What or Who Is An Enemy?

[Kishkumen]

However, I encourage you to continue elaborating on your perspective that anyone who isn't a progressive is an adversary to the progressive cause, as your insights are providing me with ample content for my highly engaging thread.

I am sorry that everything you have written is irrelevant. I tried to help you, but you refuse to read what I have written, and instead you insist on calling reverence for the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States of America "wokism" or "Progressivism." As both a Republican and, now, an Independent, I have upheld and will continue to uphold the sanctity of the principle of the rule of law and our nation's Constitution. You, on the other hand, obviously disdain the rule of law and the Constitution, since these things are identified, by you, as "Progressivism." And you have made it absolutely clear how much you hate Progressivism. Obviously you hate the rule of law and the Constitution just as much.

I want to thank you for the revealing education you have provided us. You have made it clear that reverence for the rule of law and the Constitution are Progressivism, and that you hate Progressivism. Ergo, you hate the rule of law and the Constitution. This puts you in the Trump camp, and I would bet that anyone who does revere the rule of law and the Constitution is happy to know where you stand. You don't want them to enjoy their Constitutional rights, and you don't want them to live in a country where everyone is equal under the law. Well done, Hound of Hell. You have done a great job here.

[huckelberry]

Hound has shown that progressives are people who do not like Trump. That pretty much sums it all up.

[Kishkumen]

Hound has shown that progressives are people who do not like Trump. That pretty much sums it all up.

That is true. And whatever Trump does not like or respect must be disliked and disrespected by his followers. Trump only likes submission, agreement with him, and flattery. So, anyone who has an independent opinion that differs with his opinion is a threat. He wants none of it, and he will seek to get rid of that person. He kicks the AP out of the press pool. He kicks a Salvadoran U.S. resident out of the US into a Salvadoran gulag. He will next rob US citizens of their citizenship and send them to the same country and gulag. This is Hound of Hell's beloved dictator. Know your enemy.

[canpakes]

… embracing progressivism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …

Just as these follow:

… embracing conservatism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing MAGA entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing libertarianism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing Constitutionalism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing Catholicism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing patriotism entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… embracing freedom entails acknowledging a mental enemies list …
… and so on.

You are unable to argue against the plain reality of this.

Even embracing your own point of view, Hound, entails acknowledging a mental enemies list, and -

… the belief that enemies are encircling us, and it becomes our duty to confront them …

… as you are here, starting thread after thread about the same 3 or so subjects that you perceive to be your enemy … when you’re not accidentally acting woke, anyway.

I await your next scintillating non-insight into dull facts that apply to everyone yet that you believe yourself to be immune to. : )

[Gunnar]

Hound has shown that progressives are people who do not like Trump. That pretty much sums it all up.

That is true. And whatever Trump does not like or respect must be disliked and disrespected by his followers. Trump only likes submission, agreement with him, and flattery. So, anyone who has an independent opinion that differs with his opinion is a threat. He wants none of it, and he will seek to get rid of that person. He kicks the AP out of the press pool. He kicks a Salvadoran U.S. resident out of the US into a Salvadoran gulag. He will next rob US citizens of their citizenship and send them to the same country and gulag. This is Hound of Hell's beloved dictator. Know your enemy.

Trump is now even threatening to rescind the broadcast licenses of news organizations that dare to fact check Trump's obvious lies. What better proof than that do we need that the Trump Administration is going or has gone full Fascist and authoritarian?

In authoritarian style, Trump intensifies offensive against the free press with CBS rant

The president labeled the latest "60 Minutes" episode as “unlawful and illegal behavior” in a brazenly authoritarian display.

By Steve Benen

In the run-up to Election Day 2024 , Donald Trump was nearly as eager to attack the free press as he was to attack Kamala Harris. The Republican, for example, referred to journalists as “the enemy of the people,” media outlets as “evil” and news professionals as “scum.”

But the offensive wasn’t just rhetorical. As regular readers might recall, Trump also made clear that he hoped to use governmental power to crack down on journalism he dislikes. It’s why he invested so much time and energy talking about the FCC stripping TV networks of their broadcast licenses for airing coverage he disapproves of. We saw some abuses along these lines during his first term in the White House, and it stood to reason that these tactics would get worse in his second term.

It was against this backdrop that The Associated Press reported:

President Donald Trump bitterly attacked “60 Minutes” shortly after the CBS newsmagazine broadcast stories on Ukraine and Greenland on Sunday, saying the network was out of control and should “pay a big price” for going after him. “Almost every week, 60 Minutes ... mentions the name ‘Trump’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all,” the president said on his Truth Social platform. He called on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to impose maximum fines and punishment “for their unlawful and illegal behavior.”

By any fair standard, the president’s online tantrum was bonkers. It began with a missive in which he accused “60 Minutes” of deceptively editing a Harris interview — claims that have been discredited, despite his ongoing civil case against CBS — before publishing a follow-up item that went considerably further.

Over the course of a 243-word rant, the Republican accused the news program of “fraud,” airing “defamatory” segments, “illegally” intervening in the last presidential election, “corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions,” and being a “Political Operative” that has engaged in “unlawful and illegal behavior.”

True to form, the president said CBS “should lose” its broadcast license and “pay a big price,” while calling on the FCC to “impose the maximum fines and punishment.”

To the extent that reality has any bearing on the discussion, there was nothing wrong with the segments in question, one of which covered Trump’s drive to acquire Greenland, while the other focused on the ongoing war in Ukraine. The president might not have liked the episode, but to define journalism that’s unpopular with ruling powers as “unlawful and illegal behavior” is, practically by definition, authoritarian.

But as ugly as the Republican’s offensive against CBS and “60 Minutes” was, it’s even worse when considered as part of a larger pattern.

Indeed, Trump's latest effort to strip a news organization of its access to the airwaves coincides with his legal fight with the Associated Press over its decision to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico. The Trump White House has also taken steps to control press pools, ensuring sycophantic questions, while also taking an interest in the press briefing room seating chart.

The president also recently delivered remarks at the Justice Department in which he said news coverage on CNN and MSNBC (my employer) “is illegal.” He made nearly identical comments about newspapers he dislikes, adding that their reporting “has to be illegal” and “has to stop.”

That came on the heels of Trump repeatedly referring to MSNBC as “a threat to democracy.”

Those who take the First Amendment’s press freedoms for granted need to recognize the fact that Trump is eyeing the kind of crackdown on journalism that’s unheard of in any modern democracy.

[Kishkumen]

What better proof than that do we need that the Trump Administration is going or has gone full Fascist and authoritarian?

That's right. We don't need to ask when the Trump regime will become a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship. It is authoritarian. No one should speak about these things as a real possibility. No. They are a present reality. As long as Trump remains in the presidency, each of us only has notional Constitutional rights. Trump has made it clear that he does not respect those rights.

Consider the actual wording of the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

We all know Trump is a bad reader. But I don't think improving his reading would improve this situation. He has proven that he is an enemy of the Constitution, and he must be removed from office. As long as he stays there, we have no republic.

[Some Schmo]

You are absolutely and obviously correct, Kish.

I have always considered people who refuse to acknowledge the truth to be my enemy, because they would attempt to convince me of things that blatantly aren't true. It's not really important to me why they attempt it, whether it's stupidity of malicious intent, because both amount to the same gaslighting end result.

It's so hard for me to understand why so many people are afraid to do what's right in this country and stand up to this man-baby. Perhaps it's the desire of so many to do wrong.

I have cut ties with all Trump voters and people who don't vote. It's not a policy difference. It's a moral and ethical difference. If you helped allow Trump to resume office, there is something fundamentally wrong with your character, and I consider you dangerously negligent at the very least and a damned psychopath on average.

[Chap]

[...]

Consider the actual wording of the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

We all know Trump is a bad reader. But I don't think improving his reading would improve this situation. He has proven that he is an enemy of the Constitution, and he must be removed from office. As long as he stays there, we have no republic.

Yup. Note that it says 'no person', not 'no citizen'.

The Founding Fathers who drafted the US constitution did not make this bit up. They certainly had in mind the document called Magna Carta ('The great charter') that a coalition of barons forced King John of England to sign in 1215:

One clause runs:

XXXIX
Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut dissaisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae.

Englished:

39
No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

"disseised" = deprived of property

"peers" = equals

Notice that any man who is free is protected. The person in question does not have to be English, and the barons are not just talking about other persons of noble rank like themselves. They wanted everybody with status before the law to be free from arbitrary action by the head of state, because they knew that England would, in the long run, be better off that way. And they were right.

[Gunnar]

Notice that any man who is free is protected. The person in question does not have to be English, and the barons are not just talking about other persons of noble rank like themselves. They wanted everybody with status before the law to be free from arbitrary action by the head of state, because they knew that England would, in the long run, be better off that way. And they were right.

As it also says in The Declaration of Independence, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

They properly belong to all people, not just those who happen to be citizens of any one particular country, including the United States of America. They are "unalienable!"

[Some Schmo]

The enemy are those who claim love for this country while supporting every effort to tear it apart.

Nobody lies to themselves like MAGAtes.