Trump an advocate for "free speech?"

[Astrostar]

Eight months later, Trump’s promise to ‘bring back free speech’ collapses into farce

Months after the president said he’d “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech,” it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

www.msnbc.com

Right! As long as it's speech that he approves, i.e., speech that praises, venerates and bemoans Charles Kirk. Any speech that depicts the real Kirk as a loudmouthed violence loving far right radical is unacceptable to Trump and therefore not free speech.

The entire point of Trump's EO was to protect the mongering voices of the far, far right, which he is a part of. Speech of anyone else does not fit the standard.

Bigly!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Eight months later, Trump’s promise to ‘bring back free speech’ collapses into farce

Months after the president said he’d “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech,” it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

www.msnbc.com

Right! As long as it's speech that he approves, i.e., speech that praises, venerates and bemoans Charles Kirk. Any speech that depicts the real Kirk as a loudmouthed violence loving far right radical is unacceptable to Trump and therefore not free speech.

The entire point of Trump's EO was to protect the mongering voices of the far, far right, which he is a part of. Speech of anyone else does not fit the standard.

Bigly!!!

Trump is a fascist thug, enemy of free speech and the First Amendment.

 

[TimFitz]

Trump is the biggest snowflake on earth.

His skin is so thin, it's practically transparent.

Harry Truman said of politicians being attacked or mocked by media that "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

Trump has never been able to take any heat. He wants a press that glorifies him and promotes his tropes.

 

[PeterPilot]

Eight months later, Trump’s promise to ‘bring back free speech’ collapses into farce

Months after the president said he’d “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech,” it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

www.msnbc.com

Right! As long as it's speech that he approves, i.e., speech that praises, venerates and bemoans Charles Kirk. Any speech that depicts the real Kirk as a loudmouthed violence loving far right radical is unacceptable to Trump and therefore not free speech.

The entire point of Trump's EO was to protect the mongering voices of the far, far right, which he is a part of. Speech of anyone else does not fit the standard.

Bigly!!!

My bet is Trump knew Charlie was going to be taken out. You're right that Trumpanyahu doesn't give a damn about the rule of law or the Constitution, but you're wrong about Charlie. His intentions were good, but he was young and naive. That he had become openly critical of his Zionist donors is why he was taken out.

 

[Dante]

Eight months later, Trump’s promise to ‘bring back free speech’ collapses into farce

Months after the president said he’d “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech,” it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

www.msnbc.com

Right! As long as it's speech that he approves, i.e., speech that praises, venerates and bemoans Charles Kirk. Any speech that depicts the real Kirk as a loudmouthed violence loving far right radical is unacceptable to Trump and therefore not free speech.

The entire point of Trump's EO was to protect the mongering voices of the far, far right, which he is a part of. Speech of anyone else does not fit the standard.

Bigly!!!

It's hard to argue free speech with loose dentures

 

[sealybobo]

Eight months later, Trump’s promise to ‘bring back free speech’ collapses into farce

Months after the president said he’d “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech,” it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

www.msnbc.com

Right! As long as it's speech that he approves, i.e., speech that praises, venerates and bemoans Charles Kirk. Any speech that depicts the real Kirk as a loudmouthed violence loving far right radical is unacceptable to Trump and therefore not free speech.

The entire point of Trump's EO was to protect the mongering voices of the far, far right, which he is a part of. Speech of anyone else does not fit the standard.

Bigly!!!

Where are all the Free Speech warriors on the right? Not a peep from any of them.

I think 2nd Amendment warriors would be okay if Trump got a hold of anyone who voted for Kamala and took their guns away. I bet you won't hear one Republican here say that's not true. They'd love it.

Or how about a law saying trannies are crazy so that should disqualify them from owning guns? I'm sure Republicans would be okay with those Americans losing their right to own a gun. Bet.

National debate about gun control reignited in the wake of the Valentine’s Day 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 14 students and three staff members. Two weeks after the shooting, a White House meeting aimed at hashing out responsive legislation was held.

At one point during the meeting, then-Vice President Mike Pence explained a potential legislative option where states would be given more resources to recognize potentially dangerous individuals and take them to court to confiscate their weapons. Trump jumped in and suggested skipping over the courts. Here’s the full quote, with the key sections highlighted:

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

 

[schmidlap]

Where are all the Free Speech warriors on the right? Not a peep from any of them.

I think 2nd Amendment warriors would be okay if Trump got a hold of anyone who voted for Kamala and took their guns away. I bet you won't hear one Republican here say that's not true. They'd love it.

Or how about a law saying trannies are crazy so that should disqualify them from owning guns? I'm sure Republicans would be okay with those Americans losing their right to own a gun. Bet.

National debate about gun control reignited in the wake of the Valentine’s Day 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 14 students and three staff members. Two weeks after the shooting, a White House meeting aimed at hashing out responsive legislation was held.

At one point during the meeting, then-Vice President Mike Pence explained a potential legislative option where states would be given more resources to recognize potentially dangerous individuals and take them to court to confiscate their weapons. Trump jumped in and suggested skipping over the courts. Here’s the full quote, with the key sections highlighted:

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

I actually found one in Trump's regime!

“Free speech is the foundation of our democratic republic. We must protect it at all costs, because without it, we’ll be lost... History shows this dark pattern: when ideas cannot withstand scrutiny—whether its the ideology of religious or political fanatics—their defenders turn to intimidation, censorship, and violence. They kill and terrorize their opponents and the truth into silence.”

MSN

​

 

[sealybobo]

I actually found one in Trump's regime!

“Free speech is the foundation of our democratic republic. We must protect it at all costs, because without it, we’ll be lost... History shows this dark pattern: when ideas cannot withstand scrutiny—whether its the ideology of religious or political fanatics—their defenders turn to intimidation, censorship, and violence. They kill and terrorize their opponents and the truth into silence.”

MSN

​

It's crazy that Republicans claim they want to preserve the American way but everything they are doing is so unAmerican. They hate the gains the left has taken over the years, through democracy. Take for example gay marriage. They hated giving gays equal rights. And boy are they fighting back. They found that attacking gays is a winning strategy. It doesn't cost them any votes and it riles up homophobes around the country. And boy are there a lot of them. My brother is one. You should hear him cry about them "shoving it in his face". He has a BLM/WOKE neighbor. Her kid is a tranny now. Girl who thinks she's a boy. Her BLM black college professor boyfriend plays video games all day. In other words, look at the life she has made for herself.

She should be free to live her life however she wants. But look what a mess she is in. Tranny son/daughter, good for nothing black boyfriend. Probably puts it to her good but that's about it. Well, actually, maybe that's enough. LOL

 

[schmidlap]

It's crazy that Republicans claim they want to preserve the American way but everything they are doing is so unAmerican. They hate the gains the left has taken over the years, through democracy. Take for example gay marriage. They hated giving gays equal rights. And boy are they fighting back. They found that attacking gays is a winning strategy. It doesn't cost them any votes and it riles up homophobes around the country. And boy are there a lot of them. My brother is one. You should hear him cry about them "shoving it in his face". He has a BLM/WOKE neighbor. Her kid is a tranny now. Girl who thinks she's a boy. Her BLM black college professor boyfriend plays video games all day. In other words, look at the life she has made for herself.

She should be free to live her life however she wants. But look what a mess she is in. Tranny son/daughter, good for nothing black boyfriend. Probably puts it to her good but that's about it. Well, actually, maybe that's enough. LOL

Social progress in America was being steadily realized by expanding equality, free of discrimination based upon race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. while the nation prospered by respect for higher learning, science, medicine, while addressing its humanitarian obligations, etc.

That had been recognized by most folks as an ennobling quest.

Equality did not please some whose profile had previously bestowed upon them disproportionate inherited wealth and power, however.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Eight months later, Trump’s promise to ‘bring back free speech’ collapses into farce

Months after the president said he’d “stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech,” it’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

www.msnbc.com

Right! As long as it's speech that he approves, i.e., speech that praises, venerates and bemoans Charles Kirk. Any speech that depicts the real Kirk as a loudmouthed violence loving far right radical is unacceptable to Trump and therefore not free speech.

The entire point of Trump's EO was to protect the mongering voices of the far, far right, which he is a part of. Speech of anyone else does not fit the standard.

Bigly!!!

/-----/ Loudmouth??? Posted by someone who never listed to Kirk.