> but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. This is not all he said, nor does this capture the key context. The argument

> but banning the president - who said LEAVE IN PEACE is what we should be doing. This is not all he said, nor does this capture the key context. The argument is simple: the risk of allowing Trump to continue to have access to Facebook and Twitter outweighs the benefit. I would like to point out that the president has an unmatched ability to put out information, independent of social media, including: whitehouse.gov, press releases, press briefings, and the major television networks.