> Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state yes, it can be. > It's no more an endorsement of "violence" War _is_ violence. > conflating legit

> Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state yes, it can be. > It's no more an endorsement of "violence" War _is_ violence. > conflating legitimate acts of the state with extralegal personal criminality Well, you're saying that I equate the president's tweets as his personal threats. That's orthogonal to extralegal. It is also irrelevant, for the reasons I'm about to lay out: The Terms of Service are the basis of a contract for using the site[1]. Unless there is a specific clause for "legitimate acts of state" then its a binary choice. Choosing not to implement them equally is a political choice. look, its perfectly possibly to not agree with a person, but insist that legal/procedural process is adhered to. The president is a person like any other, and subject to the same legal/procedural process as the rest of us. [1] well usually.