I quoted headlines, while you spout bullshit neo-Nazi smear equivalencies.

So you're just going to deny that the establishment media is against Trump? That cuckservatives like Paul Ryan, John McCain, or Jeff Flake weren't against him on issues like immigration? That the entire Trump-Russia collusion witch hunt wasn't engineered by deep state operatives in the DoJ, the FBI, and the DNC/Clinton campaign? That there aren't never-Trumpers and "resistance" people within his own administration? That Trump essentially engaged in a hostile takeover of the Republican party?

I did say sorta anti-establishment, because while he goes against the grain on some issues, on many others he's just more of the same.

Why do you post such obvious bullshit when anybody can check for themselves?

Top 6 headlines:

"White House To Pull Acosta's Pass Again After Temporary Court Order Expires"

"One Less Rate-Hike Doesn't Trump A Trade War"

"Rock And A Hard Place? EU Backs Limited Iran Sanctions Over Paris Bomb Plot"

"Morgan Stanley Calls It: "We Are In A Bear Market""

"Senate Democrats Sue To Remove Whitaker As Acting AG"

"Kunstler: Welcome To GenderWorld"

Daily Stormer:

"Tfw There's an Article About How Women/Faggots/POCs/wtvr are "Trolling the Trolls""

"NYT Boldly Asks the Most Pressing Question of Our Time: "Are Jared and Ivanka Good for the Jews?""

"Memetic Monday: Daily Stormer Diner"

"The Krypto Report -- Episode XLVII: Shabbos Problems"

"Leader of "Church" is a Communist Lover of Jews: Is This Hell?"

"Tijuana Race War: Mexicans vs Central Americans"

Go to any Slashdot story. Now count how many comments you get before you get a "GNA" troll or similar garbage.

The current power structure that hates Trump because he's sorta anti-establishment? You're living in a loony-toon world where anybody to the right of the insane left is a neo-Nazi.

You're full of shit. Daily Stormer is a neo-Nazi site. Zero Hedge is an anti-establishment site. That said, Zero Hedge tends to extrapolate beyond the facts, so cross-check anything they claim with other sites. But we all know by now how partisan every news site has become, so cross-check any site with alternative points of view.

The average (mean) net compensation: $48k
The median net compensation: $32k

Source: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/...

That's not the same as "hate speech".

No, you haven't. Section and code. I'll wait.

I'll refer to the constitution if anybody tries to give me a ticket for "hate speech", as the 1st amendment explicitly guarantees the right to free speech, and it's been upheld by the courts.

Rather than just hand wave, why don't you look up cases and make an argument. I've already stated actual law and linked to Wikipedia. There is no recognized "hate speech" in the United States per the 1st Amendment.

By that standard, all political speech is hate speech.

Walmart already has stores across the country. If anybody is poised to beat Amazon at their own game, it's them. They're also making a healthy profit of ~$100 billion a year, and have been for some time.

Sounds like fun. What titles do you recommend?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Some of the worst outcomes have been engineered by people trying to do what is "right".

Banning straws, "sanctuary" state, endless regulations, cities filled with people living in tents on the sidewalk, streets covered in human shit and needles, all while whole towns burn amid yearly wildfires. Hotel California is rotten.

I don't know about "maximally beneficial", but surely it'd be better than the current yearly wildfires, where entire towns are being wiped out?

Good to see they haven't lost their principles to social "justice" like the ACLU.

Just to be clear, there is no "hate speech" under the 1st amendment. In before: Blah blah, "private companies", blah blah, "Europe".

Sticking with the 1st amendment, speech is not recognized as harmful unless imminent lawless action is involved.

"Hate speech", as used by censorious authoritarians, makes it difficult to criticize particular groups of people, regardless of how well-founded those criticisms may be.