The enemy of the people

[WuWei]

@JayJay

If you’re going to make a claim that we can declare someone “an enemy of the people” based on them behaving “against America’s best interests”, you better damn well have some objective way of showing that

Else we’re well on our way to the same types of tinpot governments that have dominated human history.

Oh and there is no objective way of showing it. Objectivity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[sikofit]

Hear the death threat made to CNN anchors - CNN Video

[WuWei]

5 Points. A crushing blow to the sternum.

[JayJay]

There’s no hysteria at all

It’s a well-reasoned pragmatic approach.

I know you’re not a pragmatist though so of course you don’t subscribe to things that are pragmatic as being “good”

So you have to label it something other than what it is.

[JayJay]

If you want to win my tribe over, it better be what it’s all about.

And yes I know what it’s all about for Ish. I read that book too.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@WuWei

@Call_me_Ishmael

And had I won, what would have been the observable evidence of that “win”?

My post saying so.

This wasn’t really a debate anyhow. Libs want to get to the point where they can claim that Trump ( and his supporters ) oppose the first amendment in the Bill of Rights and then turn the phrase “enemy of the people” back onto Trump and his supporters.
But calling the press out and embarrassing them -even calling them enemies of the people - does not infringe upon the freedom of the press.
But if libs can’t legitimately say that Trump opposes freedom, they will do it in a lie. So there was nothing to gain here. The lib narrative is essentially infinite logistic support behind the lib propaganda war.

[JayJay]

I will never say Trump opposes freedom.

I will say his opposing reason because his supporters don’t respond to reason will RESULT IN more loss of freedom.

And it will.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Reason is merciless.

[JayJay]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Reason is merciless.

Indeed it is.

Which is why many Trump supporters resist using it.

[sikofit]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Libs usually make the argument that unless the federal government performs the deed, it is not unconstitutional. Such as in censoring. Are you ready to give that argument up? We can talk about antifa then. And cake bakers.

Stop moving the goalposts. I am not making that argument here. I am asking whether his supporters would hold Trump accountable if reporters start getting killed. I am not at all surprised nobody has had the courage to answer

[mbus]

Libs, like cons, don’t walk in lock-step unison. On anything. The most vocal and ridiculous elements define both groups. Between the lunatic extremes are thoughtful people who can actually think, struggle and process complex issues. They decide elections.

But the extremes are a lot more entertaining, dramatic and easy to manipulate. They are the easiest prey of media bias.

Ugh, I just bored myself with this post.

[Bosun]

Diamond and Silk summed it up,

Not only is The Fake News Media the “enemy of the people,” they’re also the “enemy of the truth!”

[WuWei]

Congratulations. They found a crazy guy with a phone. The defense is “I never called all Trump supporters racists and neither did Don Lemon”? I have no doubt that is true. It is also irrelevant. Just like Clinton’s basket of deplorables. A lot of people aren’t nuancey in the real world

How many threats does the Trump admin get because of things that guy and Lemon say? Probably more than one. That is the problem with being edgy and opinionated.

Is it wrong? You betcha. Is it inevitable? Probably.

The media has chosen sides. The parties are purified. They can say what they will, some people are going to take extreme offense. There is no guarantee against consequences.

[JayJay]

Ish did answer

He said the enemy must be fought.

So there’s your answer

[sikofit]

@WuWei

They found a crazy guy with a phone.

It only takes 1 crazy person acting out to create a tragedy

[WuWei]

@JayJay

There’s no hysteria at all

It’s a well-reasoned pragmatic approach.

I know you’re not a pragmatist though so of course you don’t subscribe to things that are pragmatic as being “good”

So you have to label it something other than what it is.

no it isn’t. But believe whatever you want.

[sikofit]

@JayJay

sh did answer

He said the enemy must be fought.

So there’s your answer

I do believe you’re right. I guess I have have 1 official “no”.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

If you want to win my tribe over, it better be what it’s all about.

And yes I know what it’s all about for Ish. I read that book too.

Your tribe doesn’t use reason any more than any other tribe and anyone could show you logic at a cellular level and it wouldn’t change your stance one iota. Because politics and religion are not subject to logic.

[WuWei]

“Reason”. your reason.

[WuWei]

@sikofit

Stop trying to move the goalposts. The thread is about whether he is responsible for his rhetoric not whether he is trying to infringe on the 1st amendment.

What happens when the people take up the fight and reporters start getting killed?

The claim has been made numerous times.

There will be a trial and somebody will go to prison.

Or they’ll get killed during the crime.