Trump wants to 'open up' libel laws so he can sue press

[ag]

I would strongly encourage gentlemen and ladies present here not to engage in substantive discussions with certain obvious types

[Alcon]

And, again, would you like to explain how we decide when that's appropriate, and who does it, in a way that doesn't basically enable the majority unfettered ability to deny the minority an ability to even make their case politically?

good luck in advance

Ideally the Party would be debated and then decided upon via the democratic centralist principles of Leninist party structure, but under the dictatorship of capital these things should be decided by the elected officials of the State itself.

I'm going to be nice and ignore how much ridiculous, jargony fluff is in your answer, and just point out that you totally ignored the second part of my question (which was the point of the question).  Want to give that another go?

I would strongly encourage gentlemen and ladies present here not to engage in substantive discussions with certain obvious types

but it's fun

[Asian Nazi]

I'm going to be nice and ignore how much ridiculous, jargony fluff is in your answer, and just point out that you totally ignored the second part of my question (which was the point of the question).  Want to give that another go?

Sorry if the words I used were too big for you to understand.  I can define terms for you if you'd like.  However, I believe my answer to your question was sufficient on its own in terms of responding to each of your inquiries.

[Suburbia]

This is becoming a little bit fascistic.

[PeteB]

This is becoming a little bit fascistic.

Just a little bit?

[SteveRogers]

Freedom of speech, not freedom of hate. And honestly, if you're intentionally spreading lies or false rumors, that is indeed libel. TRUMP is absolutely in the right here.

Freedom of speech necessarily includes the freedom to hate. The freedom to say only nice things is no freedom at all.

[Virginiá]

I would strongly encourage gentlemen and ladies present here not to engage in substantive discussions with certain obvious types

I actually like some of his material of late. I feel like he's really taken it up a notch in the past month, and for that I commend him.

[Frodo]

This thread has been useful in identifying the demagogues and authoritarians on this forum for future reference.  For that I thank the thread creator.   

[This account no longer in use.]

I would strongly encourage gentlemen and ladies present here not to engage in substantive discussions with certain obvious types

I actually like some of his material of late. I feel like he's really taken it up a notch in the past month, and for that I commend him.

I'd have to agree with this. d32123 is great at getting on peoples' nerves, and I respect him quite a bit for that.

[Alcon]

I'm going to be nice and ignore how much ridiculous, jargony fluff is in your answer, and just point out that you totally ignored the second part of my question (which was the point of the question).  Want to give that another go?

Sorry if the words I used were too big for you to understand.  I can define terms for you if you'd like.  However, I believe my answer to your question was sufficient on its own in terms of responding to each of your inquiries.

When did I say what you wrote was confusing?  I called it "jargony fluff."  That means you were verbose, not confusing.  Or is "jargony fluff" too big for you to understand?  

You quite explicitly didn't address the second part of my question.  If you're just messing around/trolling, that's fine, but just be honest about it, because otherwise I'm just going to keep pressing you on how empty your argument is.  Trust me; I have plenty of patience for this.  Look at my post history if you don't believe me.

I would strongly encourage gentlemen and ladies present here not to engage in substantive discussions with certain obvious types

I actually like some of his material of late. I feel like he's really taken it up a notch in the past month, and for that I commend him.

I'd have to agree with this. d32123 is great at getting on peoples' nerves, and I respect him quite a bit for that.

You also don't seem to be answering my question.

[Cory]

You can't have freedom of speech "but". You either have it or you don't.

And yes, you absolutely have the freedom to hate, so long as to don't explicitly encourage violence.

[MK]

Freedom of speech, not freedom of hate. And honestly, if you're intentionally spreading lies or false rumors, that is indeed libel. TRUMP is absolutely in the right here.

[ZuWo]

Trump just comes off as a bitter and overly sensitive old man to me. I don't get his appeal and luckily I don't have to. Take his "speech" after the announcement of Christie's endorsement yesterday, for example. He kept rambling about how nasty Rubio was as he was noticeably furious following a disastrous debate performance that shed light to his weaknesses.

What is President Trump going to do when he feels that Putin was mean to him? You can't be president if you are that thin-skinned and blatantly weak.

[Ronnie]

Sigh, another one of Trump's random button mashing exercises.

He should just stick to his old talking points.  Rubio and Cruz will harass him relentlessly about this in the next debate.