>How is this pragmatic? In all my real-world experience, money trumps all. It's trivial to pay religious people to say things they don't really believe. Pastors do it all the time, with no pressure from others.

The original argument was about forcing someone to make a cake that offends their religious beliefs, and you're bringing in cases of people voluntarily saying things for money. Again, nobody should be able to compel you to do an act of speech (for money or otherwise) under some pretense of civil rights or their own free speech.

>If you look at the democratic candidates, they were very well spoken and respectful. IMO, to their detriment. They should've been more rude, and that cost them from a populist perspective.

You mean like when they called Trump's supporters "garbage", "Nazi", "racist", "Russian spies", "insurrectionists", and called for violence and cancel culture against them, etc.? Being rude to even moderate people is what really cost the left from a populist perspective. I had a girlfriend break up with me because she suspected I might be a Trump supporter, despite me insisting the opposite (which was true at the time). A lot of people are sick of being demonized because they're normal and not down with "trans children" or whatever other insane ideology the left has taken up.

The left routinely applies every nasty label to their critics. Got a problem with high inflation caused by current administration policies? What are you, a Trump supporter? Then you must necessarily be every -ist and -phobe they can think of, and many of them will hate your guts from then on.

Have you been censored for saying completely normal things online? For valuing second amendment rights? For wanting your kids to not be indoctrinated into various ideologies in school? Oh you must be a Trump supporter, and you deserve everything you got coming for that. This is how these "polite" leftists act. These people need to learn a lesson, not to mess with people like that.

>For example, can they address immigration without racism? Certainly it's possible, but they haven't.

The Democrats are the ones bringing race into this and denying that there is even a problem. They desperately want to flood the country with migrants because they think it favors their party, and also because various billionaires want us distracted from what they are doing to our government.

>But does Kamala use slurs or question how black someone is?

She denied being black for years, then flipped the script. They even changed the way her name was pronounced to make her sound more "black". Trump said very politely that he did not care about her race, he cared about lying. What more do you want. I've never heard him use a slur against any race. Liberals of all standing often call him a Nazi. What kind of example does that set?

>This changes nothing. If your boss is rude to you and you call her a whore, you're getting fired. End of, have a nice chat with HR. This is what conservatives don't understand.

No, conservatives understand very well and usually have to deny being conservative. Many have been fired or blocked from promotion for espousing even moderate conservative ideas politely. Leftists haven't been afraid of that kind of crap in at least 20 years, in my opinion. I remember when they were all on board with pretending to be Christian to get by, and I don't want to go back to that.

I'm not talking about merely being censored for rude comments. Again, the constitution protects rude speech, so that is irrelevant to censorship. So-called "misinformation" has been routinely censored on social media. We cannot have a free society when you can't do simple stuff like sharing news stories about presidential candidates or anything else of public interest online.

Wanna know why some Republicans are so angry and rude? Because moralizing lunatics have been attacking them for years! I don't want our political discourse to be lowered any more, but the maniacs who want to censor everybody have to be dealt with swiftly and soundly.