It just really isn’t a good word to use
Printable View
BINGO ! That's right. Article I , Section 3 clearly says that when the President ( NOT a FORMER President ) is tried in the Senate the " Chief Justice SHALL preside ".
Article II , Section 4 clearly says that anyone "Impeached and convicted "shall be removed from office " AND disqualified from holding future offices. Not removed OR disqualified. Removed AND disqualified. Removal is automatic on conviction. No separate vote is required. Trump is a FORMER President. There is no office to remove him from. The sole purpose of impeachment is to remove a SITTING President. Plus there are Constitutional provisions proscribing Bills Of Attainder and prohibiting Ex Post Facto laws. What is the current Impeachment if not an attempt to punish Trump AFTER THE FACT ? It is obvious that the only reason for the current Impeachment is to try and disqualify Trump from ever serving again. A laudable goal imo but it can't be done Constitutionally. Just as bad , Senator Leahy is improperly presiding. Leaving aside the fact that he has said he will vote to convict ; that he is NOT the Chief Justice how is fundamental fairness ( a bedrock of the Bill Of Rights ) served by having a juror also serve as the presiding judge ? ! ? !
We are going to have to agree to disagree. My ideas of Free Speech and yours are diametrically opposed. Obviously you think that ideas you don't like or agree with ought to be gotten "rid of " based on what you claim is their "falsehood". You think someone ought to have the power to determine truth and then take action to purify the public realm and punish any polluters. Not only do I categorically reject any such premise ( I can't think of anyone qualified and impartial enough to do it ) but so does the First Amendment. Thank God.
I am sorry but some of your ideas constitute a back door to totalitarian thought and speech control. What if the "WRONG" people got into positions of power and started using truth and falsity as the excuse to suppress ideas that you DO like and DO agree with ? You are arguing for laying the groundwork for something exactly like that to happen. How do you think the Nazis did it ? The Soviets (and now the Chinese and Putin ) loved to go after people they didn't like and charge them with "libel and slander " against the state ; against the Revolution etc. The Shah of Iran made it an offense to "insult him ". In this country we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Bringing them back would certainly serve your purposes.
When have I ever posted anything hinting this? The truth is not concerned with whom agrees nor disagrees. The truth doesn't have sides. It's completely objective. There is misinformation spread by members of both major parties, and my response has consistently been "treat both equally." Claims that Putin has compromising information about Trump (believed by a faction of the left) should be treated the same as claims of election fraud (believed by a faction of the right).
I have viewpoints that are supported individually by members of the majority of each of the major parties. But the truth isn't a viewpoint, it's immutable fact. It is revealing that you try to use identity politics here though. Hilariously enough, at least one of my posts led other posters here to think I'm on the right.
What if a meteor landed on everyone that claimed there was election fraud? That's why we don't use "what if" arguments in debate. But to humor you: the wrong people are already in power. Many don't care about party or country, they care about staying in power to reap the benefits. And part of that is pandering to these people that will believe anything.
No I am not. My posts were in reference to social media platforms like Twitter and the web services providers. Are they (Twitter, Amazon, Google, Apple, etc) suddenly part of the US government now or private companies? Don't bother with the "but they act like public utilities" crap.
OK. Your response was slightly reassuring. Perhaps I am reading some of your stuff too broadly.
You are right there is objective truth. Gravity is objective ; so are the actions of the sun and the Earth. Aside from hard science , objectivity varies. That's how life works and the world operates. Very little in the overall cosmos is certain. Mostly
it boils down to questions of likelihood ; probability vs. possibility. Just because an idea represents the "majority" view does not entitle it to greater worth. You yourself argue for truth. A LOT of majority views throughout history were later proven to be false ; of little worth or were replaced by other ideas. Separate But Equal used to be a "majority " view. To cite just one example. People used to believe the sun rotated around the Earth.
The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to protect "minority " speech and ideas. Especially ideas that are NOT popular ; that most people do not like or agree with.
I don't know where you learned debate but "what if " questions aka hypotheticals are both permitted and acceptable.
As for the power and influence of social media I think you accept that they do have such power ? Please correct me if I'm mistaken. My question is : Ought they have the power to control public forums and determine what ideas are acceptable and which are not ? If they were just trimming at the margins to remove or suppress the worst of the worst ( what the Supreme Court referred to in another context as devoid of any socially redeeming value ) I wouldn't like it but would not be particularly alarmed.
This issue is not going to go away. Our society has to decide if it wants unelected entities with admitted and clear political and ideological biases to be the decider of what we get to read and where.
Btw, your claim that I somehow use "identity politics" is bizarre. Nobody on this board has argued against identity politics more than me. What are you referring to ?
As I've been saying, you refuse to see Trump for who he is. Calling him names doesn't change the fact that you defend everything he does. If referring to Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers, and drug dealers; and equating immigrants from Central America with vermin (infestations) isn't racist, I don't know what is.
Here's a description of how people, including children, were being held in Trump's detention centers:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...lities/593239/
Who's losing their jobs to illegal immigrants? The unemployment rate was 3.5% before the pandemic. 83% of building contractors reported moderate to high levels of difficulty in finding workers. Trump's immigration policies have contributed to this.Quote:
Americans have again recoiled in shock and horror over the past few weeks as observers who visited immigration detention facilities in the Southwest reported that children were being held in cruelly austere conditions. These observers told the press that the children at a facility in Clint, Texas, were sleeping on concrete floors and being denied soap and toothpaste. They described “children as young as 7 and 8, many of them wearing clothes caked with snot and tears … caring for infants they’ve just met.” A visiting doctor called the detention centers “torture facilities.” At least seven children have died in U.S. custody in the past year, compared with none in the 10 years prior. More than 11,000* children are now being held by the U.S. government on any given day. As if these conditions were insufficiently punitive, the administration has canceled recreational activities, an act that, like the conditions themselves, likely violates the law.
At a processing center in El Paso, Texas, 900 migrants were “being held at a facility designed for 125. In some cases, cells designed for 35 people were holding 155 people,” The New York Times reported. One observer described the facility to Texas Monthly as a “human dog pound.” The government’s own investigators have found detainees in facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement being fed expired food at detention facilities, “nooses in detainee cells,” “inadequate medical care,” and “unsafe and unhealthy conditions.” An early-July inspector-general report found “dangerous overcrowding” in some Border Patrol facilities and included pictures of people crowded together like human cargo. More than 50,000 people are being held in facilities run by ICE, and something close to 20,000 in facilities run by Customs and Border Protection, and more than 11,000 children in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.* (The government describes them as “unaccompanied,” a label immigration advocates say is misleading because many were separated by the government from the relative who brought them) Some of the people detained by the U.S. government have entered the United States illegally or overstayed their visas; some are simply seeking to exercise their legal right to asylum.
https://youtu.be/hU4rp-efn-I?t=186
But you're okay with all of the lies Trump told about coronavirus, and everything Trump did to make the pandemic much worse?
What difference does it make whether Trump did it himself, or incited someone else to do it?
I mostly agree, but science is meant to be made of statements that can be tested and predictions based on what we know at a given point in time. I also never claimed that the majority view dictates truth. Facts are not concerned with popular demand. Your example of the separate but equal doctrine is subjective. Your example of the heliocentric model is an instance of the aforementioned definition of science: The geocentric model was predicted given what people before the Renaissance knew. Later, evidence of the heliocentric model led to further understanding and a revision of the previous view. This is being incorrect. It is completely different from lying by continually making debunked statements like "there were more votes cast than voters," or "voting machines deleted votes and counted other votes multiple times."
"But to humor you: the wrong people are already in power. Many don't care about party or country, they care about staying in power to reap the benefits. And part of that is pandering to these people that will believe anything."
This question is based on a false premise: they're moderating their own private forums.
Is this any different from existing media companies showing or omitting stories to advance different agendas? And is this worse for media companies with "News" in their respective names spreading outright lies while claiming their purpose is entertainment?
You make statements that try to correlate viewpoints with what you think my political views are. And you imply that I only have these thoughts because the "other side" is getting adversely affected. But I've never had the "own the [libs or cons?]" attitude. I'm not even either. And truth is agnostic of political spectra.
Eagle- We get it. Trump is a monster because of how some illegal immigrant children were treated. They weren't taken to Disney World ; didn't get teddy bears or Snuggies . You have beaten this issue to death. On a par with Sean "Dead Horse . Broken Record " Hannity.
7 children out of a total of MORE than 11,000 died in custody ? How does that compare with the death rate in their native countries ? A total of 24 immigrants of all ages died in ICE custody during the 4 years Trump was POTUS. Out of millions border and other detainees. In 2020 over 300,000 minors were detained. Both unaccompanied and those who were detained with their families. So now it is 7 out of 300,000. Considering the disease ridden slums and villages they came from with inadequate sanitation , clean water and medical care some can argue that they were better off in ICE custody. I have posted that the detention facilities used were inadequate. They were NOT as inhumane as you would like to believe.
Trump was just as bad as Cuomo , Murphy and FAUCI. All of whom lied. All of whom made bad decisions concerning Covid.
The point of all this is what ? That Trump is so terrible that it is OK to run roughshod over the Constitution so long as he can never run for office again ? I agree , I Agree , I AGREE ! that Trump never running for office ever again is a good thing. I just want him to be disqualified Constitutionally.
As disgusting and disgraceful as Trump's post-Election behavior was ; as stupid as the January 6 Rally was , the fact remains that Trump did NOT say the magic words. Telling the rally attendees to "fight like hell " and/or telling them to "peacefully and patriotically " make their voices heard or even to go over to the Capitol is NOT incitement to riot and insurrection. There was NO explicit direction or exhortation to break the law. We can argue this for a month. I have clear Supreme Court precedents dealing with what are and are not "fighting words" ; seditious speech and incitement on my side of the argument. Trump's words did not come close. We AGREE the rally never should have happened in the first place. That it was pointless and I'll go so far as to say it was asking for trouble. It MIGHT be worse if , repeat IF, Trump had been briefed that far right groups planning violence and /or planning to storm the Capitol were going to attend. So far there is no evidence ( Zero, Zip , Nada ) that he was told any such thing. The Capitol Police and reportedly Pelosi were so briefed. So were the D.C. Police.
The National Guard was alerted and on standby but nobody gave the order to deploy them until it was too late. It is very easy for those who had immediate on the ground responsibility for securing the Capitol and who failed in their duty to now
let Trump get all the blame. I'll go further. Assume Trump was briefed and told: " this rally is an explosion just waiting to go off ; there WILL be violence ; they WILL attack the Capitol". So what ? Trump is no longer President. Would it have been a crime at the time ? Doubtful. Criminal negligence maybe. Would it have been impeachable ? Probably. IF he were still the POTUS. He's not.
I chose the Copernican Theory as an example BECAUSE it was suppressed by the Catholic Church. It WAS KNOWN at the time. Galileo was forced to recant his adoption of the theory in his work and was kept under admittedly benign house arrest as a result. YOUR examples are tricky. There WERE more votes cast in 2020 than there were registered voters. Various court decisions and consent orders radically expanded early voting and vote by mail. That was ALL TRUE. What was NOT proven were that "dead people voted" beyond a few isolated cases. Most were cases where the ballot got mailed in and THEN the voter died i.e. nothing improper. Or that "improperly registered people voted" . Not in large enough numbers to affect the result in a single state i.e. some people who were not properly registered voted BUT they were either covered by a court decision or consent order permitting them to do so or their numbers were too small to affect a single state's vote totals. Most of it was a reaction to Covid. In Georgia there were less than 2,000 such voters according to the Republican Governor and Secretary of State. A LOT of it occurred in states where Trump or Biden won handily. So what ?
Whether Twitter or Facebook are "private" or "public" forums IS the issue. In the abstract they are private. Practical reality has made them public forums and essential to political speech.
You're using impoverished 3rd world countries as the standard as to how the US should treat children? Zero children in detention died during the 8 years Obama was in office. If a loved one in your family had her children forcibly removed from her, without even telling her where they were taken or how long it would be before she could see them, you would feel very differently.
Trump was far worse than Cuomo , Murphy and Fauci. Cuomo and Murphy waited too long to take the appropriate measures, but after they saw how bad it was, they took strong action. Throughout the pandemic, Trump opposed any and every measure taken to try to prevent the virus from spreading, and even held one event after another, without taking any of the recommended safety precautions.
Where did you go to law school? How many years have you studied constitutional law? Charles J. Cooper, a conservative constitutional attorney, says it IS constitutional to impeach a president after he leaves office.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...874_story.html
It's not just what Trump said at the rally. It's what he's been saying for the previous three or four months. Even before the election, he was insisting that if he lost, it's because the election was rigged. At the presidential debate, he told the Proud Boys to "stand down and stand by". Then after the election, he was repeatedly stating the same lie, that the election was stolen. When the rioting was happening, he refused to make a statement calling for them to stop, for hours, and he told the terrorists, they were special and he loves them. According to the people who were with him at the time, Trump was delighted to see what was going on, and couldn't understand why others weren't.Quote:
In the op-ed, Cooper points to a provision of the Constitution that states: “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.”
“The trial’s opponents argue that because this provision requires removal, and because only incumbent officers can be removed, it follows that only incumbent officers can be impeached and tried,” he wrote. “But the provision cuts against their interpretation. It simply establishes what is known in criminal law as a ‘mandatory minimum’ punishment.”
He wrote that the argument would be “compelling” if removal from office were the only punishment, adding that the Constitution allows the Senate to disqualify those convicted of impeachable offenses from holding office again.
“Given that the Constitution permits the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification only on former officeholders, it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders,” Cooper said.
You keep saying you don't like Trump, but you minimize everything he does and consistently oppose doing anything about him.
Sure. "Is this any different from existing media companies showing or omitting stories to advance different agendas? And is this worse for media companies with 'News' in their respective names spreading outright lies while claiming their purpose is entertainment?"
This was in reference to the various claims that the difference between votes and registered voters in MI and PA numbered hundreds of thousands. As for "so what:" despite that claim having been debunked, pundits repeated this lie for months. People ate it up regardless of how many annotations and fact checking sites showed this was not true. The point is being mistakenly wrong is not the same as knowing the truth and disseminating lies.
You also didn't address the outright lies about voting machines.
You're being intentionally obtuse again. Their respectively popularities does not magically change them from being private to public. Maybe you wish they were public entities, but they currently are not, no matter how much you want them to be, and no matter how many irrelevant criteria you apply. And honestly, your take is incredibly entitled and hypocritical coming from the side of political spectrum that frequently states "the free market will regulate itself." Your argument is basically "I want a government that does not respect freedom of association that can, at any time and for any reason, give use of any organization's private property to anyone that suits my needs." Even after all that "but muh freedomz!" crap, you want to trample on these private companies' freedoms when they owe us nothing.
You are obviously talking about Fox News and Newsmax. The latter is almost ALL opinion. Fox has a split between the News people who played it straight and reported the facts and their resident pundits. Fox News was calling states for Biden before some of the other networks. I don't like Hannity. Never did and don't like the way he is little more than a trained parrot for Trump. Along with Dobbs and Pirro he perpetuated the myth that the election was stolen using inter alia rigged voting machines. Every time the ghoulish Giuliani and Sidney Powell were told by a court to put up or shut up they crapped out. In contrast Ingraham and Carlson both said Biden won and moved on. Neither has been named as a defendant in the $2.7 billion lawsuit filed against Fox.
Despite my being an "obtuse , entitled hypocrite " my position concerning Facebook and Twitter AND Google and AND Amazon was not thought out with just me in mind. I worry about a system where information is controlled by unelected entities. I don't want a doctrinaire dopehead like Dorsey deciding who gets to say what. Or an inexperienced narrow thinking nerd like Zuckerberg. Or the richest man in the world who already controls the Washington Post and Newsweek. ALL of whom enjoy immunity under Section 230. As to the rest of it we'll have to agree to disagree.
Btw, the word OBTUSE means "slow to understand ". I think I understand all too well. YOU are the one who intentionally confuses understanding and agreement.
We have argued this past the point of being boring.
You are not going to like this but the U.S. responsibility for those trying to enter illegally is minimal. We more than meet international standards for humane detention. Were I a parent who tried to enter the country illegally I would hold MYSELF responsible for what happened to me and my children. I would know that detention in the U.S. is a lot better ; a lot more humane than facilities in Guatemala and Mexico. Both of whom would prosecute me for illegal entry .
Without getting biographical , I DO know a LOT more about the Constitution and Constitutional Law than you think I do. For every professor or attorney saying that the Senate can impeach and punish a FORMER President that are just as many who recognize what is going on for what it is : A POLITICAL effort to blame Trump, his supporters and the Republicans for the riot. Why hasn't the media pursued WHY Chief Justice Roberts refused to preside over Trump's trial ?
Read Byron York's latest column about all the legitimate questions he asked the Capitol Police and their refusal to answer. Did you know that there is NO EVIDENCE that Sicknick was killed during or as a result of the riot ? That's right. He was NOT hit in the head with the fire extinguisher. His union said he died from a stroke. His autopsy is unfinished and has not come up with a cause of death. 3 others died from natural causes and the the Capitol Police won't say who shot Ashley Babbitt, the woman who was killed. These are just a few of the unanswered questions that most of the mainstream media won't touch. I am not trying to minimize the riot or that people died. Only that the Dems rushed to judgement to make political hay without having all the facts.
I don't like Trump. I think he is a horse's ass and behaved accordingly. The problem is there is still a First Amendment that applies just as much to him as it does to AOC , Pelosi , Maxine and BLM. Since he is now a private citizen, if he is really guilty or responsible then Biden's Justice Department ought to investigate him ; indict him if there is probable cause and prosecute him for Sedition or incitement to riot , criminal conspiracy , reusing postage stamps or anything they like . Good luck to them. Instead the Dems want to vent and punish him for what are probably not crimes.
Worst of all is the precedent that would be set. Would you like to see Republicans impeaching Clinton again for things he did while he was President ? Better yet, how about if they tried to impeach Obama for improperly spying on Trump and maybe went after Biden for going along when he was V.P. ? Not as far fetched as you might like to think.
Does reporting facts part of the time qualify them to spend the other time spent deliberately reporting misinformation as news instead of opinion? The voting machine comment was about many pundits, but mostly referenced the people and events leading up to the movie "Absolute Proof."
It seems you are implying that after as the "nerds" create something, you want them to walk away from their own creations so you can use them any way you see fit and ignore their well-known terms of service. Well, there are plenty of platforms to fit your need of a mass outlet for any unchecked expression: Parler, Gab, Telegram, 8kun, etc. Don't be upset because they don't have the market share and/or engineering resilience. Also, nothing stops you from becoming or enlisting those "nerds" and starting your own competitor as well.
Speaking of parler, they fired their ceo because he wanted to limit Q and the like. The powerful partisan Mercer family disagrees There is also the deal where trump’s reps met with parler executives to discuss owning 40% of Parler. That was in June, perhaps that is part of the reason conservatives started to care about 230. Under their dream reforms having a little closed off community where hate could fester would be great for recruitment. It won’t because eventually they will be sued or there will be another event like the 1/6 or Unite the right and shut down but conservatives don’t understand 230. The outed ceo understood that every website will have in their TOS language that prohibits violence, these groups eventually ALL go that path.
There is a lot of talk about social media being a public service, I don’t agree with that. But let’s say it is, isn’t there a greater responsibility then to quell hate speech and violence for the public good? That would be the death of a lot the conservative fringe sites.
https://www.axios.com/parler-ceo-tru...b022b2f48.html
WHO are you talking about ?
I can turn it around and show that CNN, MSNBC and the Big 3 Networks are just as bad. So what ?
You either refuse to acknowledge the power of platforms like Twitter and try to slap a veneer of " private property " over what have become public forums. If , IF Dorsey et al were even handed in applying their terms of service you would have a much better argument. The fact is they have done no such thing and have played favorites. For now, let them keep it up. There is already a building backlash that those platforms are not going to like. One of my concerns is that some in Congress will go too far . I don't want to see any message control or censorship beyond the wild extremes as I have posted about ad nauseum.
you don’t have to get biographical but could you list one active constitutional law expert who has this opinion that are still able to teach at non private universities. Hell you could have can throw in an expert at a think tank, even though they are then an employee representing their company. York is a political commentator.
you seem to think along the lines of people like bill barr who seem to believe that the president was intended to be special. That is not what I was taught. The mention of throwing a sitting president out of office was added because in the states they didn’t have it so the founders wanted at least some(ineffective) way to remove the president. Adding that did not remove the ability to convict a former president for crimes committed in office. If that is what the founders wanted they would have stated it.
I've addressed this whataboutism many times: "but they do it too" is not a good argument to not treat both equally.
No, it's just that their "power" is completely irrelevant to their statuses as private companies. These platforms do not belong to the people. They are the exclusive property of private companies that own and operate them. This includes how the organizations allow and disallow allow their creations to be used. Maybe you think they should be public, but that does mean they are public.
We showed you evidence that Twitter played favorites in favor of Trump with the @SuspendThePres and @realDonaldTrump accounts. So I will ask again: why is it that you never once posted about Trump receiving years of preferential treatment since the 2016 primary season, but are now up in arms over one month of what you view as disadvantageous treatment? How convenient!
We'll have to wait for that backlash to result in something then. It's not our decision to make. And those extremes are subjective; people have their own limits. You admitted you are against people denying historical events, but completely support people disseminating disinformation about other events like the 2020 general election results. How convenient again!
Congratulations. You have just gotten an F in Reading Comprehension. I have NEVER supported knowing or intentional dissemination of incorrect or factually delinquent information. I've lost count of how many times I have posted that Trump and his supporters were FOS about the result of the Election.
Byron York is respected columnist. I didn't cite him as anything resembling a Constitutional expert. His recent column that I cited called into serious question some , repeat SOME of the factual claims being made by the Impeachment Managers.
As for law professors expressing anything from serious reservations to outright opposition to Impeaching Trump NOW , they include Alan Dershowitz ( No Eagle - he is NOT a crackpot but a highly respected Constitutional lawyer . He's also written more books than you've probably read lol . Just kidding ); Ann Althouse Of the University Of Wisconsin who has described and explained how Roberts wanting nothing to do with the current farce makes it a nullity: Eugene Kontorovich of The Scalia Law School at George Mason who explains how and why it is dangerous to pursue FORMER Presidents with Impeachment ; Jonathan Turley of George Washington and Philip Bobbitt of Columbia.
I know all about the letter signed by 170 so-called law professors and Constitutional scholars who say that Impeachment is proper. First of all , academics are notoriously liberal and worse yet, believe in flexible interpretation of the Constitution. They too often ignore plain language and the Founder's intent to arrive at results that they like.
I understand the anger with Trump. I appreciate the sense of outrage at what a few nit-wits and nuts did at the Capitol. I have repeatedly posted that Trump's rally had no valid purpose whatsoever. I know about reports that Trump gleefully watched the assault . So far, not one person is willing to swear to it. It's nothing more than surmise and conjecture. Even after he is acquitted in the Senate , Trump is NOT home free. I have nothing against presenting evidence to a grand jury and indicting him for something. Exactly what is not at all clear but I won't shed a tear. There is no doubt that he did little to nothing to separate himself from extremists. He deserves to get tarred with the same brush. As long as it's legal and Constitutional it's fine with me.
Thank you, I will grant that everyone you listed other then Dershowitz is coming from an educated and informed place. Doesn’t mean I agree, I haven’t followed althouse lately but she is a centrist through and through, she doesn’t ever want to rock the boat. You will also find that their arguments are much more nuanced because they are academics. You added the point that academics are liberal, well what about all those people? I always had a conservative professor in constitutional law classes. They were often prominent voices in the departments I spent time in. I still turned out how I did because they knew enough about the subject to inform about the basics without distorting the source material, that comes later. I will say that most of these scholars are worried about a slippery slope type of situation, which is fair but it doesn’t take into account the obvious crimes trump committed, which most if given truth serum would admit is too far. Look at bill Barr
now Dershowitz is a whole other thing. It is amazing how such a free speech advocate loves to threaten to sue everyone. Either he loses or he never follows through for some reason. Has been in a legal battle with his Epstein accuser and despite this she has been legally allowed to make statements in media that he raped her. Also this article goes over his opinion during the first impeachment which despite being over very different charges, can still be rounded to “the president can’t do bad things”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...ademes-margins
Also this is the level of knowledge his lawyers are bringing to the table. MSU professor cited in Trump’s own briefs has said he was misquoted multiple times.
https://mobile.twitter.com/profbrian...22179220189184
No they haven't. You're getting your information from dishonest sources. Nobody was banned from Twitter for their political views. They were banned for inciting violence that led to five people being killed. There is no legal basis for your argument that government should control how private businesses run their platforms.
Why should you be the one who decides what is allowable for Twitter to have posted on their platform, rather than Twitter?