Read all the messages. Idc what they think. This is a matter of logic.

First, remember. Not even SCOTUS backed him up. What makes you think rmving propaganda changes that and every judge?

Do you know what kept Trump in office amidst all the impeachment crap going on? Public support. Now tell me. Who supports Trump? Classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Do you know why classical liberals and libertarians like him? Largely because of the freedoms he has promised.

Now go back to 2017 where most people are politically uninitiated. First, the libertarians and classical liberals read - Trump to declare propaganda iIIegaI.

Do you genuinely think they'd support him? People who are already skeptical about politics (aka the people who voted for him) would have dismissed him as a shiII. They'd think this is a horrible precedent to set, given that, ultimately, a single committee would be presiding over what is deemed propaganda or not. How do you define it, genuinely? By asserting only opinions that coincide with what is supported by major institutions are deemed not propaganda? What about opinion? Would you label it propaganda too? If so, do you have ANY idea how DRACONIC that would be? THINK.

Now for the important question. We've talked about the politically uninitiated. What initiated people into the political hemisphere? The very same propaganda you tried to thwart. You have to understand that while he could have assumed unilateral totalitarian control in America, propaganda would have still been a thing everywhere else. He wouldn't have the international community backing him up. It would have been all the more easy to impose an embargo without international support.

Now for the even more important question. What happens after Trump's hypothetical 2nd term, if he could even muster enough support from classical liberals and libertarians? If Trump could rmv policies, so could the next guy. Or, even scarier, redefine propaganda. Then what?

Read all the messages. Idc what they think. This is a matter of logic.

First, remember. Not even SCOTUS backed him up. What makes you think rmving propaganda changes that and every judge?

Do you know what kept Trump in office amidst all the impeachment crap going on? Public support. Now tell me. Who supports Trump? Classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Do you know why classical liberals and libertarians like him? Largely because of the freedoms he has promised.

Now go back to 2017 where most people are politically uninitiated. First, the libertarians and classical liberals read - Trump to declare propaganda iIIegaI.

Do you genuinely think they'd support him? People who are already skeptical about politics (aka the people who voted for him) would have dismissed him as a shiII. They'd think this is a horrible precedent to set, given that, ultimately, a single committee would be presiding over what is deemed propaganda or not. How do you define it, genuinely? By asserting only opinions that coincide with what is supported by major institutions are deemed not propaganda? What about opinion? Would you label it propaganda too?

Now for the important question. We've talked about the politically uninitiated. What initiated people into the political hemisphere? The very same propaganda you tried to thwart. You have to understand that while he could have assumed unilateral totalitarian control in America, propaganda would have still been a thing everywhere else. He wouldn't have the international community backing him up. It would have been all the more easy to impose an embargo without international support.

Now for the even more important question. What happens after Trump's hypothetical 2nd term, if he could even muster enough support from classical liberals and libertarians? If Trump could rmv policies, so could the next guy. Or, even scarier, redefine propaganda. Then what?

Read all the messages. Idc what they think. This is a matter of logic.

First, remember. Not even SCOTUS backed him up. What makes you think rmving propaganda changes that and every judge?

Do you know what kept Trump in office amidst all the impeachment crap going on? Public support. Now tell me. Who supports Trump? Classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Do you know why classical liberals and libertarians like him? Largely because of the freedoms he has promised.

Now go back to 2017 where most people are politically uninitiated. First, the libertarians and classical liberals read - Trump to declare propaganda iIIegaI.

Do you genuinely think they'd support him? People who are already skeptical about politics (aka the people who voted for him) would have dismissed him as a shiII. They'd think this is a horrible precedent to set, given that, ultimately, a single committee would be preside over what is deemed propaganda or not. How do you define it? Genuinely? By asserting only opinions that coincide with what is supported by major institutions are deemed not propaganda? What about opinion? Would you label it propaganda too?

Now for the important question. We've talked about the politically uninitiated. What initiated people into the political hemisphere? The very same propaganda you tried to thwart. You have to understand that while he could have assumed unilateral totalitarian control in America, propaganda would have still been a thing everywhere else. He wouldn't have the international community backing him up. It would have been all the more easy to impose an embargo without international support.

Now for the even more important question. What happens after Trump's hypothetical 2nd term, if he could even muster enough support from classical liberals and libertarians? If Trump could rmv policies, so could the next guy. Or, even scarier, redefine propaganda. Then what?