Own industry, as i pointed out in my commentary before the break, they also want to play down the f-word. there s a lot of, let s calm down, she s not so bad. i feel like it s 2016 all over again. very much so. and i don t know what it is. you talk to these people in the media every day. what is going on in their minds that they feel like they have to whitewash it? famously said, there are not two sides to every story. i wish more of the media would take that to heart. i remember writing an article a few weeks after the election, saying that donald trump was plotting a coup. i had pushback. people saying, you are outrageous! how dare you say that? and more recent times, i think part of we need to explain what that means. people think it is like we are doing a mirror of we have to explain it. it is an enemy of democracy. it is embracing violence. it is about getting people against each other.
Post-fascist party of 1946. i would say that some in our own industry, as i pointed out in my commentary before the break, they also want to play down the f-word. there s a lot of, let s calm down, she s not so bad. i feel like it s 2016 all over again. very much so. and i don t know what it is. you talk to these people in the media every day. what is going on in their minds that they feel like they have to whitewash it? or boat size it. , famously said, there are not two sides to every story. i wish more of the media would take that to heart. i remember writing an article a few weeks after the election, saying that donald trump was plotting a coup. i had pushback. people saying, you are outrageous! how dare you say that? and more recent times, these terms, fascist. i think part of like what you did in your tweet, we need to explain what that means. people think it is like we are doing a mirror of the right. saying that they re fascists. we have to explain it. it is an enemy of democracy.
Though. they re not arguing with it being in there, so we don t need to go there. i included this language as a mirror of they re not objecting. but i am in the sense you don t want it included in what you put in yours? no, i put beyond a reasonable doubt in there and the state agrees. so we re past that. i included this whole section which is based upon mr. zimmerman initially provoking the use of force against him. i don t think they have an objection to the section. no, i do. then why did you put it in your instruction? for discussion. because it only becomes relevant if indeed there is substantial evidence to establish that mr. zimmerman provoked the use of force against him as defined by law. and i think the state should be required to articulate the facts in this case upon which it would