Quote:
Originally Posted by Homesteaded
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Truly remarkable line of thinking.
You don't even consider the alternative, you just swallow whole the idea that he needed to be banned in order to minimize podium thefts.
You prop up some idea that I believe there are zero cases where a sitting president should be off social media. There are cases, there are cases for a lifetime ban, Jan 6th wasn't that.
|
Sure, called it you'd say waaa they muffled him, bastards!
Wasnt just jan 6 was his whole MO, say something likei heard people are saying, good people tremendous people that something some blah etc.
Still, if the human stain had something good happening that needs to be heard, people a tremendous number of good people would flock to troof social.
This does not appear to be the case.
Fairness of being banned notwithstanding, no one followed him to get the gud oil. Is there a reason for this? You tell me.
Also, was his erection stolen and does he have proof that it was.
This is another reason why banning was an option. It is dangerous having someone say something of questionable veracity being believed because of who he is, not whether its varifiable or not. Agreed? I suspect not. Anywho, continue.