• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech

noonereal said:
So you agree. It has no place in 2024.
Awesome
Now you, i and Trump agree.
Click to expand...
I never said that. Why would you lie about what I said?

I absolutely believe that the Constitution is still 100% valid in 2024 and we have an established procedure to modify it as needed.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Thank you for being open about your beliefs.

Can I nominate you for administrator of the Harris/Walz “Report a Trump voter” hotline? We need a way to fill the camps.
Click to expand...
Actually I've already accepted a position to help create a registry of all American gun owners. You know, so we can keep track of you.
 
noonereal said:
Why do people post such immature posts?

I have so had it with this crap.
Click to expand...
mememe_8122c56fd71afc7b3d42d37bce11a378-1.jpg
 
JMB1911A1 said:
Thank you for being open about your beliefs.

Can I nominate you for administrator of the Harris/Walz “Report a Trump voter” hotline? We need a way to fill the camps.
Click to expand...
You can nominate me if it pays enough.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
reductio ad absurdum

Argument rejected.
Click to expand...
You labeled his post without saying why, and you didn't answer anything. His post stands since you've ignored his points.
 

A Harris-Walz administration would be a nightmare for free speech​


I see you missed a dose of anti-hyperbole pills this morning

Maybe double up the afternoon dose.
 
JMB1911A1 said:

Good article. Jonathan Turley is not conservative at all but he recognizes the danger of the Harris/Walz ticket to the 1A.

“As Benjamin Franklin warned, “In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech….Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man.”

With her selection of Walz, Harris has decided to put free speech on the ballot in this election. It is a debate that our nation should welcome, as it did in 1800.”
Click to expand...
www.project2025.org

Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project

Presidential Transition Project The 2025 Presidential Transition Project paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars.
www.project2025.org www.project2025.org
 
soap box said:
You labeled his post without saying why, and you didn't answer anything. His post stands since you've ignored his points.
Click to expand...
His post was sarcasm (note the tags). It wasn’t a debate and didn’t make any points.
 
NatMorton said:
I don’t think today’s Democrats are that far away from those in the UK who support the jailing people for social media posts that might incite violence.

Ultimately, progressivism comes down to one word: control. There’s no reason to believe speech would somehow be immune to that.
Click to expand...
👆 Biden Voter
 
JMB1911A1 said:
I never said that. Why would you lie about what I said?

I absolutely believe that the Constitution is still 100% valid in 2024 and we have an established procedure to modify it as needed.
Click to expand...

How does it address the information age?
AI?
All sorts of things.
And you know damned well the constitution can no longer be modified so SCOTUS has become a legislative body.
 
Irredentist said:
Oh I'm just an administrative worker. I'll be well protected, while the troops round up all conservative dissidents.
Click to expand...
So, you want to get rid of The Posse Comitatus Act and use US military troops against the civilian population?
 
noonereal said:
How does it address the information age?
AI?
All sorts of things.
And you know damned well the constitution can no longer be modified so SCOTUS has become a legislative body.
Click to expand...
Well that was short.
noonereal said:
More grade school crap.

Yes, bye.
Click to expand...

As for your post, the basics of our rights are not dependent on the medium. And all you have to do to get an Amendment passed is have 38 states support it. So maybe your ideas are not as popular as you think.

And please tell me how SCOTUS is a legislative body since they have written and enacted ZERO laws.
 
CaughtInThe said:
www.project2025.org

Project 2025 | Presidential Transition Project

Presidential Transition Project The 2025 Presidential Transition Project paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars.
www.project2025.org www.project2025.org
Click to expand...
This had me cracking up before the end of the first sentence:
"Project 2025 is a historic movement, brought together by over 100 respected organizations from across the conservative movement, to take down the Deep State and return the government to the people." :ROFLMAO:

They aren't going to return anything to the people after they rob the country blind. They would hold onto it with an iron fist, exploit it, and make some serious long green on it, and generally **** it up for future generations. Gee, thanks Project 2025. This needs to be smothered in the crib!!!!!
 
JMB1911A1 said:
So, you want to get rid of The Posse Comitatus Act and use US military troops against the civilian population?
Click to expand...
The dissidents, yes. We can ignore Habeas Corpus too while we're at it, just like Abe Lincoln did, the greatest president in American history.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
His post was sarcasm (note the tags). It wasn’t a debate and didn’t make any points.
Click to expand...

Yes he made all points that describe how there are limits to the 1A. Try getting in an airport security check line and start telling everyone you have a right to Carry your pistol on the plane. The 1A has restrictions. If you want to say where we draw the line, that's reasonable. But saying the amendment means a person can say whatever they want in any circumstance is to support your flawed assertions that the Dem candidates are against free speech. They're not, and I'm not buying it either.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
<SARC>Libel and slander laws violate the First Amendment and must be stomped out immediately.

Those so-called "Truth In Advertising" laws violate the First Amendment and must be stomped out immediately.

Those so-called "Anti-perjury" laws violate the First Amendment and must be stomped out immediately.

All of those so-called "regulations" which impose penalties for providing false information violate the First Amendment and must be stomped out immediately.

All of those so-called "anti-fraud" laws violate the First Amendment and must be stomped out immediately.

Americans MUST have TOTAL freedom to say anything that they want to say REGARDLESS of whether or not there is an ounce of truth in it because that is what the Founding Fathers had as their Original Intent.</SARC>
Click to expand...
But but but, i am a strict constitutionalist.
 
soap box said:
Yes he made all points that describe how there are limits to the 1A. Try getting in an airport security check line and start telling everyone you have a right to Carry your pistol on the plane.
Click to expand...
You have the right to SAY it. That is protected under the 1A. The actual right to carry it would be a 2A issue, not 1A.
soap box said:
The 1A has restrictions. If you want to say where we draw the line, that's reasonable. But saying the amendment means a person can say whatever they want in any circumstance is to support your flawed assertions that the Dem candidates are against free speech. They're not, and I'm not buying it either.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom