Trump and NFL boycott

[BobTheCoward]

When the President issues an official declaration [Tweets, per DJT Administration, ARE official declarations] that Americans should boycott businesses, it is not "blathering" such as you and I when we take to twitter.

But it is. They are the same.

 

[The Greater Fool]

But it is. They are the same.

No, they are not. PJDT tweets are official Presidential Statements. Other tweets, are not. This doesn't require your acknowledgement to remain fact.

 

[johnny karate]

Sigh. People do have first amendment rights in the workplace, but they protect them only from the government, not from their employers.

And the "sanctions" the President is calling for is a boycott by the public; not some government sanction. Ergo no constitutional issues.

Trump didn't just call for a boycott. He specifically said the people protesting should have their livelihoods taken away from them. That may not technically be a constitutional issue, but certainly demonstrates that the president has a complete lack of respect for free expression. That should be problematic for you.

Let me ask you this: Suppose Obama had suggested that people boycott bakeries that refuse to provide wedding cakes for gay marriages. Would that have been problematic to you?

It wouldn't be for you?

I can tell you this much, if Obama went on national television and demanded that Tea Party protestors lose their jobs, the Right would have lost their damn minds.

Of course, that was back when they pretended to care about things like this.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, they are not. PJDT tweets are official Presidential Statements. Other tweets, are not. This doesn't require your acknowledgement to remain fact.

My tweets are official statements by me. People can state almost anything they want.

 

[The Greater Fool]

My tweets are official statements by me. People can state almost anything they want.

 

[johnny karate]

I fully intend to try to explain it to the illiberal left.

Considering that the "illiberal left" aren't the ones using the highest political office in the country as a platform to suppress speech, I'm not sure how immediate that need is.

 

[Solitaire]

Aside from Michelle's role as First lady, who in Obama's
family or immediate circle were employed at the White House?

If there was grift, it was incredibly minor.

Now, with Don Donald in charge, how many of his family
and made men are we seeing in positions of power?

That is the kind of obvious difference.

He didn't say grifters - people engaged in petty swindling.

He said gritters - vehicles or machines for spreading grit
and often salt on roads in icy or potentially icy weather.

In his opinion, the Obama administration preformed much needed
service for our country by removing potentially hazardous conditions
from the path of economic progress.

 

[Brainster]

Not really. In fact, it would be far less problematic than what the government actually did.

I agree.

Suppose that Trump had suggested compelling players to stand for the anthem through government force. Would that have been problematic to you?

Yes, of course. That is where the line is. And that would apply whether the force is actually physical, or financial--e.g., a fine for not standing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"I prefer somone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”
― Molly Ivins

 

[Brainster]

Trump didn't just call for a boycott. He specifically said the people protesting should have their livelihoods taken away from them.

And I agree; unfortunately the owners don't really have that ability right now, but I guarantee you they will be looking long and hard at players who are involved. Kaepernick alone has probably cost the combined NFL a billion dollars or more in potential value.

That may not technically be a constitutional issue, but certainly demonstrates that the president has a complete lack of respect for free expression. That should be problematic for you.

I suppose being right doesn't count for much with you.

It wouldn't be for you?

I can tell you this much, if Obama went on national television and demanded that Tea Party protestors lose their jobs, the Right would have lost their damn minds.

Of course, that was back when they pretended to care about things like this.

Obama didn't demand, but he certainly encouraged NFL owners to hire Michael Vick after he was released from prison. And if you hire one person, you don't hire another.

 

[paiute]

He also said the NFL sucks because they are trying to eliminate violent hits. And he did this the same day we found out Aaron Hernandez had a terrible case of CTE.

It's like he tries to find ways to be insensitive.

That's like saying a horse tries to find ways to be a horse.

 

[Brainster]

"I prefer somone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”
― Molly Ivins

And if Molly Ivins could just find somebody who burns the constitution she'd have made a valid point.

 

[sunmaster14]

"I prefer somone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”
― Molly Ivins

I'd prefer if Molly Ivins had wrapped herself up in a burning flag.

 

[NoahFence]

My tweets are official statements by me. People can state almost anything they want.

Trump's tweets are official government sanctioned statements.

 

[Polaris]

Payback is a you-know-what:

The man's like Midas in reverse.

 

[Tero]

Sports events protests! This is going really swell. The majority of public events by the end of 2019 if he is still president will be anti-Trump rallies. american flags made in China and Vietnam will be burned routinely. Trump hats will be burned at outdoor events.

The national anthem and the pledge of allegiance will not recover from the Trump taint until about 2022.

All going according to plan now. Bring Trump down to his knees and depress him to quit.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you admit both sides do it, why is it that liberals in particular need this explained to them?

I never said that liberals in particular need it explained. But conservatives were already mentioned, and liberals hadn't been.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Trump's tweets are official government sanctioned statements.

Not government. Executive branch. Plus, they are just opinions with no legal implications. The opinion is about as valid as anything I would spew on Twitter.

 

[johnny karate]

And I agree; unfortunately the owners don't really have that ability right now, but I guarantee you they will be looking long and hard at players who are involved. Kaepernick alone has probably cost the combined NFL a billion dollars or more in potential value.

What does this have to do with President Trump coming out against free speech?

I suppose being right doesn't count for much with you.

Right about what?

Obama didn't demand, but he certainly encouraged NFL owners to hire Michael Vick after he was released from prison. And if you hire one person, you don't hire another.

What does this have to do with President Trump coming out against free speech?

Oh and also, this didn't happen:

Obama didn't demand, but he certainly encouraged NFL owners to hire Michael Vick after he was released from prison.

 

[Oystein]

"Do not buy Jewish!"