McBonokon

I like the checks and balances that our founders put in place to ensure a successful democratic Republic. I don't think it's good to install partisan employees to do the will of the president, regardless of party. You are ok with that.

And when he watched them beat up cops and break in and was told they're trying to to hang Mike pence to which he responded "who cares", that was all just narcissism? To me it's a problem when your narcissism leads to 140 cops being injured. You're good with that?

His running mate...

Done, now answer my question.

Ok well I explained to you why the answer you copied was false. Do you care to defend that statement or are we good to agree that the law is not a big deal and your idea that walz is a threat to freedom and democracy is extremely weak? Regarding the Constitution, middle school civics class teaches what is required for changes to the constitution so I don't feel the need to explain this to you. You can Google it. I don't believe Trump will have the votes to get this done, but there are other things he can do and has tried to do, like the schedule f plan and his intent on filling the govt with Toadies and lackeys to force policy changes and remove checks and balances like has happened in Hungary.

What do you think trump was trying to accomplish with the mob that day?

The paragraph you shared is false to the extent that that's the intent of the law. Employers can still hold meetings to criticize walz, they just can't be mandatory. Conversely they can't force anyone to attend a meeting where they praise walz. Works both ways. I don't see any value in forcing employees to attend political meetings. In my career I've never been forced to attend a political meeting and I would think it's wrong to do so. It's hardly a restriction on freedom speech. I'm curious to see what the court says. Also curious to see if you can answer my question using your own words instead of copying and posting someone else's.

He didn't even have the decency to attend the inauguration. First president in history. And there was no transition, in the middle of a pandemic and crashing economy. Terrible character.

Did you even read about the law you keep referring to? I don't think you ever did. Let me help you out here. The law you reference restricts employers from holding mandatory meetings to discuss politics or religion, and to forbid employers from taking punitive action against any employee that chooses not to attend. Is that really bad? I personally don't think so. You couch this a restriction on freedom of speech. I see it more as a workers rights issue. But I would love to hear your argument for why employees should be forced to attend political or religious meetings at work. Please explain. Also for Hungary and Orban, you can educate yourself here: https://www.google.com/search?q=loss+of+rights+and+democracy+in+hungary+under+orban&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Skids you already took the L here. Harris has never proposed a policy to censor speech they don't like. You admitted this so stop with the lies. And you can also stop with the Trump EO to be a king garbage. That's not the way it goes down. Look at what Orban has done in Turkey. Trump praises Orban. That's the blueprint.

Admission #4 but you already said the same logged in as @Reality and @BrahmaBulls

It tells me there are a lot of little babies here who easily get their feelings hurt and can't deal with it. They don't like being called out on their nonsense. So they cry about to a mod. You're one of them.

Thanks

I looked at your link but didn't see any policy proposals. The Google search right? I didn't review all 12,000 hits. Do you have one to share?

Well they are deleted. If you want to deny you said it, ok. Anyway, I think walz is wrong on what he said from a constitutional standpoint. I am also unaware of any of his policies that will restrict free speech. Care to name one?