Posted on 11/19/2020 10:36:32 AM PST by rktman
Reid began the show by bemoaning Trump as “an itinerant dictator, refusing to accept that the voters have spoken, erroneously declaring victory, bulldozing over our democracy and hunkering down in the White House, refusing to relinquish the reins of government or even to admit he's been fired by the American people.”
“In other words, Trump is no longer an autocrat in the making, he's already there...And behind every strongman is his supine party, the fixers, and the king-makers, and the thugs who enable him,” she added.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Quite a few of those behind the weakman from the Democrats.
It President Trump is an autocrat or dictator why are his critics and enemies still alive or free?
Joyless, project ye much?
Yup. They’d have had the Arkansas special long ago.
I am shocked that MSNBC hosts would lie.
Hate to point out the obvious but, the President IS still the President.
And will be until January, no matter what.
I wish Trump was a autocrat who upon seeing peaceful DC marchers for a fair election savagely attacked,he would send the police to bash ANTIFA and BLM skulls into the curb.
Totalitarian? Really? They have the luxury to use such terms.
I denounce 0bongo’s Mugabeism.
algore
37 days
never concede close elections
- hillary
Joy Reid - vile to the core.
MSNBC, vile for having her barf her hatred all over the airwaves.
What are the ratings for these shows? The fact that these people are horrible doesn’t bother me as much as the thought that there are a lot of people who watch this crap and agree.
yes that is more concerning...
Being shocked at a public lie needs to become a thing again. As in the good old days, when violation of the Ninth CommandmentThou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20: 16was indeed a scandal actionable in court.That unambiguously was the case until the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision by the Warren Court - which made the novel claim that the First Amendment affected libel law.
That claim was novel for the simple reason that suing for libel was an established right protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - and the First Amendment does not even mention the question of libel. Had the ratifiers of 1A thought that it compromised the right to sue for libel, it would have be extremely controversial - and the whole objective of the Federalists who composed the Bill of Rights was to tamp down controversy. “The” freedom of the press already existed - 1A simply enumerates it to assure the public that no change was in the offing.
I know...
We’re so desensitized to this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.