• 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!

Kiss conservatism goodye, debt up 84% over last year

pjw442 said:
We need to be completely honest here and admit that both political parties have individuals that lie and deceive voters in order to gain some sort of ideological leverage over their counterparts. When you have representatives that represent their political party instead of their constituents, what you get is the type of lunacy that we witness after every election. My original post denoted a difference in economic policy perspective. I think your attitude regarding these two political parties justifies an equivalence of them. You're doing the same thing that they do if your making the case that one political party is more corrupt than the other.
Click to expand...

When multiple members of the GOP admit that the deficit ballooning tax cuts were done because their donors threatened to stop contributing without them it is easy to see which party is more corrupt. The fact that their donors own them makes them whores of the first order.

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/20/5-times-republicans-admitted-they-work-for-rich-donors_partner/
 
iguanaman said:
When multiple members of the GOP admit that the deficit ballooning tax cuts were done because their donors threatened to stop contributing without them it is easy to see which party is more corrupt. The fact that their donors own them makes them whores of the first order.

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/20/5-times-republicans-admitted-they-work-for-rich-donors_partner/
Click to expand...

Please tell us all why you hate keeping more of what you earn and since you are so concerned about the deficit, why aren't you and your radical friends sending more to the Federal Govt.?

You love those leftwing sites that just make you look foolish and totally ignore the largest monthly budge surplus in US History in April. Salon Magazine is a leftwing Rag, Think Progress is a leftwing think tank all spreading propaganda that makes you look foolish

By the way, Sept. 17 article?? Why are you so jealous of what others have or pay in taxes?
 
OscarLevant said:
That wasnt' my point. Conservatives have argued they are the party of "fiscal conservatism".

Seems like the GOP is going in the opposite direction this time of fiscal conservatism above and beyond the usual.
Click to expand...

The numbers show the right has only one actual priority, fake trickle down as excuse for time after time tax cuts for wealthy donors with no spending offsets.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...post1068394082 (If Trump is Removed From Office for Any Reason Other Than Russia Collusion? It WAS a Witch Hunt!)
09/30/81: Last day of last Carter fiscal year. National debt: $997 billion (Debt increase, final year (1980-81): $90 billion)
09/28/89: Last day of last Reagan fiscal year. National debt: $2,857 billion (Debt increase, final year (1988-89): $255 billion)
09/30/93: Last day of last GHW Bush fiscal year. National debt: $4,411 billion (Debt increase, final year (1992-93): $347 billion)
09/30/01: Last day of last Clinton fiscal year. National debt: $5,807 billion (Debt increase, final year (2000-01): $133 billion)
09/30/09: Last day of last GW Bush fiscal year. National debt: $11,909 billion (Debt increase, final year (2008-9): $1,988 billion)
09/29/17: Last day of last Obama fiscal year. National debt: $20,244 billion (Debt increase, final year (2016-17): $671 billion)
Click to expand...
DebtObama093016.jpg


DebtObama092917.jpg

https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
DebtTrump052418.jpg
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
What should we expect from the self-proclaimed "I Love Debt" President ?

Government set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year - Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...

There's many different factions that make up the general pool of conservatism. Neo-Conservatism, Traditional Conservatism, Religious conservatives, Social conservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, fiscal conservatives are just some. One can be one without being any of the others or one can fall into many of the different factions and still not be one or two others. You'll never find one that falls into every faction or group.

I fall into the more Traditional Conservative group which the second tenet is fiscal responsibility. In other words having a balance budget and a surplus to pay down the national debt. If one has to cut spending to do so, fine. If one has to raise taxes to do so, fine. With our massive debt, doing both in my opinion is a must. Now a lot of the so called fiscal conservatives believe in only low taxes.

The problem going back to Reagan and the Democratic controlled congress is neither party is fiscal responsible. It takes two to tango as the saying goes. Reagan who tripled the debt couldn't have done so without Democratic Controlled House first writing the spending bills and then passing them. All a president can do is either sign the spending bills, the budget or veto it. G.H.W. Bush also had a Democratic controlled congress who wrote and authorized everything the first Bush spent. Bush couldn't have spend a dime without the democratic congress's approval and passing of the spending bills.

Same with Bill Clinton over his last six years. A Democratic president and a Republican controlled congress increased the debt by approximately 1.8 trillion. G.W. Bush's first six years was an all Republican deal. But in his last two years it was Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic controlled House and Senate which wrote and passed the spending bills which led to 2 trillion dollars of the 4.8 trillion Bush ran up. Obama added 10 trillion, 3.5 trillion to the national debt as an all Democratic Party affair as the democrats controlled both chambers of congress for his first two years in office. The Republicans controlled the house over Obama's last six years, but the Democrats still controlled the senate until Obama's seventh year in office. It takes two to tango.

One can't blame one party or the other, it takes both. One can't put sole blame on any president, he can't do a thing or spend a dime without congress first writing and passing the spending bills. Fact is neither party believes in fiscal responsibility. Both parties are more than happy to spend this country into that fiscal abyss that is coming that we may never climb out of. Both major political parties are skipping down that road to financial ruin holding hands like tomorrow will never come.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Tax and spend is far wiser than "borrow and spend", and then squirrelling out of paying the debt and borrowing some more.
Click to expand...

Ah but borrow,spend, file for bankruptcy has always been trumps go to business model.

Americans wanted a "businessman" to lead the country however they elected a con artist who has a lot of people fooled into believing be is actually successful in business.The man can't even get a loan in the U.S.for Christ sake,..
 
MTAtech said:
Except that when Democrats try to increase taxes to pay for spending, Republicans stop them. Meanwhile, Republicans are not hesitant at all to raise spending and also cut taxes. Let me also remind you that the deficit fell under Obama -- most of which from the 2013 tax increases on the wealthy.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Youre a broken record MTA. The deficit fell because REPUBLICANS forced spending restraint on Obama. Revenue in 2016 was exactly the same after the tax cuts expired in 2013, as they were before the recession, when the tax cuts were in full effect.

2007 17.9

2015 18.1
2016 17.7
2017 17.3
2018 estimate 16.7

Meanwhile, spending came WAY down AFTER the sequestor was passed.

2009 24.4
2010 23.4
2011 23.4
2012 22.1
2013 20.9
2014 20.3
2015 20.5
2016 20.9
2017 20.8
2018 estimate 20.8
 
The Federal Reserve "bought" $2.4 trillion of U.S. Gov. debt, using funds created out of thin air as ledger entries.
The Fed announced it plans to sell its debt bonds but must now compete with the republican created debt acceleration
which also requires bigger Treasury debt auctions. In 2008, Federal Reserve balance sheet was about $950 billion.

Now the Federal Reserve, due to assets purchased during quantitative easing (QE), the program necessary for further economic stimulus after interest rates were reduced to zero,
leaves the Federal Reserve with a $4.4 trillion balance sheet.:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-political-criticism-fed-study-idUSKBN1EY01W

No one knows what will happen if another economic downturn begins while the Fed is trapped holding this $2.4 trillion Gov. debt on its balance sheet as government borrowing
rises because tax revenue falls with any appreciable downturn in economic activity.

So, the Gov. actually "sold" $2.4 trillion in Treasury bond auctions, to itself, via the Fed "buying" at those debt auctions simply by expanding the money supply through ledger entries,
just as when any bank lends to a non-government borrower.

It is unlikely the Fed. can sell the Treasury debt on its balance sheet at the pace it planned, while the government is increasing the size of its debt auctions due to the
imbalance in spending, aggravated by recent tax cutting, and this is already reflected in the current fiscal year debt escalation. So, the republicans may have precipitated a coming fiscal crisis. The only weapon the Fed has is ability to create money out of thin air to provide artificial demand at Treasury debt auctions. That works until it becomes a concern to reasonable people the world over.
 
Perotista said:
..... G.W. Bush's first six years was an all Republican deal. But in his last two years it was Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic controlled House and Senate which wrote and passed the spending bills which led to 2 trillion dollars of the 4.8 trillion Bush ran up. Obama added 10 trillion, 3.5 trillion to the national debt as an all Democratic Party affair as the democrats controlled both chambers of congress for his first two years in office.
Click to expand...

Your dishonest, BS prpaganda is evil, but I am confident you believe what I quoted above is reasonable. It is actually deliberately dishonest enough to disqualify you!

Your hyper partisanship is on full display. A presidential term begins on January 20, but each budget (fiscal) year begins on the prior Octiober first.

You, however, ignore that the rational way to calculate fiscal performance administration to administration is to factor a new administrations
first fiscal year as beginning on October first after an inauguration.

You scraped up every bit of debt you could find near republican administrations and assigned it all to democrats. Thank you!

These are the reliable numbers I posted on the immediately preceding page inthis thread.:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...post1068394082 (If Trump is Removed From Office for Any Reason Other Than Russia Collusion? It WAS a Witch Hunt!) (If Trump is Removed From Office for Any Reason Other Than Russia Collusion? It WAS a Witch Hunt!)
09/30/81: Last day of last Carter fiscal year. National debt: $997 billion (Debt increase, final year (1980-81): $90 billion)
09/28/89: Last day of last Reagan fiscal year. National debt: $2,857 billion (Debt increase, final year (1988-89): $255 billion) Total Reagan debt increase = $1.86 trillion
09/30/93: Last day of last GHW Bush fiscal year. National debt: $4,411 billion (Debt increase, final year (1992-93): $347 billion) Total GHW Bush debt increase = $1.55 trillion
09/30/01: Last day of last Clinton fiscal year. National debt: $5,807 billion (Debt increase, final year (2000-01): $133 billion) Total Clinton debt increase = $1.39 trillion
09/30/09: Last day of last GW Bush fiscal year. National debt: $11,909 billion (Debt increase, final year (2008-9): $1,988 billion) Total GW Bush debt increase = $6.10 trillion
09/29/17: Last day of last Obama fiscal year. National debt: $20,244 billion (Debt increase, final year (2016-17): $671 billion) Total Obama debt increase = $8.34 trillion
Click to expand...

The underpinnings of the Bush economy were already weakened beyond repair when Democrats gained control of the House on January 1, 2007.
Bush appointee at Treasury, Hank Paulsen controlled fiscal policy, not demcrats.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
spending came WAY down AFTER the sequestor was passed.

2009 24.4
2010 23.4
2011 23.4
2012 22.1
2013 20.9
2014 20.3
2015 20.5
2016 20.9
2017 20.8
2018 estimate 20.8
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense. If the sequester doesn't go into effect until January 2013, how the **** can you claim spending went down as a result? You can't! The real explanation comes by way of economic recovery, as automatic stabilizers and stimulus from the ARRA phase out.

Youre a broken record MTA. The deficit fell because REPUBLICANS forced spending restraint on Obama. Revenue in 2016 was exactly the same after the tax cuts expired in 2013, as they were before the recession, when the tax cuts were in full effect.

2007 17.9

2015 18.1
2016 17.7
2017 17.3
2018 estimate 16.7
Click to expand...

This is false as well.

fredgraph.png
 
post said:
......

The underpinnings of the Bush economy were already weakened beyond repair when Democrats gained control of the House on January 1, 2007.
Bush appointee at Treasury, Hank Paulsen controlled fiscal policy, not demcrats.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index

..The years 2006–2012 saw the largest crash in global real estate markets in recent history; whether this could have been predicted using the Case–Shiller index is up for dispute. Shiller did see some early signs. He released the second edition of Irrational Exuberance book in 2005, when, according to him, the data looked like "a rocket taking off".[2] In his book he expresses skepticism over "the long-run stability of home prices",[2] given that the rise in home prices was much higher than the rise in income. However, he refrains from explicitly stating that this may be a bubble, after all the period after World War II had seen a substantial rise in real prices without any subsequent drop as apparent in the chart. The prices peaked in the first quarter of 2006, when the index kept by Shiller recorded a level of 198.01, but fell rapidly after that to 113.89 in the first quarter of 2012.

Options and futures based on Standard and Poor's Case–Shiller index are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.[5]

The index is a simplification of home values and does not account for imputed rent and home mortgage interest deduction, both of which are included in profit/loss considerations for investment purposes....
Click to expand...

Housing price index chart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index#/media/File:Case_shiller_janv09.jpg

300+ mortgage lender failures by announcement date.:
The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter - "Imploded" Companies(tm) - Reference list

Blame this failure for example, on 68 days of democratic control of the House, or on home prices peaking a full year earlier?:
The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter - "Imploded" Companies(tm) - Reference list
2007-03-08 : New Century Financial Corp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century

...As of September 30, 2006, New Century reported that it had $25.1 billion in total assets, with total liabilities at $23 billion. At the end of the year, it reported $350 in cash and liquidity.[9]..
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-craig-phillips.html
The Man in Charge of Fixing Fannie and Freddie Knows Them All Too Well
By Gretchen Morgenson
April 7, 2017
You may not know much about Craig S. Phillips, special counselor to Steven Mnuchin, the United States Treasury secretary....

...Another financial crisis lawsuit filed against Morgan Stanley describes Mr. Phillips’s role at the firm, detailing his close association with New Century Financial, one of the wildest of the Wild West subprime lenders. Until New Century collapsed in a heap in early 2007, Morgan Stanley was its biggest financier and enabler.

Michael J. Missal, then a partner at the law firm K&L Gates in Washington, was the bankruptcy examiner in the New Century case. In his report, he described the firm’s “brazen obsession with increasing loan originations, without due regard to the risks associated with that business strategy.” Morgan Stanley helped feed that obsession by purchasing New Century’s loans. But it also provided the lender with the crucial money it needed to operate — known as warehouse funding. By August 2004, the Wall Street firm was offering a line of $3 billion to New Century, up from $400 million three years earlier, court documents show...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Youre a broken record MTA. The deficit fell because REPUBLICANS forced spending restraint on Obama. Revenue in 2016 was exactly the same after the tax cuts expired in 2013, as they were before the recession, when the tax cuts were in full effect.

2007 17.9

2015 18.1
2016 17.7
2017 17.3
2018 estimate 16.7

Meanwhile, spending came WAY down AFTER the sequestor was passed.

2009 24.4
2010 23.4
2011 23.4
2012 22.1
2013 20.9
2014 20.3
2015 20.5
2016 20.9
2017 20.8
2018 estimate 20.8
Click to expand...

What you are failing to grasp is that fractions have denominators. revenue as a p% of GDP has GDP as the denominator and revenue as the numerator variable. Example: if the numerator is 50 and the denominator is 100, then the ratio is 50%. However, what if the denominator is 200 and the numerator is 100? That's also 50%. Therefore, you can't claim that revenue was exactly the same in 2016 as in 2008 by looking at the ratio, since both variables, revenue AND GDP were rising. If you are claiming 2016 revenue was the same as 2008, you are wrong. 2016 was much higher.

fredgraph.png



Federal spending came down mainly because the economy was healing an less needed to be spent on unemployment payments and SNAP, which had a sharp reduction after 2013.

fredgraph.png
 
Last edited:
KLATTU said:
Conservatism hasn't died.
What has died is the notion that Republicans are conservatives.
Click to expand...

You guys have been saying that for over 40 years. Republicans are nothing more than a direct reflection of their American Conservative base. Since Nixon, American conservatives have cared far more about cultural issues than fiscal issues.
 
post said:
Your dishonest, BS prpaganda is evil, but I am confident you believe what I quoted above is reasonable. It is actually deliberately dishonest enough to disqualify you!

Your hyper partisanship is on full display. A presidential term begins on January 20, but each budget (fiscal) year begins on the prior Octiober first.

You, however, ignore that the rational way to calculate fiscal performance administration to administration is to factor a new administrations
first fiscal year as beginning on October first after an inauguration.

You scraped up every bit of debt you could find near republican administrations and assigned it all to democrats. Thank you!

These are the reliable numbers I posted on the immediately preceding page inthis thread.:



The underpinnings of the Bush economy were already weakened beyond repair when Democrats gained control of the House on January 1, 2007.
Bush appointee at Treasury, Hank Paulsen controlled fiscal policy, not demcrats.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't believe in the two to tango analogy. That a president can spend whatever he wants, whenever he wants and congress doesn't have to do a thing. Congress doesn't have to write the budget or pass any spending bills, the president can do that all on his own.

The fact Reagan had a Democratic controlled house where these bills are written and passed means nothing, it's all Reagan's fault and doings. No one else had anything to do with it, Reagan did everything on his own. The same for the first Bush, he just spent without any congressional action. The same for Bill Clinton, he did it all on his own and congress had nothing to do with it. Bush the second, ditto, Obama ditto, now Trump, ditto.

Who's partisan here? You want to blame Reagan, both Bush's and Trump and exonerate the congress as if they had nothing to do with it. If you're going to do that, you need to exonerate the Republican controlled congress under Bill Clinton and the Republican controlled house for Obama's last six years. You won't do that. You're too busy blaming Republicans of everything. Who's partisan here?
 
MTAtech said:
What you are failing to grasp is that fractions have denominators. revenue as a p% of GDP has GDP as the denominator and revenue as the numerator variable. Example: if the numerator is 50 and the denominator is 100, then the ratio is 50%. However, what if the denominator is 200 and the numerator is 100? That's also 50%. Therefore, you can't claim that revenue was exactly the same in 2016 as in 2008 by looking at the ratio, since both variables, revenue AND GDP were rising. If you are claiming 2016 revenue was the same as 2008, you are wrong. 2016 was much higher.




Federal spending came down mainly because the economy was healing an less needed to be spent on unemployment payments and SNAP, which had a sharp reduction after 2013.
Click to expand...

Yeah, revenue went up because the economy grew, not because of tax increases. The govt collected the same share of GDP after the tax increases as it did before the recession before the tax increases. And spending came down because of the sequestor. Human resource spending went UP by 500bn a year

Human Resource Spending
2012 2,348,587
2016 2,820,292

Defense spending went down. Physical resources went down. Other outlays stayed the same. So the deficit reduction was almost entirely due to normal economic growth coupled with a freeze on discretionary spending. We might have even balanced if mandatory spending hasnt risen out of control.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/
 
Spartacus FPV said:
And Democrats were supposed to be the party of liberalism, of free speech; So much for that.
Click to expand...


If you are going to reply to my comment, please stay on point and don't change the subject.


FYI, free speech isn't a partisan issue.
 
Perotista said:
There's many different factions that make up the general pool of conservatism. Neo-Conservatism, Traditional Conservatism, Religious conservatives, Social conservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, fiscal conservatives are just some. One can be one without being any of the others or one can fall into many of the different factions and still not be one or two others. You'll never find one that falls into every faction or group.

I fall into the more Traditional Conservative group which the second tenet is fiscal responsibility. In other words having a balance budget and a surplus to pay down the national debt. If one has to cut spending to do so, fine. If one has to raise taxes to do so, fine. With our massive debt, doing both in my opinion is a must. Now a lot of the so called fiscal conservatives believe in only low taxes.

The problem going back to Reagan and the Democratic controlled congress is neither party is fiscal responsible. It takes two to tango as the saying goes. Reagan who tripled the debt couldn't have done so without Democratic Controlled House first writing the spending bills and then passing them. All a president can do is either sign the spending bills, the budget or veto it. G.H.W. Bush also had a Democratic controlled congress who wrote and authorized everything the first Bush spent. Bush couldn't have spend a dime without the democratic congress's approval and passing of the spending bills.

Same with Bill Clinton over his last six years. A Democratic president and a Republican controlled congress increased the debt by approximately 1.8 trillion. G.W. Bush's first six years was an all Republican deal. But in his last two years it was Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic controlled House and Senate which wrote and passed the spending bills which led to 2 trillion dollars of the 4.8 trillion Bush ran up. Obama added 10 trillion, 3.5 trillion to the national debt as an all Democratic Party affair as the democrats controlled both chambers of congress for his first two years in office. The Republicans controlled the house over Obama's last six years, but the Democrats still controlled the senate until Obama's seventh year in office. It takes two to tango.

One can't blame one party or the other, it takes both. One can't put sole blame on any president, he can't do a thing or spend a dime without congress first writing and passing the spending bills. Fact is neither party believes in fiscal responsibility. Both parties are more than happy to spend this country into that fiscal abyss that is coming that we may never climb out of. Both major political parties are skipping down that road to financial ruin holding hands like tomorrow will never come.
Click to expand...


My post wasn't a "blame" post, so that's not on point.

Now then,

You can't have "conservatism" without fiscal responsibility, that's a core tenet. So, all the flavors of conservatism embrace it.

My only point is, since the GOP and conservatism, for years, were joined at the hip, the GOP, by embracing Trump, is kissing it goodbye.

Everything else you are saying is another subject I wasn't addressing.
 
KLATTU said:
Conservatism hasn't died.
What has died is the notion that Republicans are conservatives.
Click to expand...


It hasn't died, let's say it's wilting on the vine.
 
OscarLevant said:
My post wasn't a "blame" post, so that's not on point.

Now then,

You can't have "conservatism" without fiscal responsibility, that's a core tenet. So, all the flavors of conservatism embrace it.

My only point is, since the GOP and conservatism, for years, were joined at the hip, the GOP, by embracing Trump, is kissing it goodbye.

Everything else you are saying is another subject I wasn't addressing.
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon, bless you little pea picken soul. Most religious right type of conservatives and social conservatives don't give a hoot about fiscal responsibility. Abortion, gay marriage, religion, etc., they do.

You're lumping all together into a general category. It's like saying all liberal believe in abortion and not live birth. Which I am sure some of those on the religious right believe that.
 
Not all of the time (as conditions for the economy can impact this,) but I would argue that deficits and debt tend to go up with one party has both the Presidency and Congress. Political wants and the ability to get them tend to depart from economic conditions when a party can do this without much opposition.

BTW, the reason deficits fell during Obama's time is only 2 of his 8 years did he have a favorable Congress, and the last 4 years Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. With a few exceptions here and there neither side got all of what they wanted for 6 of those 8 years. The economy helped, so did political gridlock.

The OP is right, now that Republicans can spend on whatever they want and tax less on who they want deficits and debt are getting worse.
 
OscarLevant said:
If you are going to reply to my comment, please stay on point and don't change the subject.
Click to expand...

Partisan hypocrisy was the point, so it was very relevant.

OscarLevant said:
FYI, free speech isn't a partisan issue.
Click to expand...

It didn't used to be, back when leftists were liberals and said things like, "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Now its "Hate speech isn't free speech" and "shut them down!"

But thanks for the inaccurate unsolicited advice, newbie.
 
tecoyah said:
Conservatism as it was known for decades died a while ago, I am unsure (like everyone else) what it has morphed into but it is certainly not what it was. Calling it "Trumpism" does not really work either as the change pre dates him....We need a new label.

Corperatism?
Stagnatarian?
Hypoctiticism?

Lets start a contest.
Click to expand...

Trumpistan?
the US is now a Kleptocracy. A system where corrupt leaders use their power to exploit the people and natural resources in order to extend their personal wealth and political powers.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Partisan hypocrisy was the point, so it was very relevant.
Click to expand...
No. Nothing in my comment to which you replied was about partisan hypocrisy or party blaming.
It didn't used to be, back when leftists were liberals and said things like, "I may disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Now its "Hate speech isn't free speech" and "shut them down!"

But thanks for the inaccurate unsolicited advice, newbie.
Click to expand...


As for whether or not "hate speech" isn't free speech, would depend on a lot of things, such as severity leading to harmful acts, or not. A court would have to decide that, if it is litigated, etc.

It's all about degrees.

And spare me the 'leftist" blaming, when we have Trump blocking access to the press on a number of occasions, blocking access to his twitter feed, calling the free press "the enemy of the people" inciting millions of people to hate the free press, and not one peep out of republicans that he does it ( except for Sen. Flake, and perhaps a few others ) etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom