Trump Directly Accuses NYT of being “The Enemy of the People”

A corrections officer?

The party of responsibility folks! They will happily take us on the road to another third reich just for some piece of ******* real estate grifter. I hope you are proud of yourselves!

Commanding officer.

Ah, you’re confused. That falls under UCMJ, not the 1st Amendment.

The NYT is not a commanding officer. If anything, your analogy would be reason for the NYT not to criticize Trump, as he is the Commander In Chief. But that is of course preposterous.

Third Reich? You might want to rethink the hyperbole. Nazi references outside of a historical context are verboten.

No, i am saying if you are commander in chief you had better weild that position responsibly and not use your position like a fascist to rile up your cult of personality into carrying out terrorist acts.

Ah, valid point. The moral authority to lead. Who decides?

That is the whole problem people have with the president labelling the free press as the enemy of the people. He is in a position of power and authority which makes it incumbent on him not to cheer on the physical assault of people that disagree with him as he has done in several rallies and makes it incumbent on him to be responsible with his actions and words for the first time in his life. Lastly, it is easily proveable that Trump is being dishonest because he exempts everything that is flattering to him and he spreads fake news himself. Example, he retweeted fake crime statistics that came from white supremacists on his presidential twitter account.

I understand. I disagree. He is not a role model. It is not incumbent on him to do anything but his job, which does not include sitting silently by while being attacked by the press. When he takes some sort of action to limit them using the power of the office, I’ll stand beside you.

They criticize him, he criticizes them. 1st Amendment.

Ok, he’s a horrible person and a liar. He still has rights.

And don’t forget they’ve lied as well.

So your saying that there would be absolutely no disruption in the economy at all.

Shouldn’t this thread be merged with the one about the Coast Guard officer who wanted to take out Joe Scarborough? LOT of crossover.

Shame we list the old board, we could merge them both with the Scalise thread. It was a good, tons of vitriol

Unlike internet forums, we should actively discourage (but not criminalize, of course) inflammatory rhetoric from public officials AND the media, on birth sides. It’s completely disingenuous to assert that Trump’s media blasts didn’t help incentivize Lt. Hasson, or that Don Lemon’s Trump tirades didn’t goad the Scalise shooter.

Free societies (not that this is one in any other regard) can get messy. Where would we draw the line?

Despite inciting, we are each responsible for our own individual actions.

Ain’t America grand?

America is indeed grand. Wouldn’t live anywhere else.

I’m not drawing lines, or proposing lifting responsibility from anyone. I’m suggesting that refusing to see that inflammatory rhetoric can and does encourage violent acts is foolishly, or deliberately, naive. See: Wallace, George or X, Malcolm.

I have.

And produces change when needed.

How dare you criticize Malcolm X. Without him there is no King, who believed in the power of the gun himself by the way.

Nothing happens without the flame.

With my fingers!

It sure sounds like you’re advocating violence to produce needed change. Since that has played out over the last few years as a series of deranged loners attacking innocent members of groups the wack jobs deemed to be in opposition to their ideology, do you endorse their actions (USCG Lt., Scalise shooter, Cesar Sayoc, Pittsburgh shooter)?

Completely unrelated.

Reminds me of the two republicans walking down the road of discovery who discovered an unknown substance and decided “touching” it wasn’t a good investigative idea, so they tasted it first.

1 Like

Why do you say advocating? I’m a realist.