No, not me. It's called federal law and national security.

I agree with the Chan. myself. The more I hear of her, I think she has made some good calls. Maybe not everyone agrees, but the few things I have read about her are signs of a strong leader.

I am extremely sorry for those who lost their lives at the Capitol and have just expressed that in a separate post. I have a different viewpoint here than you do. In fact given all the tumult that has ensued I feel all in Congress who continue to oppose addressing the concerns of The People by forming an Post-Election Commission are completely governing only to their base. Further, their push of their own agendas in trying to remove other lawmakers because they had objections are in fact political whims and a stated violation of their Oaths of Office. The lawmakers had a DUTY to represent The People's voices. Why does Congress wish to silence democratic representation?

@Flowerwall We definitely do not agree.
There was no election fraud.
The "concerns of the People" were rooted in the lies 45 and his enablers were telling.

There isn't a shred of evidence to prove ANY of the claims of widespread election fraud.
There was no reason to take any of these claims seriously.

The ONLY ones who violated their oaths are the ones who supported those ridiculous conspiracies, and encouraged insurrection.

@powder I am not familiar with all of his career. Only read a little bit. Is he also critical of Trump or a fan? I thought I read critical. But the point is , what is the ban about? The little I read described him as libertarian/conservative. What could he possibly be saying that's getting him banned? What am I missing? Or is it just out in the open political persecution?

@KKGator "The "concerns of the People" were rooted in the lies 45 and his enablers were telling." Says the Left. Can anyone hold a different point of view? Can we? You seem to think it's only your view or you kick em out of Congress!

@Flowerwall I'm not "on the left", I'm not even a democrat.
Sixty-two different courts, at multiple levels, threw out every case brought by 45's lawyers for lack of evidence. Some of them presided over by 45-appionted judges.

It's not about "a different point if view".
Not even a little bit.
It's about believing things that are not true.
Those who knowingly supported those lies, and helped create the situation we have now MUST be held accountable.

You have no facts to base your arguments on.
Not one.

@KKGator Well one of my state Supreme Court justices denounced the court's decision to reject case and rightfully so giving a very harsh rebuke of the decision. There are mountains of evidence being presented by some it needs to be examined fully and discussed openly. Why is that so problematic?

@Flowerwall If there were factual evidence, it would come to light by now.
The preponderance of factual evidence is that it was a fair election.

It's problematic because it's fueling violence and insurrection.

@KKGator " It's problematic because it's fueling violence and insurrection." Okay, so what's the best way to ease it now? Shut ppl up? Or talk about it in a factual, clearly examined way? What would leaders do?

@Flowerwall It HAS been laid out in a clearly factually examined way, repeatedly.

The ones who won't stop are the same ones who refuse to accept the facts. The same ones who are perpetually perpetrating the lies.
Including some of the "leaders".
They should all have to accept accountability for their words and actions.

@KKGator Where? I would like to examine the report that pulls it all together.

@powder When social media is found to be hacked and lies bombard the space to sway elections or on Trumps case incite a revolution. It isnt censorship, it is the responsibility of the media. Even socialmedia.

@powder I do t consider the hate mongering and propaganda about election and white supremacy bi -partisan.