NorthDallas40
Displaced Hillbilly
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 55,060
- Likes
- 78,576
So close...I doubt we agree.
The decision to ban him was obviously justified, regardless of what these “shills” said.
He was cheering on criminal activity that was being carried out in his name over a claim of fraud that he and his campaign made and advanced on their platform without any proof whatsoever.
He should have been permanently removed from the outset and then this board’s decision wouldn’t have been interesting or newsworthy.
No we don’t agree if you think banning him was justified since it’s selective and not applied evenly and consistently. Which the board actually did point to.
Sounds like we might agree that this “oversight board” is a useless rubber stamp lacking credibility though.