Slog PM: Twitter Bans Trump for Good, Next Week = Impeachment Proceedings, 2021 Is Off to the Races



It's a little fucked up that dipshit donny lost his Twitter account but still has control of the largest and most powerful military the world has ever known.


So it’s like Altered Carbon except Twit death is worse than Real Death.

This was a Handmaid’s Tale-style ‘Sons of Jacob’ attack that could’ve led to the mass murder of our representatives and ended the United States government. And law enforcement appears to be either helpless and incompetent—or in on it.

Just emailed Gov Inslee, Murray, Cantwell, Jayapal, and my state reps asking for the plan to protect Washington state in case the US government falls in a coup d’état.

Will report back with whatever pablum gets banged out on the MacBooks of their beleaguered staffers.


As an Android user, I find your insinuation of their use being associated with the ignorant mindset of q-anon and trumpism deeply insulting.


Twitter should have shut him down years ago because he was violating their terms of service long before he ever started shitting in the White House. Twitter shut him down in part because they have stated that they have seen conversation concerning another attack being planned for January 17th. Do you think the FBI, National Guard, military, and law enforcement will take it seriously or are they all complicit? Will this be the actual coup after seeing how the first one went? If we have no one willing to stand up and stop them from doing it (mostly because they are all in on it and willing to be a part of it), what do people think will happen?


“We spend $750 billion annually on ‘defense’ and the center of American government fell in under two hours to the Duck Dynasty and the guy in a Chewbacca bikini.”

–Yousef Munayyer


Its the end of the world today!


Will a constitutional scholar come in here and try to tell everyone why Twiiter banning Trump is a violation of the first amendment? The snowflakes who claim businesses should be able to operate how they want without government interference are not taking this well.


It's Elvis's birthday 😀. He would of been 86. Probably wouldn't have lived this long anyway.


Of course impeachment is a political process not a legal one, but do you really think that President Trump would be convicted of "incitement of insurrection" in a court of law? Listen to the words he actually said. There is nothing there that would lead to a criminal indictment of inciting a riot (which is what actually happened) much less insurrection. From a criminal or civil perspective, there are a lot of things this guy could be charged with, but incitement of insurrection is not one of them. If there is not a credible criminal case, there is no reasonable hope of impeachment and conviction on the merits.

That argument aside, from a practical political standpoint, Trump will probably serve his full term. I can't imagine that he would choose to resign. Pence has already indicated that, as pissed as he is, he's not going down the 25th Amendment path. As for option 3, are there enough votes in the House to impeach? Last nose count that I saw (yesterday), they were about 70 votes short of a majority. Even if Pelosi is a true believer, and I have no idea if she is, can she whip up that hill without the explicit support of the President-Elect? And the impeachment goes nowhere in the Senate prior to the expiration of Trump's term.


All past tweets of @realDonaldTrump are gone. And from history, from research of journalists and historians. It's the right thing to do, but nevertheless astonishing.


Dang, no mention of Alex Trebek's denouement? Was pretty sad when he waved to the camera and said, "See you next week!" though the short tribute that played to him following was great. For anyone who missed it.


I don’t think incitement of insurrection is a literal criminal charge but if trump broke any laws on Wednesday he could very well be charged once he’s out of office. He’s certainly open to civil litigation, and of course all the state charges in SDNY. Also the DA in Fulton County GA was considering charges for his “find me votes” shenanigans with the sec of state. There are probably others we don’t even know about. In conclusion, trump’s potential legal exposures are a land of contrast.


@9: You're right, there's a textbook example of election fraud to charge him with that we shouldn't overlook. I know that the big news is Trump's incitement to violence on Wednesday, but he had just committed ANOTHER impeachable offense on Saturday, when he asked the GA secretary of state, Raffensperger, to "find" 11780 votes, and threatened him with vague legal repercussions if he didn't.

That said, his word choice on the stage Wednesday is very clear to me that he was charging up the crowd to engage in insurrection. He didn't use that word, but he talked about marching with them down to the Capitol and "taking back" America. Maybe that won't pass the legal test, but there's no other way to reasonably interpret it.

This week, Trump has proven repeatedly that his behavior cannot be changed and he has absolutely no regard for any law; all that matters is he wins. I can't think of any reason why he shouldn't already be removed from office and in chains.


10 it’s not gone it’s just not on twitter, there are archives


How to Impeach a President in 12 Days: Here’s What It Would Take

The storming of the Capitol has prompted a fresh drive by Democrats to impeach President Trump, who egged on the insurrection, for a second time. But there are less than two weeks left in his term.


from @15
While it may seem pointless to impeach a president just as he is about to leave office, there could be real consequences for Mr. Trump beyond the stain on his record. If he were convicted, the Senate could vote to bar him from ever holding office again.

Following a conviction, the Constitution says the Senate can consider “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

Only a simple majority of senators would have to agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is contemplating another run for president in 2024, an appealing prospect not just to Democrats but to many Republicans who are eyeing their own runs.


C'mon Kris. You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict, right?



He'd also lose his $200K+ annual pension AND secret service protection, which.... could carry with it some interesting consequences.


Yeah, but his link notes that they'll likely have to delay the senate hearing until after the inauguration, meaning they'll have a couple Dems adding to their tally. And several R's have already demonstrated an openness to at least hearing arguments. His bullying influence has tanked in the past week. I'm still not convinced it'd happen, but it's not anywhere near as far-fetched as it was a month ago.


@18. Yeah, but. The Constitution says that "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

On January 20th, Donald J. Trump is a private citizen. I don't think that clause would apply to him at that point. Of course all the other laws of the land would apply...


Bingo, mike. Probably lose his taxpayer-Financed jet as well...

PLUS --- no more Pardons (I think).
that might sink his ship\Exit Plan right there...

@oldeguy: from @15:

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar at the University of North Carolina who testified in the last impeachment proceedings, wrote on Friday that he saw no reason Congress could not proceed [post Biden's inauguration].

“It would make no sense for former officials, or ones who step down just in time, to escape that remedial mechanism,” he wrote. “It should accordingly go without saying that if an impeachment begins when an individual is in office, the process may surely continue after they resign or otherwise depart.”

Especially with a Dem-controlled Senate.

Plus what repub with a hankerin' for that Oval Office's gonna pass up a chance to be Rid Of The Boss? the Easy way...


Lol can't wait to see the toxic as fuck shitpile social media platform Trump comes up with.


@20 To answer the last first, for many Repubs the political calculus is more complicated than that. If they want to run for 2024, they will need a hunk of Trump's 75 million on their side. This is an obvious "no" for most Republicans and some Democrats. A 50/50 Senate means nothing. Ya need 67 votes. Not going to happen. The process fails politically and fails on its merit.

The Constitutional question is open for debate but I think that the final, hypothetical vote (we won't get there) would be somewhere between 6-3 and 9-0 against it.


A pundit on TV tonight estimated about 15 million or so hard core, do anything Trumpers. Not everyone that voted for him has that polarized a view. Senate conviction requires 2/3 of those present to vote to convict and remove. That’s not necessarily 67. It would be a good out for those that want to run in 2024 to see him forced from the race. They’d just not be on the floor to vote. After conviction there can be a vote (simple majority) that would bar him from ever holding federal office again. Those senators don’t want Trump. They want his followers.


Two SPD officers are being investigated by SPD to see if they participated in any shenanigans in D.C. Hope they are enjoying their Alaska Airlines ban (I assume they were also of the 14 assholes ruining the flight all the way back to Seattle).
I just saw a video from the side of the rioters wherein the woman is shot. Hooooly shit I don't think these people could be more fucking dumb. They police have literally piled furniture on the other side and are standing there with guns drawn. These morons are smashing the windows with a fire extinguisher while one of them is yelling, "gun they have a gun!" and the motherfucker STILL jumps through the glass (well, they made it about half-way through the glass before falling lifelessly to the ground)! What in the actual fuck did I just watch, and on a scale of 1-10 how bad should I feel that I was playing the "boom headshot" sound effect from Unreal Tournament in my head as she fell?


@17: you only need 2/3 of the Senate who are present. Half the repubs could be at home watching it on TV, they don't have to be there. They can just not vote. And then if you get a conviction, you only need a simple majority to stop an impeached president from running for office again. Or keeping his pension. Or being buried at Arlington.


I support initiating impeachment procedures with a goal of actual conviction. If the Democratic leadership doesn't do this, no one will. And this was simply too massive and terrible a breach: five dead, many more injured, pipe bombs found at the RNC and DNC, various Molotov cocktails and guns found in vehicles and on those arrested. We cannot simply let this go. And consider President Trump's organization of the event, support of the other incendiary speechmakers on Wednesday, delay in videotaping his half-hearted call for restraint and dispersal, his resistance to calling in the National Guard, and apparent delight at the attack. Remember: the pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, and guns suggest this could have been much, much worse. If we don't pursue impeachment, not only would it embolden Trump, currently feigning remorse to win back some approval and trust, it would embolden future presidents to believe similar action would not be subject to impeachment: "Congress let Trump do it, so why can't I?" Obviously, impeachment risks retaliation, backlash, division-deepening, and the like, and proving incitement won't necessarily be easy. But letting this go without any effort at impeachment opens doors to far more dangerous doings. No, Trump: you can't do this, and no, future presidents, you can't do it either, and you can't claim we let Trump do it. Go after Trump, and best of luck convicting the liar-bully-gangster-conman. And then, Dominion: sue Powell (done, for 1.3 billion), Giuliani, Trump, Ellis, and others. No: this is not acceptable, and we must make that clear in the most explicit, harsh terms.


trumpfy Fell Into the Presidency -- he didn't Want it; 'serious' repubs just folded when trumpfy's Populism overrode their shithole repub policies and they had nothing else (popular) to run on -- well, other than jailing the Negroes, Hippies, KKKommies (kinda Klose to Home, but, hey) Socialists and The Gay; oh and Loud women; his run was merely a Gambit to Make More Money from his TeeVee Show -- and then he's like -- well, perhaps there's some Serious Ca$h in the Oval Office, so, why not? what Harm could there be in it?

except, like Exactly everything else he ever touches, he's completely Bankrupted, turned his stint to shit, our Highest Office in service to the donald hisself.

so now he's gotta make a New Network -- trumpf teevee!!! -- when he's at his Lowest Point -- and that's when trumpy's the Strongest. look for a few far far FAR right Billionaires (STILL No Maximum Wage Limit?!) to back his sorry ass in some future, way-Worse-than-Murdoch form of Infotaintment to soil your Airwaves or for Free, on KkKomkast! or your Cable-enabled (all-Right, alt-Right, all the time!) Monstrosity invading Your Home soon.

look for the all-new, very latest trumpfster and Bannon and god only knows who else to (electronically) slither under your threshold at any Moment....


wanna Hear some dynomite, UN-corporate ACTUAL News?
check out Seattle's KODX fm (online only, I believe):


sorry -- to be Objective
News and Opinion*
on KODX.



So if the senate trial happens after inauguration we'd need 17 of 50 R's to get on board, 15 if we take for granted Romney and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, who's already called for him to resign and is talking about switching parties in defiance of him personally. That just doesn't sound preposterous given events. It's less than a third of the remaining electorate, all of whom had their lives legitimately threatened as a direct result of his actions. That type of experience does odd things to a person. Still probably unlikely, but absolutely worth pursuing.


boy, loads more news unfolding today, hard to keep up.
One item I found particularly interesting is that apparently Trump had made another phone call to a Georgia elections official prior to his call to Raffensberger -
Further potential legal jeopardy for the President. The impeachment case should pretty much be a slam dunk just reading the pertinent laws.


75 million trump voters are not 75 million obsessive trump loyalists. Most of them are “normal” republicans who fell in line behind their president. If people who worked for this fascist can walk away from him so can his voters, but they will be less likely to do so if we just shrug this off.

This isn’t to say their passivity isn’t a problem, nor that we don’t need to worry about the extremists who will literally die for him, just that preemptively surrendering to insurrectionists out of fear of further upsetting them is a stupid idea because it will normalize & embolden them. The way we respond in the next few days will determine how this moment is remembered. Giving in to fears of upsetting 75 million Americans is the worst of all available options.


"Giving in to fears of upsetting 75 million Americans is the worst of all available options." --bingo Blip

but better gear up for a Full Blast corporate media 'HERE COME THE COMMIES' Tsunami 'AND The SOCIALIST! are gonna Take AWAY your Social SECURITY and your Corporate Welfare!' no, not that last part, I was just Kidding. But they won't be.

they'll be lying, obviously
but Rubes always gotta rube
so we, the peeps cannot have
Nice things.


Twitter has banned Mr. Trump, at long last, and the United States Congress should ban and exile Trump for fomenting an insurrection and attempting the overthrow of the U.S. government, while regrettably serving as President of said government, to add another layer of incredulity and insanity. Let us fast track this second and final, lasting impeachment and underwear stain on Trump’s ludicrous legacy, a troubling coda on the orange-green howler-monkey’s inept, fascist leadership that brought our country to a dark chapter—and a potential nuclear conflict with Iran and that weirdo in North Korea, although he has a hot sister. Those warm Korean pastries don’t even need a depilatory. The divine, newly reconfirmed Speaker Pelosi, who is “loaded for bear” and has remarkable cleavage, should rub Trump into the political pavement like a disgusting cigarette butt. Remember, this diminutively endowed, pouting poobah of perversion attempted to use his official powers a President of the United States to subvert the official plebiscite of the people. His next television appearance should be as bait on “Shark Tank”. Speaking of justice: Sawant’s recall petition should be tabled and she should run for Mayor against Bob Hasegawa and Wes Uhlman, or whoever’s running, and address Mayor Durkan’s trifling leadership missteps, like driving away Police Chief Best and chasing homeless folks out of Cal Anderson Park as if they were sodbusters who stole cheese and molested livestock. Mayor Sawant can address providing housing and health services for homeless individuals, not to mention the myriad transportation issues facing Seattle—improved mass transit and bicyclist-pedestrian safety for example—while Durkan leisurely shops the Amazon Sexual Health store in retirement, and road tests various personal shavers. Sawant has the mental muscle and socialist savvy to make Seattle the socially conscious citadel of fairness and progressivism she was meant to be. No child will go hungry, no person will be denied medical care or shelter in our great city run by socially conscientious leftists like Sawant et al.


speaking of wholly-Corps-owned mass social media:

In Pulling Trump’s Megaphone, Twitter Shows Where Power Now Lies

The ability of a handful of people to control our public discourse has never been more obvious.

By Kevin Roose; Jan. 9, 2021

"In the end, two billionaires from California did what legions of politicians, prosecutors and power brokers had tried and failed to do for years:

They pulled the plug on President Trump."

the only Real Tax on the unbelievably Wealthy
is the Collateral Damage they overtax us with


Why these companies’ chief executives — Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook — decided to act now is no mystery.

They have been under pressure for years to hold Mr. Trump accountable, and that pressure intensified enormously this past week, as everyone from Michelle Obama to the companies’ own employees called for a permanent ban in the wake of Wednesday’s deadly Capitol riot.

These companies, corporate autocracies masquerading as mini-democracies, often portray their moderation decisions as the results of a kind of formulaic due process, as if “don’t incite an insurrectionist mob” had been in the community guidelines all along.

--from @35
more @


ITMFA!! But instead of prison, send DJT ad nauseum to the guillotine. I can't wait for Trumpty Dumpty and its Butt-Ugly Rabidly Violent Insurrectionist Incel Goon Squad be hauled off in chains to the scaffold. Off with their heads!

@32 blip for the WIN!

@33 kristofarian: I agree. Now with our Democratic Senate majority with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris representing the tie breaking vote, let's stand firm on all Qanon Insurrectionist bullshit and any of the 75 million voters in the nightmare of 2020 STILL dumb enough to ever vote GOP again.

Thrice legitimately elected Washington Governor, Jay Inslee is doing the right thing by having WA State Patrol and Washington National Guards standing by against insurrectionists threatening to breach the State Capitol and obstruct justice and legislature. I am so outraged by not just the senseless violence of those pigfuckers, but their level of toxic stupidity., as well! They'll climb walls, storm state and federal buildings where government legislature is being enacted and legally enforced, threatening the lives and safety of the very people elected to do their jobs. Donald Jackass Trump is no President--he is a toxic disease, and already has the blood of over 350,000 U.S. citizens on his ugly self-serving hands.
We shoot rabid dogs, don't we? Donald John Trump must be removed fro office NOW. Forget a conviction of life imprisonment paid for with taxpayers' money. Give the Pigfucker-n-Chief a dose of its own vile medicine--a shot of hydroxychloroquine, plus a cup of Clorox on ice for good measure before sending Trumpty Dumpty ad nauseum in chains to the scaffold.


By the way, I like your new avatar, Kris. Donald Jackass Trump looks a little blue. Awwww, poor widdle Donny wost the ewect-shun for the Pwesi-dunce-y......GOOD! He never should have been able to illegally occupy the White House in the first place. What a relief that Twitter and Facebook and all of Trumpty Dumpty's other social media toys have been pulled. FINALLY.
It is poetic justice that the voters and Democratic elected officials, including a few RepubliKKKans who haven't yet jumped ship (i.e.: Senator Mitt Romney, R---Utah, for one)---are handing Trumpty Dumpty his filthy, corrupt fat ass on a plate.


@auntie Gee -- Thanks!
till the Wicked Witch
tis Long GONE.


I don't know who should play Donald in the movie but auntie should definitely work on the screenplay.


@39 Some fitting music doing the Garby service... Here is a classy from Ella:


To be sung on January 20, 2021 (but the sooner the better):

Ding-dong, the Bitch is Gone!
Which old Bitch? Putin's Bitch!
Ding-dong, the Orange Bitch is GONE!
Ding-dong, Repubs enmasse
Just got kicked--right in the ass,
And with help from Donny's own QAnon!

Come outside, breath fresh air,
It's all right--don't despair!
The Senate's flipped and
Putin's Bitch is GONE!

Twitter finally pulled the plug;
Let's behead the heartless thug!
Like a bad drug, the Orange Bitch is GONE!

Now--that Pence has called defeat
It's time to fill new seats
No GOP repeats,
Repeats repeats, repeats--
(Fuck you, Mitch McConnell!)

Ding dong, the Bitch is gone!
Exile every enabling pawn!
Putin's filthy, toxic bitch is GONE!


@40: Interesting suggestion, Rainy. Alec Baldwin spoofs Trumpty Dumpty so well on SNL.
In the meantime, I have provided an apt song parody. Enjoy! :)


@43: Baldwin only does a few dimensions of Trump for comedy. I'm optimistic some actor will emerge on the caliber of Anthony Hopkins who will do a capture the evil.


He doesn't deserve a film, and nobody with any clout in Hollywood would even consider making it.

Those losers who brought that execrable three installment version of "Atlas Shrugged" - itself an execrable piece of fiction - to the screen might be interested. But, given how badly those tanked I definitely wouldn't expect it to be a high--budget project, unless Putin suddenly decides to retire and go into the film production business.


@44: About my doing a screenplay for a Trump bio pic? I was joking, Rainy! Nope. Never in a million years, for any dollar amount. My song parody at @43 is the best you or anyone else is going to get from Griz re Trump.

@45: You're right, COMTE. No, Trumpty certainly does not deserve a film (he's already desecrated a good handful of shopping mall theatrical movies, already, in cameo roles (i.e.: Home Alone 2, for one). As for Vlady, I wonder if he's up for a couple of new pool boys? Trumpty Dumpty and his right hand jerk off, Moscow Mooch McDumbbell are looking for jobs these days. Many from the Trump / Pence neofascist nutzi regime, right down to the latest who jumped ship, likely will have difficulty ever finding work again due to their association with Der Gropenfuhrer.


@44: Seriously, Rainy. I'll bet even Alec Baldwin, who has effectively portrayed Trumpty Dumpty satirically in SNL skits would shudder at such an idea.


@Chase Burns: "Twitter permanently banned Donald Trump: WOW!!!!! It feels great to type that."

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons"

This is how the Constitution dies. We hate someone so much that we are willing to do anything to hurt them regardless of the consequences.

And who do we call on when the same unaccountable forces turn on us?

John Adams famously defended a British solder from the Boston Massacre and proved his innocence. In 1978 the ACLU sent a group of Jewish lawyers to Skokie to fend the right of Nazi's to protest. Not because they supported Nazi's, but because they knew their own rights were tied to the most despicable part of society.

Enjoy your party, I am no fan or President Trump. But please spare me the pissing and moaning when these same rights are later stripped from those you approve of.

In the end we will all hang together and rich and powerful will be there to laugh when it happens.


more from the nyt / @35

But there are legitimate questions about whether a small handful of unelected tech executives, accountable only to their boards and shareholders (and, in Mr. Zuckerberg’s case, to neither) should wield such enormous power.

These actions also raise longer-term questions, such as whether the business models of social media companies are fundamentally compatible with a healthy democracy, or whether a generation of Twitter-addicted politicians can ever be untaught the lesson that racking up retweets is a surer path to power than governing responsibly.

In the short term, people worried about a slippery slope of censorship on Twitter and Facebook can take some comfort in the fact that Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg appear to hate playing the role of speech police, and avoid doing it whenever possible.

For them, Mr. Trump’s case is unlike any other — a celebrity who rode their platforms to the presidency, then used them to stage an attack on American democracy itself — and their decisions to ban him aren’t likely to set much of a precedent. --Kevin Rose for the nyt; Jan. 9, 2021

more at


His remarks at the rally may have been vague enough not to meet the legal standard for "imminent lawless action" -- bear in mind, he specified the time (right now) and the place (down the street at that building) and the action ("Fight!") although on this last point he left some CYA room -- but the articles of impeachment also mention the Raffensberger call which almost certainly does meet a legal standard for election interference.

The last time he was impeached McConell's Senate managed to avoid hearing any evidence, an extraordinary step they took because the "perfect phone call" was cut-and-dried. The optics of hearing those damning charges and moving to acquit anyway would have been far worse. If the Senate finds itself in the position of hearing the evidence in this case, which seems relatively likely, it will not only have a much harder time sweeping it under the rug, but it will be doing so in an environment where they no longer have nearly as much to lose and in some cases might have something to gain.

Last January the calculus for Republican Senators was "Do I want to stand for re-election after the top of the ticket has been removed from office for committing crimes? Or am I willing to bet that the scandal of refusing to hear evidence will blow over by November?"

Now the math might be more like "Would hanging the former President out to dry, a man who personally dispatched a mob of his goons to come to my workplace and try to kill me, help me to wash some of the collaborator stink off in time for the next cycle? Can I look fair-minded and virtuous at little personal cost, and at the same time take revenge on the asshole who for four years has been knocking me down and taking my lunch money?"

I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk, but if it gets to the point of actually presenting the evidence against him out loud in Senate chambers, all bets are off. There is blood in the water this time.


Can you believe the nerve of these motherfuckers? They engage in treason, supporting sedition, attempting to overturn the election results putting Biden in the White House and they are asking BIDEN to stop the impeachment? FUCK THE FUCK OFF!!! Every one of them who voted against the election results needs to be removed from their seat in congress and charged with their crimes.

House Republicans Ask Biden: Get Pelosi to Back Off Impeachment


@48 false equivalence. Twitter and the other platforms have no obligation to allow Trump nor anyone else to post. It’s similar to someone coming into another place of business and causing a scene or showing up at your door and demanding you hear them out. What’s happened is Trump has faced consequences for his actions. That’s something he’s been able to avoid most of his life.

Regardless of if Trump met the legal standard for incitement that day those that stormed the Capitol thought they were acting on his orders. The woman that was shot though they were going to complete the Qanon fantasy where Trump would execute his enemies.


shouldn't Kshama Sawant be facing the same repercussions as Mike Nearman for letting rioters into City Hall? if we're going to talk about equity, let's talk about equity. both should be thrown in jail.


I'd like to thank Jeff Bezos for taking Parler off of AWS today, and Apple for finally dropping Parler like Google did.

Oh, and we're still coming for all of the Felons. Attacking the US Capitol is a 10 year Felony, and you're going to Federal Prison, boys. It's not an adjustable sentence either, it's a MINIMUM sentence. And you can't run for office or be an executive as a Federal Felon.


@53 city hall is not the US Capitol or the State Capitol or even the County Courthouse. Municipal penalties usually result in fines.

My count shows we've admitted to 30 arrested officially and I know of hundreds more being processed, so you can run, but you can't hide.


@52 "false equivalence. Twitter and the other platforms have no obligation to allow Trump nor anyone else to post.

No where in my post did I say Twitter and other platforms had an obligation, but this is the same poor reasoning that got us into Iraq war and the Patriot Act while the great Barbara Lee from California argued that we should think before we act. She was called a traitor and received death threats for this at the time.

Should those who attacked the capital be punished? Yes. Is what president Trump did despicable? Yes. Does Twitter, Facebook and any other private organization have a legal obligation to post what anyone was to say? Of course not. Those are the easy argument used justify leading us in the wrong direction.

Here are the more important questions being ignored.

Does it make sense to suspend the Twitter and Facebook account of a man that has access to nuclear weapons, the largest military in the world and whatever you and I think of him won the presidential election in 2016 with millions of followers? For those that support him and believe this election was stolen from him, does suspending his account detract, or add creedance to their imaginary claim this election was stolen? While "I don't give a shit what they think" might be emotionally comforting, alienating that group is what gave us President Trump in the first place and the next President Trump will likely not be so incompetent.

Perhaps more importantly, will you be comfortable when Zuck and Dorsey decide to ban President Biden, Bernie Sanders, or whatever other politician you approve of? What if they do it in the name of preventing violence but are actually doing it to please some shit bag asshole like Hawley or Graham who may one day be involved in the anti-trust suits against these companies? Based on their history, do you really expect them to do the right thing for the good of the American people?

That's the danger with accepting censorship even when it's legal and used against those you hate by those you like. Almost certainly the power to censor ends up in the hands of those you hate being used against those you like. Ultimately the problem with censorship is that those who are drawn to its use represent the least democratic and most authoritarian people in society. I am not willing to seed that power to anyone, especially them. Better to let someone I detest blather on than live to see the day censorship is wielded by someone like President Trump.

It always feels odd to be making this argument. I grew up at a time when there was broad consensus that censorship and book banning were generally understood to be really bad ideas. It's strange to live in a time where I am explaining to people how censorship could and will go wrong no matter how good it feels at the moment.


@Luddite5 Trump does not do his own dirty business, he has others do it for him. He is truly, deep down, a coward. He is more pissed off about being kicked off of Twitter than he is about anything else. Think about that. Trump is not the one about whom we as a collective need to worry. It's the minions lined up to do more violence and damage for him, including the assholes in congress who are gobsmacked that their asses were endangered by the terrorist attack they fully supported. Cutting off his main form of riling up his terrorists is the most effective thing that could be done against him at this time. He will be irrelevant very soon. It is his psychotic, violent, white supremacist terrorist base that we need to be worried about and those fucktards don't have the nuclear codes. There is a reason this time between presidents is called lame duck - even with Trump's allies in the Pentagon.


from the article: "These actions [bannings] also raise longer-term questions, such as whether the business models of social media companies are fundamentally compatible with a healthy democracy... "

well, having ONE person enough Wealth to buy all the politicians they'd ever need is NOT compatible with having a Healthy Democracy

as is ONE person controlling the access to/censorship of -- what is fb membership a billion, two? -- that is not compatible with a Healthy Democracy either.

so, WHO is gonna do the censoring?

"Ultimately the problem with censorship is that those who are drawn to its use represent the least democratic and most authoritarian people in society. I am not willing to seed [cede] that power to anyone, especially them." --@Luddy

but you already HAVE.


@51 xina: Agreed and seconded. May 2021 spell the permanent death of the GOP.


@57 xina and @58 kristofarian: Spot on and seconded. Keep on rocking the house, both of you! :)
@58 kristofarian: My song parody @42 was in response to your comment @39.


@57: I agree with what you say about President Trump, but our low opinion of Donald Trump has nothing to do with this. Free speech only works to the extent we place principles before politics and defend those we like least. I am not talking about free speech in just a 1st amendment sense here.
Those Trump supporters who broke the law (occupied the Capital) along with the police who enabled them should be punished. There are millions of Trump supporters who did no such thing and insulting them only further radicalizes their view. I think they are crazy and dangerous enough. No need to spray more gasoline on the fire by handing them censorship as a recruitment tool for feeling butt hurt.

Everyone hate monsters. We just disagree who those monsters are. Those in power in both parties would love to convince us the half of America we think are monsters are made up of domestic terrorists and we need to repeal Section 230. It will be you and I they come for first. Don't let them do it.

The question you need to ask isn't if President Trump should have a platform, or if you like his supporters. You need to ask if the next Donald Trump (and there are several waiting in the wings who are even more dangerous because they are competent) should have the power to censor. Do you trust Donald Trump to determine who can and can't speak? I certainly don't. Currently many sex workers and other marginalized groups have been shadow banned, or completely banned for sharing unpopular political, or sexual views. Censorship just like hate speech laws are always used by the powerful against the weak. Care to guess how many cops have used hate speech laws in enhance sentences against black people they didn't approve of? Do you think those who passed these laws had that in mind?

@58: I'm not sure I understand so I am not sure how to respond.

"well, having ONE person enough Wealth to buy all the politicians they'd ever need is NOT compatible with having a Healthy Democracy"
I agree, but what does this have to do with censorship, which if allowed will certainly be controlled and run by these people who are already "bad for democracy?"

The EFF has done great work reporting on the growth of censorship over the past 20 years. We have allowed monopolies like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google to write laws that permanently weaken our rights and protect their monopolies from disruptive innovation. That has allowed politicians to use these monopolies to act as gate keepers against those who do not share their view, which is why they supported these monopolies in the first place. Yes they told you the censorship would only be for the Trumps. Did you believe that is the only way they would use this power to silence their critics?

The real solution is to break up these monopolies so there is no single choke point to restrict speech for other people. I wouldn't trust Bezo's or Zuckerberg with my dog. Why should they have the power to decide who can and can't speak?


@53 Yes, she should. Gonzales, in particular, let her off the hook, and her numerous apologists will continue to rationalize and enable for her, but I think she should. We'll see if the recall is allowed to go through. Now, I believe what Trump did was significantly worse, in terms of danger and the number of people and weapons involved. I radically support the effort to impeach and convict Trump, and he should face major consequences for all sorts of crimes and outrages after he leaves office. Throw the legal and lawsuit book at Trump, and don't let up. That said, Sawant resembles Trump characterologically, and no amount of "but I'm for helping the poor, so that makes me moral!" rhetoric can hide her egotism, self-important boasting, obsession with media attention, credit-hogging, and legally culpable rules violations. Sawant's visit to Durkan's home, letting in protesters (many without masks, as was she) after-hours to City Hall, and so much else she has done are despicable, and she can boast all she wants about her amazing, history-making this and that. What Trump did is far worse--but that doesn't mean Sawant shouldn't at least face a recall. Her pious fraudulence buys her tons of support in Seattle, and that won't change any time soon. But please know you are not alone; many others see through her act and won't let her off the hook. First, though, is Trump. Impeach, convict--then prosecute in New York and elsewhere, and sue him, Rudy, and the others into oblivion. They deserve every bit of the punishment. Lock him up.


From "Trump’s Removal Is Taking Too Long"

"Trump is an unstable and desperate man who has incited violence against the government of the United States. He cannot be trusted with the keys to Armageddon, and so he must be removed by any legal and constitutional means available.

Since the insurrection on Wednesday, Trump has tried in his diffident and childlike way to calm the waters with a weak statement acknowledging Joe Biden’s win, an acceptance Trump apparently sees as a gracious willingness to compromise after his initial seditious insistence on fighting to the end. This change in tone, however, was merely Trump following his usual pattern, in which he says something horrifying, panics his staff—and his lawyers—and then is pushed out in front of the cameras to say he didn’t really mean any of it, while he winks and indicates that he meant every word of it.

And sure enough, just hours after his grudging act of contrition, Trump was back on Twitter with an all-caps exhortation to his followers to take him both seriously and literally. “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” he tapped out furiously, “will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”


Trump is Captain Queeg. The strawberry ice cream is the missing votes. Mutiny?. Its in the works..


@63 You have insightfully pinpointed one of Trump's rhetorical strategies: faked remorse as time-buying backpedaling. He is a snake. He is Iago, Claudius, and Macbeth. He is a shape-shifting villain. Never trust him about anything. And, what's worse: he's convinced himself he is so great and brilliant that he merely has to fulfill his whims to do good--no need for serious reflection or genuine remorse. You are totally right about Trump's "usual pattern." No one should ever, ever trust him. Now, let's hope at least some of his voters see the light. Thank you for your comment.



A private company deplatforming someone isn't censorship.
Publishers have always decided who and what they will print.

Stop engaging in bad faith arguments.



"Why should they have the power to decide who can and can't speak?"
They don't, and they can't.

Are they stopping you from standing on a soapbox on the street corner?
Are they stopping you from self publishing?
Are they stopping you from organizing via email?

Better questions:

If you don't let me stand in your backyard with a bullhorn, telling the neighborhood that you are a lizard person pedophile, then how can you say I have free speech.
If you don't let me inside your house to use your computer to send emails to everyone on your contact list, letting them know you are a lizard pedophile, then how else could I do it.

In a capitalist society property owners decide who can use their property and who can't.

Who do you think speech rights supercede property rights?


Sloggies allow me to quickly run some business as usual up your flag poles.

Essentially no federal coordination of vaccine priority. So

States in charge. So

WA State partially leaves control over distribution priority to major health systems. So

Massive Catholic hospital system Providence chooses to vaccinate their entire workforce. Hundreds of their executives and thousands their of paper pushers - even those who are young, low risk, and extremely low exposure chance - have already been injected. All they had to do was declare interest in being vaccinated.

Lot of well off college educated white people in this cohort.

Meanwhile the obese, asthmatic 58 year old black lady who stands 40 hours a week at my supermarket check out, exposed to a non-stop parade of strangers, has months before a needle finds her arm.

She needs to pay rent and I need to eat, way more than Providence's corporate elites who comfortably work from home need to vacation with confidence.

So yeah, business as usual, with a religion as usual frosting.

Stranger should do some reporting, although there are a lot of interesting stickers and only on VHS movies out there too ...


@56 You said "This is how the Constitution dies", no doubt with a quivering lip and a mournful bugle blowing taps in the background.

You've identified a problem with capitalism and the U.S. constitution is the last place we should look for protection from that old thing.



Do you have anything to back up the claim that Providence's entire staff is being vaccinated? I've a friend here in Oregon who works for them and she hasn't mentioned any offer. Also did a quick google search and didn't see anything to that effect.


@70: Here's one:


@61 -- "The real solution is
to break up these monopolies ..."

well, you'll get Exactly ZERO Argument from me there:

Please -- check out:
‘The Hidden History Of Monopolies’
by Thom Hartmann

“This is the most important, dynamic book on the cancers of monopoly by giant corporations written in our generation.”–from the foreword by Ralph Nader

American monopolies dominate, control, and consume most of the energy of our entire economic system; they function the same as cancer does in a body, and, like cancer, they weaken our systems while threatening to crash the entire body economic.

American monopolies have also seized massive political power and use it to maintain their obscene profits and CEO salaries while crushing small competitors.

But Thom Hartmann, America’s #1 progressive radio host, shows we’ve broken the control of behemoths like these before, and we can do it again.

Hartmann takes us from the birth of America as a revolt against monopoly (remember the Boston Tea Party?), to the largely successful efforts of both Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and other like-minded leaders to restrain corporations’ monopolistic urges, to the massive changes in the rules of business starting during the “Reagan Revolution” that have brought us to the cancer stage of capitalism.

He shows the damage monopolies have done to so many industries: agriculture, healthcare, the media, and more. Individuals have taken a hit as well: the average American family pays a $5,000 a year “monopoly tax” in the form of higher prices for everything from pharmaceuticals to airfare to household goods and food.

But Hartmann also describes commonsense, historically rooted measures we can take–such as revitalizing antitrust regulation, taxing great wealth, and getting money out of politics–to pry control of our country from the tentacles of the monopolists.

oh, and did I mention
Thom's got his very own
Progressive Radio Show?
the Thom Hartmann Program
on KBCS fm Bellevue or Free Speech teevee
one of Too Damn Few in the US of A.



For folks outside the Seattle area.



Thanks. Yeah, that's shitty for sure. The rollout seems to have been pretty disastrous on any number of fronts. Though I will say that I'm pretty sure that those delightful postings to Sticker Patrol and Unstreamable aren't likely taking away from political reporting Stranger staff would otherwise be contributing.


Cool that that Republicans changed their platform from ‘Shhh, just let it happen’ to ‘Why are you mad? I’m the one who couldn’t get it up’. Nice, very Lloyd Ivin of them.


@61: Social media platforms only have control over what is posted on their platforms. People were perfectly capable of expressing their opinions and organizing politically prior to the creation of Twitter and Facebook and they are perfectly capable of doing so now.
Just because you have access to social media free of charge doesn’t make those platforms the public square. They are private property which you signed an agreement saying you would abide by their rules to access.
Do these platforms have bias? ABSOLUTELY. Which is why when discussing racism on Facebook always remember to type “wyte peepo” if you intend to push back against someone posting memes of Michelle Obama as a monkey. Cuz it ain’t the meme slinger that’s going to end up in Facebook jail in that exchange if y’all spell it correctly.
Are they monopolies benefiting financially from political polarization? ABSOLUTELY.
Are they silencing Trump? No.
He can have a press conference. He can go out to Rose Garden and address the entire country. He can hold a rally, email his supporters, send out flyers through the mail, call in to conservative talk shows or stand on the corner and scream.
I mean, as the Husband pointed out this morning, did Ronald Reagan tweet? No, and he did just fine.


@73 -- thanks, Adam!
not to mention Amy Goodman's
awesome Democracy NOW! also on
KBCS and about 1,552 stations* Planet-wide
if you're Unbeholden to Corps Americana [LLC
naturally] she's (absolutely) (and totally) your Ticket.

*including radio, teevee, internet, whatever




@78: :) right back at ya


when it's prodigious pie hole opens fully
when it unhinges it's lower mandible
it can & Will swallow entire Countries.


@66: "A private company deplatforming someone isn't censorship.
Publishers have always decided who and what they will print."

That's factually inaccurate and a Strawman.

Yes they have (always had the right to deplatform someone), yes that's censorship even if you don't like the definition and yes it's legal. Are you arguing that for there to be censorship the government must be involved and it must be illegal?

Where did you get that definition? I can guarantee you if The Stranger deleted one of your posts tomorrow you would believe it to be censorship. It happens to be legal censorship and they have every right to do it, but their legal standing and the definition of censorship are two separate issues. If it is a good idea for them to do this is a third idea. You can't seem to keep those three different things straight.

Before you stomp your foot and give me your personal definition of censorship as something only within a legal framework, let me give you the definition the rest of us work off.
"To examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable"

At no point did I say platforms can't do this. I gave several examples of them already doing this to marginalized groups and why I think it's a bad idea. Just because something is legal does not make it a good choice. Your assertion that unless I approve of their decision it means I don't respect property rights is absurd and non-nonsensical. There is no requirement that I approve of the way property is used, only that I allow them to use it as they see fit Whatever talking points you memorized around this topic are not serving you well here.

I think it's a bad idea to deplatform the people I don't approve of (President Trump) because it normalizes censorship against the people I do approve of as they currently do. Once again, do you really want a world where someone like Donald Trump has the power and influence to tell platforms show should be on their site. I have no interest in giving that psychopath that level of power even though it would almost certainly be legal for him to do that (see unintended twists on 3rd party doctrine).

@69: "You've identified a problem with capitalism and the U.S. constitution is the last place we should look for protection from that old thing."

The Constitution's isn't perfect, but it's currently all we've got to ensure Donald Trumps leaves and the police don't walk into your house tomorrow and arrest you for wearing a shirt they don't like. I would not be too cavalier about ignoring it. I find those who are the most cavalier tend to scream the loudest when it's there rights being stepped on.
We all love rights. Ours, not anyone eases. It's easy to forget the two are linked, especially when you are dealing with an asshole like Donald Trump.


@76: "Social media platforms only have control over what is posted on their platforms. People were perfectly capable of expressing their opinions and organizing politically prior to the creation of Twitter and Facebook and they are perfectly capable of doing so now."

Yes, I pointed out at the beginning that social media has been deplatforming people for some time and almost none of them have access to the media the way a President does. They are who I am most concerned about with policies like this.

I also think it's more complicated than "they only have control over their platform." Apples walled garden app store controls who can even have a platform. In places like China it makes it difficult for people to use a VPN since the Communist government can simply tell them to remove it from their app store and tell google the same thing.

We have moved from Twitter and Facebook deplatforming to the Apple store deciding who can and can't have a platform. That's legal, but problematic. I don't want to normalize that kind of power in the hands of those I don't trust.


@81 -- "I think it's a bad idea to deplatform the people I don't approve of (President Trump) because it normalizes censorship against the people I do approve of... "

ah, but there's the Rub:
it's not The Person they're banning
it's their Insidious Fanning of the Flames.

why the Fuck it took them
Four. Fucking. Years is just a part of
the Great and wonderful Mystery that is Capitalism.


@82: The Black Panthers were capable of organizing and getting their message out with out Twitter. The women’s rights movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, ACT UP, AIM, Cesar Chavez, all of them did it without social media platforms.
You don’t HAVE to use social media for political activism. If the tool is broken, and a good argument can be made that as a tool social media is indeed broken, you are not obliged to use it.
Has it been convenient these last years to use it? Yes, but that’s not the same as framing social media as ESSENTIAL to free political expression.


I’m all for regulating social media platforms and instituting guidelines that are independent and evenly applied but until that happens these platforms are free to ban anyone for any reason at all & fomenting insurrection against democracy itself is a pretty good fucking reason for banning.


speaking of China, we've wasted four Endless trumpfian years by Not assailing their Human Rights agenda including their Orwellian monitoring of its Populace,* mostly thanks to trumpf's Adoration of pretty much all governments Tyrannical.

will we be able to make up those years in the delaying or subverting the Planet's rush to Fascism/Authoritarianism? stay tuned

*& we the peeps're Very
well-Wired for Sound
right now


@81 Yeah, ok, but what are you going to do about Jack Dorsey's tyranny? If you're just here to scold people for having the wrong attitude then that's concern trolling.

There's no provision in the law to protect Donald Trump (or anyone else) from getting banned from Twitter. And, ironically, its the Republicans that dismantled the old Fairness Doctrine that might have provided the basis for such protections. But then there never could have been Fox News.

Its a real paradox.


The CIA and FBI have untold discretionary powers regarding national security issues, and should arrange for Mr. Trump to be abducted by illegal aliens, molested and probed, then dumped in an ignoble Indiana cornfield. Also, Madame Pelosi, who is a little cutie with a remarkable rack and a highly distinguished scholar to boot, should implore the Pentagon to disregard any directives from the orange-hairy-scary one to launch missile or nuclear attacks on our enemies--say North Korea or Iran--or even our friends in Europe or Japan, as a lasting nihilistic statement on the uselessness of the psychopathic Trump-Pence administration. With any luck, Trump will fall prey to horny hillbillies, who ironically voted for him, and get further molested like the Ned Beatty character in “Deliverance”. Trump will have lots of fun in prison, cleaning bed pans, pulling weeds and performing acts of prison contrition alongside all the creeps that served in his administration, like that beardo-weirdo who always looked like he slept at a bus stop and needed a haircut-shower-shave, and was prosecuted by federal authorities for fraudulent fundraising. Thanks to the incoming Democratic administration and their pro-active stance against insurrection and political perversion, Jared Kushner, the Trump Twins with their full-body dye-jobs, Kayleigh McEnany (good luck shaving and waxing in federal prison) Larry Kudlow, even intellectual throwbacks who previously served in the administration like Sarah Elizabeth Sanders Huckabee the Third or whatever her name is and Anthony Scaramucci with his mob connections, should all be forced to wash dishes, perform roadway maintenance, eat goat poop and sing into the pink microphone. Thank goodness twitter pulled the plug on the account of Trump the Hairy-Orange Insurrectionist, and what’s up with that Parler app? The Biden administration should have these playgrounds for white supremacists deactivated by the FCC, as a domestic terror threat and a socio-political scourge on par with COVID-19 in the sense that it spreads conservatism and redneckism like a deadly intellectual pathogen. There is certainly enough time to fast track Trump’s impeachment based on election subversion or have him forcibly removed under the 25th Amendment, or invite him to a gathering of inbred admirers like that brainless, toothless rapper Primus for autographs and a CD release of his new hit “I Banged my Sister” and give Trump the expedited concrete justice he deserves. We got the people…


88 not sure why you keep doing this but i promise you no one is reading these


Man, that Trump cult is so weird...
I've been trying to monitor where the right-wingers are right now that things seem to be collapsing rapidly around them.
Really curious what the potential is for disruption of the inauguration.

It sure seems that there is a LOT of hatred towards Pence, which seems both odd, and predictable given the circumstances.

I have read reports that some folks are angry with Trump for abandoning his supporters from Wednesday, but I didn't find much of that - the target seems to be focused on Pence.
Trump cravenly betrays his followers and yet they keep crawling back like a beaten dog.



You seem to be confusing "rights" with "privileges". Per the First Amendment every U.S. citizen has the RIGHT to freedom of speech, which the government cannot summarily or arbitrarily curtail, and which, it bears pointing out - not for the first time in this thread - has not in fact occurred. SCROTUS has not had any rights taken away from him, he is still perfectly free to peddle his scabrous, seditionist rhetoric in the public arena; but he's not free to do so on a proprietary social media platform owned by a private company.

That private business, OTOH, when operating within the bounds of its legal right to impose rules or codes of conduct on speech disseminated on its proprietary platform, has no such similar obligation as that of the government, especially when an individual has clearly violated those rules to which they agreed at the time they created their account. It's not the fault of the company if someone doesn't read the EULA granting them permission to make use of the platform in exchange for abiding by the terms of the Agreement. It IS their legal right, and indeed their legal obligation, to uphold those standards and to impose sanctions on those who willfully violate them. Both parties entered into a contract: the user agreed to the terms promulgated by the company and in exchange received certain benefits or privileges, but did so with the understanding that if those terms were breached the contract would become void and the issuing party would no longer be obliged to continue the relationship.

Having a social media account is a contractually executed privilege, not an inalienable or lawful right, and conflating the two, as if they were exactly the same, both denigrates actual Constitutional rights by relegating them to essentially the same level, as well as ignores the mutual contractual obligations entailed in using social media platforms. A contract is meaningless if it's not enforced; allowing egregious violation of the agreed-upon terms is irresponsible and opens the door to further abuse by other parties. Companies that fail to enforce their contracts are remiss in their fiduciary obligation to their owners and thus risk not only loss of their confidence, but can be held legally and financially liable for such negligence.


@90 -- "Trump cravenly betrays his followers
and yet they keep crawling back like a beaten dog."

one might think they'd tend to get tried of
getting run over by Greyhounds* but they
Do seem to be Gluttons for Punishment.

*the Bus


nyt: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler, an App That Drew Trump Supporters

The companies pulled support for the “free speech” social network, all but killing the service just as many conservatives are seeking alternatives to Facebook and Twitter.

In a letter to Parler on Saturday, Amazon said that it had sent the company 98 examples of posts on its site that encouraged violence and that many remained active. “It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with” Amazon’s rules, the company said in the letter.

Amazon “provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we continue to respect Parler’s right to determine for itself what content it will allow on its site.

However, we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others.”


Those arguing that Twitter's removal of @realDonaldTrump is censorship and that it inhibits free expression and discourse by conservatives or anyone else couldn't be further from the truth.

It's about decency.



Yeah, a couple random paragraph breaks there would make a world of difference. You're the anti-kristofarian.



"Are you arguing that for there to be censorship the government must be involved and it must be illegal?"
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

"I can guarantee you if The Stranger deleted one of your posts tomorrow you would believe it to be censorship."
You would be 100% wrong.
The Stranger, Twitter, Facebook or any other platform (that I don't own) can delete any post they want at any time, including my posts.

Forcing a private individual or organization to publish a government representative's messages is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Forcing Twitter to publish propaganda against their will is completely unamerican.

Give us a break with your nonsense bad faith arguments.


62 You are in the arena of class warfare where many poor and other disenfranchised people
have to be loud and maybe obnoxious to you to be heard.

Sawant is one of the very few with a platform around here that will speak up for our wants and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I don't agree with everything she does BUT there is no one else real in this city government that will fight for us.

Much of her district are made of people just making it, homeless, have police records over bullshit mainly because they are Black, poor, look poor and many don't have the knowledge, vocabulary, privilege to write like you do. I don't want to hurt your feelings but you have no idea what you are writing about. Meanwhile there are people cold and without shelter dying in this city mostly due to a city government that panders to the wealthy. Any thing we get we have usually had to fight for it in loud and demanding ways.

A percentage of Trumpers have lost their minds and belong to the Trump cult. They are dangerous and we must protect ourselves.


84 True and many were shot dead or put in prison or bought off for fighting back. The 1% will kill us that's why we have to be powerful in numbers.


Just remember, some of the white Terrorists who attacked the US Capitol are the same people who sell you your cars in Redmond.

Treason is local too.


@99: ... or baristas in Seattle.