Thread 513676689

Are republicans better than democrats? Or should we vote for communists?

>>513676689 (OP)
Depends, do you want the party that will ban your freedom of speech because it's too toxic or the party that will ban your freedom of speech to protect the children?

>>513676772
then the communists will ban your speech to protect the oligarchic party elites

>>513676689 (OP)
Depends, do you want the party that will ban your guns because inanimate objects somehow are able to do crimes or the party that will ban your machine guns because niggers or something?

Why should we ever vote for communists?

>>513677022
the sharty lost

>>513677022
It seems to piss off both sides and drive them closer to meeting at a happy meeting in the center of Socialism with a Nationalist objective.

>>513677022
Kys vlodson pedo

>>513676689 (OP)
Communists are retarded. Socialists are better, and I would vote for a socialist party if it were devoid of all the troon anti white garbage.

>>513677675
GEEEG THREMBOSON HATERS ARE BRAPZILLIAN

>>513677751
Whiter than you turkroach

>>513677100
>the sharty lost

>>513677751
>>513677783
>shartycucks are from apezil and germanistan
geg

We should vote populist reformist until something breaks or gets better

>>513677840
>t.

>>513676689 (OP)
Meme sums it up.

GOP is only slightly less harmful.
Dems are insane and fags.
Libertarians turned gaypride fags.

>>513676772
>>513676978
I just want to remind everyone that porn is not freedom of speech. Its rape and prostitution. So I don't mind banning that. In fact if they ban it I will forgive them for what happened on Epstein Island.

>>513677843
>>513677933
Why so obsessed?

>>513678161
>t. scheming jew

>>513678219
>Why so obsessed?

>>513678222
Why are you always so quick to defend porn? Are you a Republican? Do you consider yourself a conservative or a liberal? I'm just curious.

>>513676689 (OP)
> Whose hand should hold my leash?
Slave mentality.

>>513676689 (OP)
>vote for communists
Kek

>>513676978
That is what we already have

>>513676689 (OP)
what's better for israel?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gujPXF1WLKI

>>513678258
>Cucks are anti straight
Just shut it down

If you're poor and have no chance of being rich, AND I MEAN NO CHANCE (e.g. poor family, shit education, no job experience, no chance of ever, ever making a salary over the country's average) if you vote republican, you're a fucking retard. you will need free gibsmedat, I don't support it because its HEAVILY abused by fraudsters (e.g. medical equipment fraud, housing project fraud, etc.), but if you want a quick death, go for it.

if you're middle class, then either one works fine, but if you own a business definitely be more right leaning; if you're edging towards a safe retirement with social security, vote left.

if you're in the higher wealth tax bracket (i.e. income with $1MM or more), if you vote on the left you're a fucking retard. if you're ultra wealthy (doubt anyone here is), vote right.

if you care about useless things like race, immigration (unless your business is relying on or suffering from immigration), religion, abortion, fags and trannies, then you are falling victim to a ploy.

>>513677022
Cause its the same as voting for democrats. Follow the money.

>>513678161
>porn is not freedom of speech
>source: some retarded boomer

kill all 4kikes

>>513680445
why?

>>513680631
humor me, I've never had a nazi man enough to actually explain in detail anything about why the highest IQ ethnicity is inherently evil.

>>513680400
Pornography was never ruled freedom of speech. The articles in porn magazines were. The ones that accused conservatives of fucking their own mothers. The case to allow possession of pornography had nothing to do with freedom of speech whatsoever.

>>513681039
when you shoot up a synagogue let it be known I did my part.

>>513681029
>Pornography was never ruled freedom of speech
Like I said, the source was some old boomer. The first amendment has no carve outs to avoid protecting "icky" speech so they do an end-run around it by classifying things like porn or obscenity as not being speech in the first place, which is at best a technicality and at worst the imposition of arbitrary morality that cannot be clearly defined ("I'll know it when I see it") and is incredibly subjective, and thus highly vulnerable to malicious interpretation. That's the kind of rot that happens when you do an end-run around constitutional principles.

The right to free expression should only be curtailed to the extent that it conflicts with other rights or other constitutional functions, for example:
>damage/threats to personal safety (CP, doxing, blackmail, and nonconsensual exploitation like revenge porn are and should be illegal because they harm or directly threaten harm to an individual, though I admit it is difficult to construct a foolproof definition for any of these)
>damage/threats to the constitutionally defined function of government to protect the country and its people from external threats (disclosure of national security secrets is and should be illegal because it harms or poses threats to the country and its people)
>disclosure of someone else's private/confidential information (because you do not own it and don't have a right to obtain/distribute it)
>slander/libel (because it damages someone's ability to earn a living etc)
There are others, but the point is that the test should be "does this directly conflict with another right or constitutional government function?" and the punishment should scale with the damage caused.

Porn created by consenting adults, fiction that doesn't create victims in its production, etc. should all be considered protected forms of expression/speech because they do not meet that test. It's not a perfect test, but it's better than "does it make me feel icky?".