In the last presidential debate and on Twitter, Kamala Harris has called for the permanent removal of Donald Trump for Twitter.

She's actually doubling down and making this like a core talking point and trying to go to Elizabeth Warren into defending it, which Warren resigned,

like I said, no, and then carried on.

But here's where I'm conflicted because the person who came to Trump's defense, the most prominent individual,

when asked is Mark Zuckerberg.

And now I have to say, and Mark Zuckerberg gave a speech about free speech and the policing of political speech and content on Facebook.

And he said he's going to err on the side of free speech.

Now at face value, I've got to say, I actually agree with Mark Zuckerberg.

And I'm actually impressed.

And he defended Donald Trump's social media account.

Here's a thing.

Facebook recently banned the likes of Laura Lumer, Miley and Opelus and Paul Joseph Watson.

And many people viewed it as overtly partisan because those individuals are not dangerous as Facebook tried to claim.

They're just hyperbolic, I guess? Well, so what?

They have opinions. They're allowed to have their opinions.

And they shouldn't have been banned over it, no matter what you think, no matter how bombastic they may be, they didn't break the law.

And they're carrying out with their lives.

So I will say, Mark Zuckerberg, at face value, I agree.

But I must admit, I don't trust you. I don't trust you or what you've done.

But I got to say this, whenever someone does something good, I will always praise it.

So in this regard, Mark Zuckerberg absolutely deserves us to err on the side of respect and positivity.

If Mark continues down this course of defending the rights of individuals and people to speak freely, well then things are going to get better.

...