All those things you mentioned can be ironed out once we agree on banning it. I don't see changes in law as a hindrance. Where there is will there is a way.

im sure u dont see a problem with changing the constitution, because u dont know how it would be changed.

prove me wrong, walk me through it. please dont just run away, its fun to see how little u know of the US constitution.

Indeed I know little about your country's constitution, however that does not stop me from pwning your ass in debates.

Doesn't matter if you disagree. These are the levels of scrutiny that are applied to the first amendment, and the most strict scrutiny is applied to political speach, which the president's words definitely are.

You're assuming that you can't be communicating your intentions by reading somebody else's words. The president may not write the speaches directly, but he is the one that sets the content. He is the one that defines the position and makes changes before he reads it. I know you've never been in a position to have somebody else write something for you, but before you sign off on things prepared by somebody else you read it over and make sure you agree.

I mean, even if he did sign off on the speech and he agrees with it generally, the whole thing just smacks of deception of some kind to me. It's kind of like, a guy likes a girl, and he asks someone else to write love letters for him. Yes he will read over the letters to make sure they are ok. He gives the letters to the girl, the girl falls in love with him. But who she really loves is the man who actually wrote those letters, not this guy. I know this is not a perfect example, but I hope it conveys my feelings. Presidential speech-writing is strictly speaking, a form of deception.

The progressive talking point that "our positions are really popular!!" relies on poll questions that are biased towards progressive positions, which doesn't reflect the political reality when the voters are faced with an actual proposal, and legitimate(and illegitimate) criticism of that proposal.

That's incorrect lol

When you poll the policy they are popular. The specific provisions of the current infrastructure bill is massively popular even in Manchin and Sinemas states

I don't think that's necessarily the case in the general sense. Asking "Should the US have paid family leave?" isn't biased towards progressives...

Why are we asking the question? That is the real revealing question that destroys your propaganda.

Families were fine without it in the past.

His first post in this thread was about a national healthcare system, and it's my recollection the polling that reflects actual reality on how it would be implemented shows it is not very popular.

Actually I think questions like that are biased and kind of useless in measuring the real support behind policy that inevitably costs money and may have other tradeoffs.

This post was edited by IceMage on Nov 4 2021 01:24pm