- 7,369
- 29,041
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
Also, "TruMp'S SPeEcH dIdN'T CaUsE thE iNsurrECtIoN"
“Twitter allows C-list celebrities to encourage violence”
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Also, "TruMp'S SPeEcH dIdN'T CaUsE thE iNsurrECtIoN"
Did you drop your pedo support?Biden Drops Student Loan Forgiveness From Latest Budget
Biden Drops Student Loan Forgiveness From Latest Budget
Another major setback for student loan cancellation.www.forbes.com
I supported Trump twice but I support Biden/Harris now; I did not steal any Eidl grant; and I did hope that Trump would have the power to continue to push important legislation like the First Step Act and Fair Chance Act past an otherwise obstructive GOP-led Senate.
But, like I said, I support Biden/Harris now.
And I haven't gone anywhere.
He supports trump as president but doesn’t support trump as president since he’s not president anymore. Bulletproof logic. Voted for him toohahahah the only time you come in here is too post about Biden not forgiving student loans are below expected job numbers. You were taking back shots from trump for four years ignoring all the awful **** he said and did.
You didn’t support Biden/Harris during the election and it’s pretty clear you do support them now
He supports trump as president but doesn’t support trump as president since he’s not president anymore. Bulletproof logic. Voted for him too
There’s levels to this too. They’re idiots who support trump and then they’re the idiots that actually buy and wear the hat. Guess which one he is?He is one of the 53% of republicans that believe Trump is still president
Yes. More specifically, one of the key provisions is the government forcing private companies to host government speech, with non-compliance punishable by hefty fines. Think of it like forcing a newspaper to publish government officials and government candidates' op-eds.Isn't this a first amendment violation? Seems like the government trying to tell a private company what speech they can and cannot partake in.
Yes. More specifically, one of the key provisions is the government forcing private companies to host government speech, with non-compliance punishable by hefty fines. Think of it like forcing a newspaper to publish government officials and government candidates' op-eds.
This laughable attempt also conflicts with Section 230's protections.