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.