Hey individual,
Arguments are won and lost on their own merits.
That's why the left are banning speech and censoring conservative websites.
The left cant argue the facts on their own merits, and in the media they've lost control of the narrative and the trust of the people.
They stop the discussion by calling it hate speech.

You'd think it'd be obvious to people:
The left ban speech and label anyone that doesn't agree with them fascist;
Whist the right support free speech.

Don't people think it's ironic that reporters report on banned words? But they don't report the fact they're taking a shotgun and blowing their own legs off - in that soon they'll be banned from reporting on other things?
That'd be the real story - the bigger picture.
But they support it because they're collaborators.
They've been indoctrinated into a Marxist line of thinking right at the university level just to pass the course.

We believe in 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Freedom of the Press' but what happens when the press are working as a cartel to ban speech?

*We believe in 'Democracy', but what if it's 'weaponised' against us within its flaws?*
- I hate that word 'weaponised', it reminds me of Hillary and she makes me sick.

Lets look at other flaws:

Freedom of Religion

What happens when they use UN immigration laws to deliberately push a religion that will not respect western values of democracy?
What happens to western values when western people become minorities in their own countries?

They stop the discussion and call it racism.

If people don't understand and recognise democracies flaws, then they won't be mindful of how it's being weaponised against us.

Democracy is a fair system, but its built on the assumption of good faith and that all the people believe in it and accept it.
It's not designed to protect against votes of people who don't believe in democracy, and who want to destroy it to create something else.
Didn't Erdogan once say "Democracy is like a bus - you reach your destination and get off?"

What happens if you give unemployed a cash handout instead of a job and also let them vote?
Then you risk those on welfare becoming a voting block that vote for more welfare.
Your going to have to cater to them in your policies.

I'm not necessarily saying it's wrong to give unemployed the right to vote or cash instead of a job for welfare, but it's a flaw.

Armchair Critic,
i have stated several times here that Welfare recipients & public servants on over $65,000/year should not be allowed to vote. They'll always vote Labor so even with a Coalition govt we're still plagued with the majority of public servants deliberately sabotaging the Govt's ability to care for the welfare of the Nation. Keeping it at $65-7ok would give pensioners & low income earners a more effective say.
When Qld got a conservative Govt many years ago a Nursing Union President once told me that she'll "do anything not to co-operate with that administration". That mentality is still very much present today among public servants.
Higher ranking bureaucrats should go out with the old Govt or accept reappraisal or even demotion if proven of lacking performance.

emaculating males have done as much harm to Western civilisation than marxist feminmist who are anti god, anti science, anti nature and often sexually deviant. It seems to take someone with courage like Trump to reverse this sickening trend.

runner,

You do realise that Trump is one of the biggest sexual
deviants ever - right?

Foxy,
Don't tell me he touched you too ? Or are you saying that because that's what Leftist are supposed to be saying according to their philosophy ?
I'm actually at a loss why they haven't accused him of Paedophilia yet. I mean wouldn't that be about the most effective kind of dirt that can be dug up ?