurt people before they hurt him. Paranoia.

 

Have you ever considered that when EVERYBODY thinks someone is a reprobate it just might be because they ARE a reprobate?

 

Is there much of anything left in this country that does not have 100% bias of ONE side or the other?

 

Yeh, I've heard that. It has to do with the fact that his father's picture was in the encyclopedia next to "bad father". I don't buy it. I've heard people say he and his father both could be gracious when they wanted to. He's a psychopath, pure and simple and these people often succeed well in life but usually only because we let them.

 

Could be both. I don't think he's going to be politically relevant much longer. There are a number of Republicans who would like to be elected President in 2024 and time passes quickly.

 

Take your complaints to twitter if it was put on twitter.
But somehow I doubt it was on twitter.

 

Claiming the Constitution isn't applied to companies has nothing to do with what individual companies require.
There isn't any confusion about how you try and deflect the conversation when you are proven wrong.

You claimed the Constitutions 1st amendment isn't applied to companies, I claimed it was. Now you are trying to claim companies are not required to provide it to anyone? What does that even mean? How does a company require or not require the rights of free speech?

 

The USA itself is founded on a bias. We are possibly the first nation ever that was founded on an ideology instead of tribalism, ethnicity, or geography. There are obvious advantages but also disadvantages to this.

 

They have been reposted on Twitter thousands of times. You claimed Twitter has its policies on violence. Obviously they only have policies to be enforced against Conservatives.

 

Yes, I claimed that the restrictions against limiting free speech in the Constitutions 1st amendment does not apply to companies.

Seems we both agree.

 

Hopefully. But who are these Republicans?

 

Difference is... you said among things:
Pelosi said during a National Governors Association meeting....

That is not Pelosi using twitter to incite violence. So that is not her breaking rules of twitter.
Donald used twitter to incite violence.

 

Maybe it is because democrats are better behaved, more refined, better educated and more willing to follow rules

Certainly seen that pan out on this board.

 

How many democrats are invited by Fox daily to get their FARE share of exposure on Fox, and refuse?

 

Well there are disadvantages sure. What happens when half or more of the country rejects that ideology?