Sorry how does legislating the internet fix this?

It blocks it ahead of time.

No it doesn't lol

It forces the issue to stop censorship for the meantime.

They can just fucking overturn that shit

What?

No they can't.

If you're required to host all political discussion as a public square, there's nothing to overturn.

That's the most retarded solution I've ever heard

Unless you are saying the laws applied to shopping malls and telephone lines for nearly a half century are unconstitutional.

Not an argument.

>all political discussion

It cannot possibly be that broad

Or you're just saying fuck property rights

Fine. If you want a more specific solution, I can find it.

But there's pretty standard precidents.

Which is what I'm advocating for.

The only way Trump would put hate speech production in is if it is hate speech protection for trump, which honestly nobody wants to do. Except trump.

He's saying the dems will

After Trump leaves

Or they get rid of him somehow or something.

It doesn't really matter, it's very near future from what I can tell.

But the thing is that either the Dems can't cuck the supreme court, or you were fucked anyway

You place way too much emphasis on precidents.

The arguments to overturn your precidents are common in law schools.

More common than the arguments for the status quo.

And the forces of censorship want to make it even more that way.

You're naive if you think the goal isn't to turn the censorious and one-sided style of academia into the broader society.

>it's easy to overturn the checks and balances of the country
>it's impossible to overturn a regulation or law

And there are reasons the arguments are so one sided in the academy.

Sure. Fine. You can overturn or change things later.

But the regulations are coming.

Then they're coming no matter what

And the power is all one sided once the censorship is sufficiently underway.

And there's fuck all you can do about it by your own logic

No, I'm saying you force open the channel so you can *fight at all*

You'd lose the platform and then just say "lol we just burn it" without a fight.

>blue wave
>dems get majority
Oh boy, how do you fight now?

I don't know. Which is why this needed to be done yesterday.

Oooh now who could it be? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1037880524516282370?s=19

My bet is Mattis

>we need to change a changeable factor before people can inevitably change it

SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

Like literally from the perspective you're arguing, abandon ship is the more logical option

Mattis would never do this anonymous leaking shit.

I'm arguing this from *your* rebuttals m8

@Beemann non squitar

Please use one fallacy right today

Hmm, older, conservative, Male

I'm done you're worse than a brick wall @Beemann

Yeah that doesn't exactly narrow it down...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump>

Atleast the brick wall doesn't misunderstand fallacies.

If Mattis wanted to stop Trump from doing something he'd tell him to his face. Mattis isn't some coward who would stoop to this shit.

Honestly, how much does it matter? There's probably a whole cabal. It may not have even been penned by someone we'd name recognize.

Like a 2nd or 3rd in command of some agency like the FBI.

>misused adhom
>misused non sequitur
>NoU

I guess if an official did write it the upside is that it becomes hard for media to deny the existence of a 'deep state'.

They quit that story a little while ago.

Its now that the deep state is doing a patriotic duty to resist Trump.

We were always at war with Eurasia, Comrade

"Whether or not it's actually true is irrelevant." - MSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtdY2inXCtU

Dems are the reason Kavanaugh is getting in, the idiots thought to short term in changing the rules to get their own and now its backfiring

he seems like a good canedate anyway

so i dont mind

he isn't. trump nominated him 🙄

Those Senate rules could've been changed at any time. And it's not like Dems really care about the precedent or taking credit for it.

what DO the dems care about, though?

Winning.

Power.

having someone i agree with on gun regulation doesent hurt

So i know we are all freaking out about how the Dems are nuts and all, and while i largely agree, we gotta remember that Repubs got some nut jobs too. Like remember every presidency the loosing side says that they want to get rid of the electoral college

@devpav wrong

keep these things in perspective

they care about diversity

trans

inclusivity

lip service tbh

illegals

Pfft.

murders rapists etc]'

most establishment Dems arent serious about that stuff

they only advocate for votes

muh votes

propagating non issues so they can still have jobs

basically

muh racism

if racism disappears then they dont have a job

We gotta watch the newbies more

I wouldnt doubt there are some sane dems out there

we gotta amplify them

not gonna lie there used to be some sane ones not sure who is sane anymore

there are def some republicans who fucking suck

rubio fucking sucks

cruz sucks sometimes

thats just off the top of my head

i can name more shitty dems than repubs

What are the Dems going to use as a rallying cry after Trump's second term?

That's the real conundrum

idk