hog88
Your ray of sunshine
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 114,220
- Likes
- 161,687
The law is already well defined when dealing with threatening speech and virtually no on fromeither party has any problem with that so I feel you are throwing out red herrings. The question we are facing in America right now is if the government can restrict non violent speech or opinions under the guise of either „hate speech“ or „disinformation“. And of course, such determinations would be made by the government which clearly is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the first Amendment.Why are bomb threats against the law? And is that an appropriate restriction on free speech?
So you will take ANY disavowal of liberal positions by Kamala (including ones she is on record previously supporting) at face value; but expect us to assume that something Trump disavows is automatically a lie?
The thing people attacking Project 2025 will never acknowledge are the dozens of other policy recommendation papers put out by other think tanks; both right wing and left wing. Most of them get ignored. I guarantee you that I could find plenty of recommendations from leftist think tanks that almost any American would find absolutely abhorrent.Not only did he oppose it, he never supported it. But Luther won’t let facts get in his way
I don't assume trumpers will, otherwise they wouldn't be trumpers to begin with.So you will take ANY disavowal of liberal positions by Kamala (including ones she is on record previously supporting) at face value; but expect us to assume that something Trump disavows is automatically a lie?