American Politics

[Xpartan]

Is Twitter a business? Yes. Does a business have the right to formulate their own policies? Yes they do. Does a business have the right to change their policies? Yes they do.

Therefore, in relation to your misguided worldview, Twitter does not have the right to formulate their own policies. How fucked up is that? Talk about a reality-defying delusion!

Don't you know?

We're all about the rights of private businesses -- just not when we dislike their policies.

And of course, we're staunch defenders of states' rights -- except for those disgusting woke states we hate.

And hey, we're totally the party of law and order -- just not when cops are staying between us and the next term for Orange Entertainer. Then all bets are off.

[CheckMate1]

Except that logic doesn't work when it is a private baker who declines to bake a cake promoting homosexual sodomy. Does it? Or a hotelier who declines to rent a room to two sodomites.

And the difference is that while the homosexuals can go to any other baker and get an equally good cake (they are well-funded activists who deliberately target Christians and others who do not follow The Agenda) there is no social media site with the reach of Twitter. Twitter is genuinely the public square.

Moreover, the deeper scandal is the collaboration between "muh private company" Twitter and organs of the Washington swamp / deep state. Govt alphabet agencies and the permanent bureaucracy working to censor and harm American citizens.

Yet again, we see that the Washington swamp alphabet agencies have grown monstrously out of control and must be disbanded.

You forgot the other half. There have been plenty to bakers suing, some have proven in court that they were harmed, and some haven't. Well funded on both sides to take these grievences to court. Burden of proof in court is on the plantiff to prove that they have been harmed. Are they promoting sodomy if they bake a cake with the words, "Congratualtions" and two bride figurines? Remember, women can ge gay too.

As for the hotelier, does this hotel have rules posted that sodomy is not allowed. They can do that you know? It'll be pretty stupid because in order to enforce it, you have to have eyes in the room (s). No anal sex woupld apply to heterosexual couples as well, other wise this would beeeeeee, say it with me, discrimination. Yes, heteros have anal sex too. How odd that you are on ISG demonizing anal sex.

Your argument seems to always have boogie men and generalizations. What is the deep state? Which alphabet agencies are pulling the strings? Where ever you are getting the info, drill down on the answer a little bit. Typically, they will have some strange, broad statement without details so that your mind will imagine the rest of the story. George Soros and Charles Koch are private citizen with shitload of cash, they can support or go against anything they want, their perogative. Stories about them usually contain something like, "he's destroying america with his influence. " Usually, their influence is mainly to their own benefit, good on them.

Believe or not, I like conspiracy theories too. But for me they are entertainment until it becomes true, which happens every once in a very long while. And when it does 99.99999% of the time, it has no impact on my life.

[PVMonger]

And your point is what outside of semantics? So you think it is okay for a branch of government that makes law, excuse me regulations that have the full force of law, to engage in censorship?

Oh I see. So Twitter has a policy that is against disinformation, and government agencies lie to Twitter and said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, and we know that there is no question these entitles lied and they knew they were lying, but that is not censorship because Twitter is a private company?

In other words, you are perfectly okay with government entities interfering in elections as long as they use a private company as the vehicle to do so.

And you expect us to believe this bullshit about the 2020 election being the fairest in history?

What horse puckey. Even Twitter folks said that Twitter did nothing wrong. "James Baker, a former lawyer for Twitter who also previously worked for the FBI, said he didn't act "as an agent or an operator of the government" while working for the social media company. Baker said the company's actions were "fully consistent with the First Amendment."

"I am aware of no unlawful collusion with, or direction from, any government agency or political campaign on how Twitter should have handled the Hunter Biden laptop situation," Baker told the panel. " https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-a...at-twitter-did.

The ONLY PEOPLE who have your fucked up worldview are people who think like you. You can rant all you want but the simple FACTS are that nobody lied. People "thought" that the Hunter Biden laptop issue WAS Russian disinformation because it had all of the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. And once more, the Repubs in Congress (because they have no taste for actually governing) will waste untold countless millions of dollars and untold countless person-hours (see the Durham investigation) going down the laptop rabbit-hole. They will come up empty, of course, but that won't stop Repubs to crow that they found something but that the "deep state" prevented them from making it public.

And, in response you your earlier rant about cake baking, even FUX Snooze reported that SCOTUS ruled FOR the baker. And that was in 2018, IIRC. So your once-again-fucked-up-logic is 4 years too late. Even though SCOTUS' decision was undoubtedly incorrect, at least according to Harvard Law. https://harvardcrcl.org/why-you-cant...op-v-colorado/.

And if the 2020 election was rife with fraud, as you and Donnie the Dumbass contend, show us the PROOF. Even Donnie's own people (like Billy Barr) said that it was all "bullshit". The 60+ lawsuits filed by Donnie the Dumbass' crackpot legal team never did allege fraud and every single one of those lawsuits were thrown out. Your next argument will be about standing but even the dumbest first-year law student knows that you can't file a lawsuit unless you can show, in your lawsuit, the EVIDENCE of injury. Evidence, by the way, that Donnie the Dumbass' crackpot team of legal geniuses failed to provide. Everybody knows, well everybody with a brain knows, that all of this election-fraud bullshit is just that.

[EihTooms]

And your point is what outside of semantics? So you think it is okay for a branch of government that makes law, excuse me regulations that have the full force of law, to engage in censorship?

Oh I see. So Twitter has a policy that is against disinformation, and government agencies lie to Twitter and said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, and we know that there is no question these entitles lied and they knew they were lying, but that is not censorship because Twitter is a private company?

In other words, you are perfectly okay with government entities interfering in elections as long as they use a private company as the vehicle to do so.

And you expect us to believe this bullshit about the 2020 election being the fairest in history?

Wingers are the least informed dimwits on the planet. Yet well before the 2020 election every Winger had an idiotic notion in his or her otherwise empty skull that something evil about Joe Biden lurked somewhere inside his son's laptop next to the videos of his son smoking crack and getting a footjob from an Asian hooker.

And virtually everyone who was well-informed and therefore voted for Joe Biden knew all those Wingers were desperately grasping at straws with that BS in a vain attempt to salvage another losing election for their historic election-losing candidate whose only notable "win" was squeaking in on the pro Repub rigging built into the system back in 2016 despite losing the vote by millions.

Nobody needed Twitter to hear about that laptop idiocy. Twitter did not suppress or deny anyone anything regarding that crap re the election.

Hell, I almost never go on Twitter, knew that laptop bit was total crap and didn't even have the slightest interest in hearing about it. Yet I must have heard or read something about that nothingness in Mainstream Media and all over the Internet every waking hour of every day for months before the 2020 election AND the 2022 election. Just as I am sure I will see and hear about it until and likely beyond the 2024 election!

What the hell else is on the Redrawn Districts Pink Tinkle House Majority's platform and agenda for the next 21 months besides that and figuring out some new and unprecedented way to Crash the USA economy and Wipe Out millions of USA Jobs while hobbled in that sole Repub mission by not also having control of the White House or the Senate?

Nothing.

[Elvis 2008]

Except that logic doesn't work when it is a private baker who declines to bake a cake promoting homosexual sodomy. Does it? Or a hotelier who declines to rent a room to two sodomites.

And the difference is that while the homosexuals can go to any other baker and get an equally good cake (they are well-funded activists who deliberately target Christians and others who do not follow The Agenda) there is no social media site with the reach of Twitter. Twitter is genuinely the public square.

Moreover, the deeper scandal is the collaboration between "muh private company" Twitter and organs of the Washington swamp / deep state. Govt alphabet agencies and the permanent bureaucracy working to censor and harm American citizens.

Yet again, we see that the Washington swamp alphabet agencies have grown monstrously out of control and must be disbanded.

It is pretty obvious these lefties do not believe the alphabet agencies can be evil. All they care about is the belief that they are on their side.

Unlike the complete ass sucking douches at Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg admitted to Joe Rogan that the FBI came to him and said the Hunter Biden story was Russian disinformation and asked for his help to squash the story. Here is the problem: (a) Whoever imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 which shall be recoverable in a civil action brought in the name of the United States.

So basically, the FBI implies to Zuckerberg he could be brought up on criminal charges if he does not take down the Hunter Biden story. Zuckerberg talks to his legal team, and he does not exactly take down the story but deemphasizes it. He went over how seriously Facebook takes its job with regards to what to ban and what not to and how much he pays for it and how many people are on this team.

He then asks Rogan, "Joe, what would you have done?" And Rogan was completely caught off guard and kind of mumbles out some gibberish. I could not believe it. I actually felt sorry for Mark Zuckerberg and so did Joe Rogan. Later on, Rogan said Zuckerberg had an impossible job, and he does.

So now we know the Democratic douche definition of censorship, and that is that it is completely legal to censor anything as long as it benefits the Democratic party.

What are we complaining about right? Zuckerberg made the decision, and the FBI was just there to help. And by helping, I mean the FBI was there to lie their asses off.

[ChuchoLoco]

And your point is what outside of semantics? So you think it is okay for a branch of government that makes law, excuse me regulations that have the full force of law, to engage in censorship?

Oh I see. So Twitter has a policy that is against disinformation, and government agencies lie to Twitter and said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, and we know that there is no question these entitles lied and they knew they were lying, but that is not censorship because Twitter is a private company?

In other words, you are perfectly okay with government entities interfering in elections as long as they use a private company as the vehicle to do so.

And you expect us to believe this bullshit about the 2020 election being the fairest in history?

No semantics just telling you who makes the laws in the USA. Three branches of government remember or don't you even know that? Where did I say anything about ok for censorship. Once again I was telling you how the government works. Like it or not, that's how it works. Three separate branches of government, each with different responsibilities. I am repeating to help it sink in to your head. You are only good at making up what you say others are saying or thinking.

Where did I say anything about 2020 election? Man, it's obvious you are delusional. Go argue with yourself. Let us know which one of your make believe identities wins.

Twitter and Hunter Biden, what does that have to do with who makes the laws? But since you brought it up and say we all know so and so lied. How do you know? Where's your proof? And once again, what does that have to do with who makes the laws. It's the Congress and not the executive branch aka the president. Do you understand that? That's all I was pointing out.

[Chris P]

My position is that a BUSINESS entity is entitled to write rules and enforce them as it pleases, so long as it does not harm people. Here's how you know you are not harmed, you can simply go to other social media sites and post the same thoughts you had on Twitter.

Except that logic doesn't work when it is a private baker who declines to bake a cake promoting homosexual sodomy. Does it? Or a hotelier who declines to rent a room to two sodomites.

And the difference is that while the homosexuals can go to any other baker and get an equally good cake (they are well-funded activists who deliberately target Christians and others who do not follow The Agenda) there is no social media site with the reach of Twitter. Twitter is genuinely the public square.

Moreover, the deeper scandal is the collaboration between "muh private company" Twitter and organs of the Washington swamp / deep state. Govt alphabet agencies and the permanent bureaucracy working to censor and harm American citizens.

Yet again, we see that the Washington swamp alphabet agencies have grown monstrously out of control and must be disbanded.

[Elvis 2008]

The Executive Branch doe not make laws in the USA. That is the job of Congress, Senate and House of Representatives. The Executive may or may not sign it into law but does not make the laws. The President can issue Executive Orders but they are not law

And your point is what outside of semantics? So you think it is okay for a branch of government that makes law, excuse me regulations that have the full force of law, to engage in censorship?

The First Amendment is about the Government censorship or whatever you want to call it with regard to Free Speech and Religion and not what private entities may or may not do.

Oh I see. So Twitter has a policy that is against disinformation, and government agencies lie to Twitter and said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, and we know that there is no question these entitles lied and they knew they were lying, but that is not censorship because Twitter is a private company?

In other words, you are perfectly okay with government entities interfering in elections as long as they use a private company as the vehicle to do so.

And you expect us to believe this bullshit about the 2020 election being the fairest in history?

[PVMonger]

He's actually admitting what I accused him of. He considers it "censorship" when a Chrissy Teigen tweet wasn't removed, but he doesn't consider it censorship when the entire account of the New York Post was suspended to protect Biden before the election.

This is the level of reality-denying delusion in which modern leftists exist. Men are women. The border is closed. Mail-in voting is the most secure form of election. It's censorship when nothing is removed, but it isn't censorship when a newspaper's account is banned.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

Is Twitter a business? Yes. Does a business have the right to formulate their own policies? Yes they do. Does a business have the right to change their policies? Yes they do.

Therefore, in relation to your misguided worldview, Twitter does not have the right to formulate their own policies. How fucked up is that? Talk about a reality-defying delusion!

[PVMonger]

A public square is not consider a public square if there are not enough people in the square. Is this correct? So the park by my house is not a public square because only a handful of people are there at anytime. Or if a Starbucks is fill beyond capacity because a bunch of Libs protest inside the store, and Starbucks can not have the police remove them because they have the pre-requisite number to be a public square despite it being a business that hold the public. "Public Square" argument in private property will never be a good argument.

My position is that a BUSINESS entity is entitled to write rules and enforce them as it pleases, so long as it does not harm people. Here's how you know you are not harmed, you can simply go to other social media sites and post the same thoughts you had on Twitter.

Example: you write a book that you think is amazing, and so does your friends, family and adoring fans, about how the democrats are destroying america. You take it to Simon & Shuster. They say, "no we don't want to publish this for you". This, by your definition, would be censorship. And I would agree with you about the characterization to some extent. But it is legal because it is a business that chooses what books to print in order to make money.

Take out "Simon & Shuster" and replace it with "Twitter".

Your rights are protected from government overreached and jailing you for saying or writing certain things. This too has its limits, but this has nothing to do with business choosing how to deal with their situation. The test is whether you are able to say or write the same exact thing somewhere else. And if you are able, you have no case in court.

This makes too much sense for Chrissie.

Chrissie is part of the cult that says government ought to stay out of a business' way, except when the business does something that Chrissie and her friends don't like. Then, of course, Chrissie believes that the government ought to step in and force the business to stop that they're doing. Of course, Chrissie and her fellow cultists don't see it that way.

[EihTooms]

Picking up Democrat Math is pretty easy. You just have to remember one equation:

x=a

Where "a" is any real number, and "x" can only have two values, Democrat or Republican.

All you have to do is to remember that if "a" represents a good outcome, then "x" is "Democrat President." And if "a" is bad, then "x" is "Republican President".

In other words, "Democrat good, Republican Bad."

Let's take an example.

x = -2.3%, where -2. 3% is year-on-year GDP growth at 12/31/2020.

Well, the right answer is x=Republican President, because an annual decline of 2.3% in GDP is a bad outcome.

Now in reality, the value of GDP growth is a function of a lot of things. A more complicated and more correct way of putting this would be

x = f(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5...xn).

Where x1 =Fed policy.

x2 = the business cycle.

x3 = external events like pandemics.

x4 = growth or decline of the size of the labor force.

x5 = changes in productivity.

Etc.

Who's president usually has very little to do with GDP growth. But, if you're a Democratic politician (with some exceptions like Joe Manchin and formerly Kyrsten Sinema) or pundit, why bother the base with endless details? It's much easier to just think "Democrat Good, Republican Bad."

You might be able to blame a good part of the Great Depression on Republicans, and the subsequent recovery on Roosevelt et al throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the problem. I'm not sure as I'm not well read on that. But as to the other recessions and following recoveries you're fond of quoting, being the 1981-1983, 2008-2009, and 2020 downturns, your explanations fall flat. Some make absolutely no sense. For example, you claim Fed policy had little to do with the 1981-1983 recession. And instead put part of the blame on bipartisan, across-the-board tax cuts. Well, that's Keynesian economics ass backwards. Increasing government spending and lowering taxes are the ways out of a recession. And blaming the 2020 recession on Trump was laughable. When I pointed out that the USA Decline in GDP in the year ended 12/31/2020 was the lowest by far of the USA, Japan, Germany, France and the UK, someone here refused to believe the numbers. Why? Well, I think I explained it above, with the Democrat Equation, x=a.

I don't really give a rats ass what happened when Hoover and Roosevelt were president. I do know that developed countries with the smallest governments are the most prosperous. And I know that the Federal Government, unlike my state and local governments, is inefficient. Democrats want to grow the size of federal government faster than Republicans. Based on correlations between government expenditures and government revenues as a % of GDP by country, I'd expect USA GDP per capita to shrink 15% to 40% in the long term if Democrats get their way, that is, if total government expenditures as a % of GDP go from around 35% to 50% on a long term basis.

And as to the so-called revered legislation, my question is how many bills were proposed, fought for and passed when Republicans held the WH and the majority in both houses of Congress that increased our unfunded liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. I can't think of any. I'm a Libertarian who wants the federal government out of my hair to the extent possible, so your boast just sounds stupid from my point of view.

Nope. You did not even earn a participation trophy with that pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersider Bizarro World reply to some of the most blatantly obvious and blissfully easy "math" questions that every kid in Baltimore would no doubt ace even without a free calculator app on their smartphone.

And that's a pity because those are the only kind of math questions that really matter now that free calculator apps are widely available and easy to download and install on our smartphones. Well, easy for kids in blue states at least. Luckily for kids in red states that most smartphones come with calculator apps pre-installed. Assuming there is a Dem family kid around to point it out to them, that is.

[Tiny 12]

Based on correlations between government expenditures and government revenues as a % of GDP by country, I'd expect USA GDP per capita to shrink 15% to 40% in the long term if Democrats get their way, that is, if total government expenditures as a % of GDP go from around 35% to 50% on a long term basis.

That should have read "be 15% to 40% less than it would be otherwise" instead of "to shrink 15% to 40%."

[CheckMate1]

The first difference is that in no way can ISG be considered "the public square". Its user base is far too small. Twitter, by contrast, is extremely widely used, and cited and seen even by people who don't have accounts. It is the online public square.

The second matter is that it was not just leftists working at Twitter who were censoring rightwing users (which would be bad enough). It was that they were doing so in collusion with the Washington alphabet agencies and leading democrats, aka the deep state / the swamp.

A public square is not consider a public square if there are not enough people in the square. Is this correct? So the park by my house is not a public square because only a handful of people are there at anytime. Or if a Starbucks is fill beyond capacity because a bunch of Libs protest inside the store, and Starbucks can not have the police remove them because they have the pre-requisite number to be a public square despite it being a business that hold the public. "Public Square" argument in private property will never be a good argument.

My position is that a BUSINESS entity is entitled to write rules and enforce them as it pleases, so long as it does not harm people. Here's how you know you are not harmed, you can simply go to other social media sites and post the same thoughts you had on Twitter.

Example: you write a book that you think is amazing, and so does your friends, family and adoring fans, about how the democrats are destroying america. You take it to Simon & Shuster. They say, "no we don't want to publish this for you". This, by your definition, would be censorship. And I would agree with you about the characterization to some extent. But it is legal because it is a business that chooses what books to print in order to make money.

Take out "Simon & Shuster" and replace it with "Twitter".

Your rights are protected from government overreached and jailing you for saying or writing certain things. This too has its limits, but this has nothing to do with business choosing how to deal with their situation. The test is whether you are able to say or write the same exact thing somewhere else. And if you are able, you have no case in court.

[Tiny 12]

Math Proficiency Pop Quiz

Which is greater, 10+ significant and now revered legislation proposed, fought for and passed when Dems held the WH and the majority in both houses of Congress or 0 by Repubs when they had the same advantage?

Every Great Repub Depression / Recession and Massive Job Losses of the past 100 years minus none of the Great Recoveries, Economic Expansions and Job Gains = ?

81,000,000 votes vs 74,000,000 votes + 306 EC votes vs 232 EC votes + 65 lost court case challenges and no wins = ?

5 months with no Pandemic Prevention and Response minitoring and reporting minus a 2 month heads up to avert a Pandemic and all of the deaths and economic destruction that followed = ?

You boys and girls have been making personal value judgements about Dems and Repubs with that "good" vs "bad" obsession of yours.

I rarely if ever use those words to describe any politician, much less entire political parties. But you boys and girls trot out those value judgements all the time.

Very telling.

See, I only point out the irrefutable historical facts regarding Dems passing the legislation I have listed under certain conditions, producing and presiding over every major recovery, economic expansion and historic job gains and none of the Great Depressions / Great Recessions and Massive Jobs Destruction of the past 100 years while Repubs have passed nothing of note under the same conditions, produced and presided over every Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Job Losses, etc.

Yep, it seems historical data and the actual record of results for America is the same no matter where you verify and cite it. Even in a different country, it remains the same, totally unchanged by ones proximity to the unbiased record sources.

You seem to have concluded those Dem results are "good" and the Repub results are "bad."

Well, those are your value judgements based on the facts but I have never really expressed such a thing either way.

Ya' know: I Report, You Decide.

The big difference is, unlike Faux News, what I have reported for you to pass judgement on is true, I know it to be true and so do you and everyone else.

Interesting that most of you have decided "Dems good and Repubs bad" based solely on the data and actual record of results, definitely not based on me telling you which is which. LOL. Obviously, a lot of Repub voters think those Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Repub Job Losses are "good" and keep voting for them and that those Great Dem Recoveries and Historic Job Gains are "bad."

Again, those are personal value judgements.

Picking up Democrat Math is pretty easy. You just have to remember one equation:

x=a

Where "a" is any real number, and "x" can only have two values, Democrat or Republican.

All you have to do is to remember that if "a" represents a good outcome, then "x" is "Democrat President." And if "a" is bad, then "x" is "Republican President".

In other words, "Democrat good, Republican Bad."

Let's take an example.

x = -2.3%, where -2. 3% is year-on-year GDP growth at 12/31/2020.

Well, the right answer is x=Republican President, because an annual decline of 2.3% in GDP is a bad outcome.

Now in reality, the value of GDP growth is a function of a lot of things. A more complicated and more correct way of putting this would be

x = f(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5...xn).

Where x1 =Fed policy.

x2 = the business cycle.

x3 = external events like pandemics.

x4 = growth or decline of the size of the labor force.

x5 = changes in productivity.

Etc.

Who's president usually has very little to do with GDP growth. But, if you're a Democratic politician (with some exceptions like Joe Manchin and formerly Kyrsten Sinema) or pundit, why bother the base with endless details? It's much easier to just think "Democrat Good, Republican Bad."

You might be able to blame a good part of the Great Depression on Republicans, and the subsequent recovery on Roosevelt et al throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the problem. I'm not sure as I'm not well read on that. But as to the other recessions and following recoveries you're fond of quoting, being the 1981-1983, 2008-2009, and 2020 downturns, your explanations fall flat. Some make absolutely no sense. For example, you claim Fed policy had little to do with the 1981-1983 recession. And instead put part of the blame on bipartisan, across-the-board tax cuts. Well, that's Keynesian economics ass backwards. Increasing government spending and lowering taxes are the ways out of a recession. And blaming the 2020 recession on Trump was laughable. When I pointed out that the USA Decline in GDP in the year ended 12/31/2020 was the lowest by far of the USA, Japan, Germany, France and the UK, someone here refused to believe the numbers. Why? Well, I think I explained it above, with the Democrat Equation, x=a.

I don't really give a rats ass what happened when Hoover and Roosevelt were president. I do know that developed countries with the smallest governments are the most prosperous. And I know that the Federal Government, unlike my state and local governments, is inefficient. Democrats want to grow the size of federal government faster than Republicans. Based on correlations between government expenditures and government revenues as a % of GDP by country, I'd expect USA GDP per capita to shrink 15% to 40% in the long term if Democrats get their way, that is, if total government expenditures as a % of GDP go from around 35% to 50% on a long term basis.

And as to the so-called revered legislation, my question is how many bills were proposed, fought for and passed when Republicans held the WH and the majority in both houses of Congress that increased our unfunded liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. I can't think of any. I'm a Libertarian who wants the federal government out of my hair to the extent possible, so your boast just sounds stupid from my point of view.

[Chris P]

Only a Repub would say that Twitter blocking the NY Post for violating Twitter's "hacked materials policy" was wrong.

He's actually admitting what I accused him of. He considers it "censorship" when a Chrissy Teigen tweet wasn't removed, but he doesn't consider it censorship when the entire account of the New York Post was suspended to protect Biden before the election.

This is the level of reality-denying delusion in which modern leftists exist. Men are women. The border is closed. Mail-in voting is the most secure form of election. It's censorship when nothing is removed, but it isn't censorship when a newspaper's account is banned.

Thanks for confirming what I said.