(January 14, 2021 at 6:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:social media and the main stream media have or are both acting as the propaganda arm of the democratic party. hiding and erasing blocking and even banning any news unfavorable to it's party candidate, while allowing any and all rumors and conspiracy theory to try and damage the rep side. hunter biden is a perfect example where twitter and facebook censored the president stating his comments on his bribe taking was speculation and un prooven rumors. compared to the whole Russian collusion stick that was pushed without evidence and proven to be false was allowed to run like wild fire against trump. the point you are ignoring is when social media acts to edit in behalf of the US governement 1 amendment rights have been infringed. the up coming law suits, criminal action (Ricco act charges) and purposed breaking up of social media is indeed proof part of the people and government see serious malfeasance concerning these platforms.(January 14, 2021 at 3:48 pm)Drich Wrote: can you not see what facebook, apple, twitter google has does removes our first amendment rights? can you have freedom without the first amendment? can you not look at the 190 seconds it took to impeach the president in the house without one scrap of evidence being examined as an affront to the people who duly elected president Trump? how can freedom exist if a sitting president is removed without any evidence that supports the charges brought against him? where is due process of the law? where is his fair trial? when do the people who voted for him be given a chance to see a legitimate attempt to break the law?
Social media platforms have done absolutely nothing regarding removing your first amendment rights. Read the first amendment slowly and carefully.
Quote:It took substantially more that 190 seconds to impeach Trump. Granted, it was pretty quick, but that’s what happens when you’ve had practice.i'm talking about the motion from start to finish took about 90 seconds the motion was presented seconded, then it was put to a vote and the motion carried without any evidence presented for or against. that whole process took about 190 seconds. that is a mockery of our nuclear option to unseat a president. no evidence should be the focal point of this discussion no matter how long the process took. that fact no evidence was offered for or against yet a guilt verdict was issued is the loss of due process and our rights to a fair trial. if they can to this to the potus then what keeps them from doing it to joe everyman?
oh, and i googled it. you were right it did not take 190 seconds to impeach trump, so i retract my previous statement. as politico says it took 180 seconds.
https://www.politico.com/video/2021/01/1...nds-108920
Quote:No evidence needs to be presented to impeach a president and doing so is not an affront to anyone.no evidence is needed when you suspend due process, you are right. but that is my whole point due process of the law is a constitutional right. one that was suspended and a conviction declared without any evidence. evidence like the FBI states the raid on the capitol was premeditated by agitators.. IE the presidents speech had nothing to do with the raid... the very same speech that the house is using to condemn him and impeach him. the house's whole purpose in the impeachment process is investigation, which is why last time they feigned through the motions with the muller report. it is the senate who takes this information and weighs it out. (which is why we know the report findings were misleading/based on falsified documents and illegal fiza warrants. but again this time around no investigation just 180 second kangaroo trial, and a guilty verdict.
Quote:Trump hasn’t been removed from office. He’ll serve out his term, and then leave.well one if the speaker of the house polisi has her way (she went to the marines top general to have him removed physically/he told her to tread carefully she could be interpreted as plotting treason for having such a discussion) trump would not serve another day. but the house alone does not impeach it take a vote in the senate which they said this trial would not be heard till after joe's inauguration.
Quote:His trial is coming, sometime after 20 January.because the senate right now is controlled by republicans.
Quote:Breaking the law has nothing to do with impeachment.in order to be impeached one is shown guilty of high crimes and or misrmeanors.
You’re pretty ignorant about all this.
Boru
[/quote]
im·peach | \ im-ˈpēch \impeached; impeaching; impeaches
Definition of impeach (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
After Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached, finished his chaotic and disgraceful administration, Grant was the inevitable successor.
— Richard Brookhiser
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach
