Sorry but there is not a word in those quotes about a specific call for violence. Not a word about armed rebellion or a call to damage property. A first year law student could get Trump acquitted if the charges were not thrown out in the preliminary hearing. Politicians say things like that and worse all the time.

The US uses the word "fight" for everything so in and of itself it can't be taken literally. Help fight cancer. Help fight poverty, etc. Personally I wish that was changed to more positive wording like help cure cancer or help overcome poverty but it is very ingrained now. Everything seems to be a fight rather than a constructive effort.

Lets not forget the WAR on poverty, the WAR on drugs, the WAR on gangs, the WAR on terror, the WAR on decaf coffee.

submitted without comment
 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...lation/617827/ :hmmm:

O....M....G

Has it really been that long?

The concluding paragraphs are worth posting.

"All of which is to say that the debate about free speech on social media should not be viewed primarily as a debate about whether the social-media companies violated Trump’s freedom of speech when they banned him, or whether they violate anyone else’s freedom of speech when they make thousands of similar decisions every day. Instead, it should be viewed primarily as a debate about what freedom of speech means on social media, and, perhaps most importantly, about who gets to decide—courts, corporations, or legislatures. That liberals and conservatives have switched perspectives on these questions in recent years reflects the extraordinary political fluidity, and perhaps possibility, of the current moment.

However the political alignments work out, Trump’s deplatforming illuminated a basic insight worth keeping in mind: Private companies not only participate in the marketplace of ideas but also determine to a significant extent who else can participate in it. We should not take comfort in the fact that the speech-regulating decisions by Big Tech companies do not and cannot violate the First Amendment as it is currently understood. Conservatives are correct to be worried about the threat that the private platforms pose to freedom of speech, even if this makes them more like big-government liberals than they might be willing to acknowledge. Those big-government liberals should realize as much, and act accordingly."

For all of you who believe that no evidence was brought forward about re-election fraud...

We don’t need evidence brought up for anything! This is a problem that you’re not seeing. I am an American citizen can use the freedom of information act to gain access to anything my governor or police or state executives file or write up. I don’t need evidence to examine or investigate anything. If I want investigation into my election I should have it no questions asked.

You have every right to inquire. Might I suggest starting with Hillary Clinton and those like her who jumped on the bandwagon believing Russia altered the outcome of the 2016 election. After millions of dollars, abuse of power, and a global embarrassment caused by a politically motivated government boondoggle. I'm sure there has to be something. I heard Michael Cohen is ready to turn any day now.


Then ask the Trump campaign for the details of the evidence they have. So we can see it for ourselves. Should be easy. https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-...t-as-filed.pdf. After a brief glossing over I didn't see evidence. Just plenty of alleged issues concerning procedure.

Rockstar...

Totally on your band wagon!

If the Dems can investigate fraud with no evidence, We can too. Until then Biden will be seated as a fraudulent president. if the Dems want to unify and heal, then answer to the other half of the country that hates them right now.

And we will not take a “c’mon man” as an answer.

No, he is not seated as fraudulent president. Biden is the duly elected President of the United States of America. Just as Trump was in 2016.

Does this mean that the elected politician in USA impeach a sitting President when they feel for it ?

I can't remember if former President was acquitted because there wasn't enough evidens or if it enough to judge him, but his colleague stood by their man in the Oval office.

Markus

That’s where I disagree with you Rockstar...

If you have half the country is saying he’s not duly elected, are you gonna tell that half the country to go pound sand? You don’t have a right to look into anything or investigate anything? That’s tyranny.

Don’t blind yourself friend. Demand answers. Always.

If they have the votes for it in the House of Representatives the answer is yes. There does not need to be a valid reason. That's why the founders decided it should take 2/3rds of the Senate to convict.

I'm sorry, it didn't make sense in 2016 and it doesn't in 2020.

Rockstar....

You are right it did not make sense.

19 minutes after inauguration Trumps impeachment papers are approved over an anonymous tip of Russian collusion! Investigation ensues.

No evidence!

Why can’t we have an expensive investigation into the election fraud?

We have no evidence (apparently).

Status quo for it!