ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

[JLW]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Marxist propagandists are the enemy of the people. What is so controversial about that?

The only people I know that use Marxist/Stalinist rhetoric is Trump and Trumpists. So what are you saying?

Like when trump used the govt/ IRS to financially hurt his opponents? Good point!!
Dumbfuck

You're a fucking moron. Can't even respond in a logical manner. Go back to your basement and return to playing Sonic.

 

[Camp]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

In those cases the rhetoric was always backed up with action.

When offices start getting raided and journalists start disappearing, then the comparison can be made. Until then the MSM is just being called out for it's partisan hackery, and they have shown they can dish it, but can't take it.

 

[martybegan]

There is a reason a free press was in the first amendment to the Constitution, Unfortunately, we have mindless followers of a Trumpist ideology that do not want truth and do not want contradictory news to their beliefs but do want a single news source preferably from a leader they will question without thought.

Putinism and Trumpism are on the rise on the right. Ironically, these folks who side with Trumpist attacks on the free press often protest how they love the Constitution. The reality is they despise the Constitution and all it stands for.

The "enemy of the people" slogan was a favorite of Stalin. I don't think it is any surprise it has been co-opted by Trump and Trumpist. A totalitarian or authoritarian regime is what they truly desire. They just don't have the balls to admit it.

A free press does not mean the press cannot be questioned or called out for obvious partisanship.

Especially when they claim to be neutral or just observers.

And bringing up Stalin doesn't make sense because their press was controlled by him.

 

[martybegan]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

 

[Camp]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

A President calling a news media source an enemy of rhe people is an attack Your distorted and warped definition of an attack is not going to change reality.

 

[martybegan]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

A President calling a news media source an enemy of rhe people is an attack Your distorted and warped definition of an attack is not going to change reality.

No, actually treating them like enemies of the people would be an attack.

It's amazing how wimpy progs get over words when they are aimed at them.

Grow a spine, pansy-boi

 

[Penelope]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

In those cases the rhetoric was always backed up with action.

When offices start getting raided and journalists start disappearing, then the comparison can be made. Until then the MSM is just being called out for it's partisan hackery, and they have shown they can dish it, but can't take it.

Actually no its propaganda of which he uses every day in his speech and on twitter.

 

[martybegan]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

In those cases the rhetoric was always backed up with action.

When offices start getting raided and journalists start disappearing, then the comparison can be made. Until then the MSM is just being called out for it's partisan hackery, and they have shown they can dish it, but can't take it.

Actually no its propaganda of which he uses every day in his speech and on twitter.

Propaganda is a weasel word used to describe opinions from someone you don't like or agree with.

Sorry that you now have to deal with someone who fights back, instead of mewling with their tail between their legs like most Republican-lites do.

 

[Camp]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

A President calling a news media source an enemy of rhe people is an attack Your distorted and warped definition of an attack is not going to change reality.

No, actually treating them like enemies of the people would be an attack.

It's amazing how wimpy progs get over words when they are aimed at them.

Grow a spine, pansy-boi

I am not the one whining and crying like a baby or snowflake about our free press, you are.

 

[martybegan]

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

A President calling a news media source an enemy of rhe people is an attack Your distorted and warped definition of an attack is not going to change reality.

No, actually treating them like enemies of the people would be an attack.

It's amazing how wimpy progs get over words when they are aimed at them.

Grow a spine, pansy-boi

I am not the one whining and crying like a baby or snowflake about our free press, you are.

You, as usual for a progressive, misuse the term snowflake. I am not trying to stop the press from being progressive shills, neither is the President.

They are simply being called out. Snowflakes want opinions they don't like suppressed, that isn't happening here.

 

[Penelope]

They are being called out r/t (related to ) the fact they state the facts and do not worship the self declared God Trump, who know everything about every topic under the sun.

He knows when you been good and bad and bad is if you do not worship him. He is jealous and pushes those who sway from his good graces and then attempts to destroy them.

 

[TNHarley]

There is a reason a free press was in the first amendment to the Constitution, Unfortunately, we have mindless followers of a Trumpist ideology that does not want truth and does not want contradictory news to their beliefs but do want a single news source preferably from a leader they will question without thought.

Putanism and Trumpism are on the rise on the right. Ironically, these folks who side with Trumpist attacks on the free press often protest how they love the Constitution. The reality is they despise the Constitution and all it stands for.

The "enemy of the people" slogan was a favorite of Stalin. I don't think it is any surprise it has been co-opted by Trump and Trumpist. A totalitarian regime is what they truly desire. They just don't have the balls to admit it.

The outrage over the media being bullshit predates trump and his minions, genius.
You simple minded sheep blow my fuckin mind

Even Nixon never used Stalinist rhetoric to attack the press. The sheep are those that accept such language as normal for a US president when it isn't. Think about it.

Its fucking right though. The media use us for more clickbait. Stupid rubes like yourself defend them.
Dumbfucks like you is how stalin still has a positive support percentage in russia.
You people eat up whatever your "superiors" tell you.
They lie to use every fucking day. You love it. Its pathetic.

A few questions:

So where do you get your news since you admittedly hate the press? Who do you believe? Are you the sole arbiter of what truth is ? Are Trump's words to be taken without criticism? Do you think there is a conspiracy among all media to dupe Americans? Is the free press a sham? Should we do away with the first amendment?

I dont roll with everything those asswipes spit out.
Every member of govt should be ridiculed for every bad/wrong thing they do. I bash that dumbfuck plenty.
Of course not. The first is one of our most important rights. But if we can punish corporations for mistakes and flat out lies, why not those douchbags?

 

[TNHarley]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Marxist propagandists are the enemy of the people. What is so controversial about that?

The only people I know that use Marxist/Stalinist rhetoric is Trump and Trumpists. So what are you saying?

Like when trump used the govt/ IRS to financially hurt his opponents? Good point!!
Dumbfuck

You're a fucking moron. Can't even respond in a logical manner. Go back to your basement and return to playing Sonic.

As usual, you are disingenuous. You are a disingenuous partisan hack.
You say stupid partisan cliches, and called out on it, the other person needs to go back to his childish antics? Lmao give me a break.
Your old ass needs to grow up
You and that Erinwltr faggot.

 

[MoneyShaker]

if certain media outlets don't like being labeled as enemies of the people, perhaps they should stop behaving like enemies of the people.

 

[theHawk]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Marxist propagandists are the enemy of the people. What is so controversial about that?

The only people I know that use Marxist/Stalinist rhetoric is Trump and Trumpists. So what are you saying?

Bullshit. The left use identity politics for everything to divide everyone.

 

[Penelope]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Marxist propagandists are the enemy of the people. What is so controversial about that?

The only people I know that use Marxist/Stalinist rhetoric is Trump and Trumpists. So what are you saying?

Bullshit. The left use identity politics for everything to divide everyone.

The Jews in the Synogogue shooting are on the hands of Trump. The chief divider.

I believe this:
Progressive Jewish leader: 'The blood' of Pittsburgh synagogue shooting victims 'is on Trump's hands'

 

[theHawk]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Marxist propagandists are the enemy of the people. What is so controversial about that?

The only people I know that use Marxist/Stalinist rhetoric is Trump and Trumpists. So what are you saying?

Bullshit. The left use identity politics for everything to divide everyone.

The Jews in the Synogogue shooting are on the hands of Trump. The chief divider.

I believe this:
Progressive Jewish leader: 'The blood' of Pittsburgh synagogue shooting victims 'is on Trump's hands'

So now President Trump is to blame for anti-Semetism, when his own son-in-law and daughter are Jewish.

This is the kind of dumb you can’t even make up.

 

[blastoff]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

A President calling a news media source an enemy of rhe people is an attack Your distorted and warped definition of an attack is not going to change reality.

The left loves the word attack.

Someone running against a dimocrat who cites that dim’s position on issues, voting record, etc. will be accused of running an “attack ad” about his opponent. Happens all the time. Mention facts that are on the record and it’s an attack in the minds of many lefty shitbags.

 

[martybegan]

ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

Sulzberger compared Trump’s statements to those of autocrats around the world who had limited the press.

“The phrase ‘enemy of the people’ is not just false, it’s dangerous,” Sulzberger wrote. “It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies.”

Sulzberger wrote that he had previously spoken with Trump in an attempt to get the president to soften his rhetoric.

'It's dangerous': New York Times publisher responds to Trump's media rhetoric
-----------------------------------------------
Pecker's paper National Enquirer is real the enemy of the people. Since Trump wants to "change libel" law, I'm sure Hillary Clinton can own AMI in line after Bezos, maybe they can run AMI together.

Let me see if I've got this straight...The New York Times wants "softer rhetoric"? Why? Because there is a President in office that fights back against liberally biased media outlets like The New York Times? LOL...of course Sulzberger view Trump as "dangerous"!

Liberally biased media and Conservative biased media coexist as they were meant to when our founders wrote the 1rst Amendment to allow all political thoughts and ideas the freedom to be distributed to the people by competition. Citizens determine which news sources will be popular and influential as constituents and customers the same as any free market products.

News sources Trump and his followers hate and wish to destroy are simply popular and favored sources of news in America. They overpower segments of the news media favored by supporters of Trump. Talk Radio, FOX News and the bloggers just have limited influence compared to the mainstream media in America. Not being able to satisfactorily overwhelm, their competition, they attack and try to destroy their competition.

Trump's attacks on media are attacks on Americans and American freedom, American culture and the Constitution.

Calling out is not attacking. If the press is supposed to be the bulwark of our freedoms, then they need to have a thicker spine.

Get back to me when offices are raided, or journalists start disappearing before you start using the term "attack"

A President calling a news media source an enemy of rhe people is an attack Your distorted and warped definition of an attack is not going to change reality.

The left loves the word attack.

Someone running against a dimocrat who cites that dim’s position on issues, voting record, etc. will be accused of running an “attack ad” about his opponent. Happens all the time. Mention facts that are on the record and it’s an attack in the minds of many lefty shitbags.

They also love the word "pounce" when describing a conservative going after some progressive fuck up.