[corimaith]

>Repubs put it in with Ukraine aid to force it through.

The bill passed with the House with 352-65, which I recall this forum often says is more representative of the population than the Senate. You're implying that Republicans bundled it against the opinions of the Democrats when it reality it was more of matter of expendiency for a bipartisan addition with the foreign aid bill. Biden obviously signed it off, the Democrats overwhelmingly support this bill, it's the Republicans who care more about free speech anyways.

>And a consensus doesn’t mean it isn’t against the principle of the country and the first amendment. Literally. Banning. Speech.

That's just your individual interpretation that the divestment bill conflicts with the "principles" and the first amendment, clearly the house, the senate, the courts do not. America dosen't share your opinion on that matter. A more obvious principle of American Principles is respecting the democratic process even if you don't personally agree with the conclusion.

[xcrunner529]

No he couldn’t have not signed it because that would mean aid was not passed. I literally spelled it out for you.

America and any citizen can want a dictatorship. That doesn’t mean it was part of the founding principles. That’s a logical fallacy you’re making.

[corimaith]

>No he couldn’t have not signed it because that would mean aid was not passed.

Biden literally said if they passed it in the House, he would sign it. You're trying to insinuate that this is not what the Democrats or Biden wanted when all indications of their statements and actions show the exact opposite.

>America and any citizen can want a dictatorship. That doesn’t mean it was part of the founding principles. That’s a logical fallacy you’re making.

No, the logical fallacy you are making is that you are placing your interpretation that this is a violation of the first amendment as an objective fact, when it's just an opinion that the House, Senate, Courts and the Presidents disagree with you on.

[xcrunner529]

No, I am arguing just against your point that something can’t be against the first amendment/constitution etc just because the majority of Americans are for it.