• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump and NFL boycott

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

Oh okay then, just a reflexive swipe at liberals.

Pretty lame attempt, considering the egregious nature of what we're discussing. But hey, that agenda isn't going to push itself, is it?
 
johnny karate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Trump has a lack of respect....but it is more for the NFL 'brand' and the league owners' ability to handle it without his interference.

It isn't a matter of 'free expression' of the players. Players are hired to promote the 'brand' and bring in $$$. If their behavior runs contrary to that, even off-the-clock, they can be fired. That is part of their job according to the contract they signed. Trump thinks it hurts the 'American' brand and should not be tolerated. The NFL and its owners may disagree and handle it their own way. The players don't get to decide.
 
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nice theory.

Truth is, we've (meaning, Congress, really) likely allowed the executive branch, and thus the presidency, far too much power. And that seems especially true given the near-spineless behavior of Ryan and McConnell compared to this idiot. The very idea that anything he, or any other president, posts on Twitter has the slightest weight is absurd, particularly given the 140-character limit. Him snarling "He should be FIRED!" at a campaign rally carries strong implications, and ones that I only consider now because Cheeto Benito is the first president in my lifetime to act in such an unhinged, "let's get him!" way in public. Obama, GWB, and Clinton were all very careful with their public statements.

Since it's clear that the current Speaker and Senate Majority Leader are worthless, it falls to the people to do so. And I think everyone else did as well - which is why you suddenly saw the players, coaches, and owners revolt en masse, using what up until then was the WNBA, plus a few NFL and NBA players, I think.
 
Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...
So with the 'government' in this case the POTUS tells employers to fire people or tells the public to boycott a business, you don't think that's the government impinging on free speech rights?

It takes a lot of contortions to rationalize the POTUS telling a business to fire an employee for exercising their free speech right isn't really the government suppressing free speech.

Brainster said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not an appropriate use of the bully pulpit. Notice it was something no one would have expected Obama to do and notice he never did any such thing.


BTW, are any of you right wingers calling Trump a snowflake for his behavior? Just curious.

Maybe we should call him President Snowflake.
 
And the distraction continues to succeed. Graham-Cassidy is essentially dead, but who knows about it? Trump has managed to distract the MSM so that nobody is aware of his latest failure. I've realized he's a lot cleverer than I thought.
 
Sherkeu said:
Trump has a lack of respect....but it is more for the NFL 'brand' and the league owners' ability to handle it without his interference.

It isn't a matter of 'free expression' of the players. Players are hired to promote the 'brand' and bring in $$$. If their behavior runs contrary to that, even off-the-clock, they can be fired. That is part of their job according to the contract they signed. Trump thinks it hurts the 'American' brand and should not be tolerated. The NFL and its owners may disagree and handle it their own way. The players don't get to decide.
Click to expand...

That's between the NFL and their employees.

The government doesn't and shouldn't have any role in how that plays out. It's why we have the First Amendment in the first place.
 
Trebuchet said:
And the distraction continues to succeed. Graham-Cassidy is essentially dead, but who knows about it? Trump has managed to distract the MSM so that nobody is aware of his latest failure. I've realized he's a lot cleverer than I thought.
Click to expand...

It's the top story on the Washington Post app and the lead story on cnn.com as we speak. I think people can pay attention to more than one story at a time.
 
Trebuchet said:
And the distraction continues to succeed. Graham-Cassidy is essentially dead, but who knows about it? Trump has managed to distract the MSM so that nobody is aware of his latest failure. I've realized he's a lot cleverer than I thought.
Click to expand...

CNN has been pushing the healthcare bill story on the top of the splash page and in their evening line-up. If you watch FOX, I would suspect that his failure on the new repeal and replace act isn't getting much coverage. CNN seems positively giddy over the healthcare bill failure.
 
johnny karate said:
Oh okay then, just a reflexive swipe at liberals.

Pretty lame attempt, considering the egregious nature of what we're discussing. But hey, that agenda isn't going to push itself, is it?
Click to expand...

Would you consider d4m10n's post a reflexive swipe at conservatives?

It's really your own inability to view the issue in any other terms which reveals reflexive partisanship, far more so than either d4m10n or myself.
 
gregthehammer said:
So apparently tonight, the Dallas Cowboys , including Jerry Jones, took a knee in solidarity before the anthem played, stood up for the anthem, and are still getting major flack based on the online comments i read.
cowboys-take-knee-team-national-anthem-005655363.html
Click to expand...

I thought it was a brilliant move.
Some people are never happy though. Suggests that is not about the flag, its about the nwords daring to speak up.
 
Noztradamus said:
Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it
Click to expand...

Another tu quoque as your sole argument? Come on, you have more to offer than that. Do you think Trump's actions are bad, in which case you might say so. Or do you think they are good, in which case you must think the mythical "Left" strawman that you so often conjure up would also be praiseworthy.
 
Last edited:
Considering the disrespect he shows the flag, the constitution, the truth, shouldn't President S.O.B. be fired? Even if it's no earlier than 2020, we can but hope.
 
Brainster said:
And if Molly Ivins could just find somebody who burns the constitution she'd have made a valid point.
Click to expand...

It's called metaphor.

I know you realize this and you were trying to be cute, so let's skip the retort to get to the real point: do you agree with her statement or not? I certainly and profoundly agree with her point. You?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Considering the disrespect he shows the flag, the constitution, the truth, shouldn't President S.O.B. be fired? Even if it's no earlier than 2020, we can but hope.
Click to expand...

It repeatedly amazes me that so many in the USA believe that respect for the country means propery saluting a piece of cloth, whereas destroying the very fundamentals of our democracy and of our society are tolerated or even enthusiastically approved of.
 
GlennB said:
I hasten to add that my only interest is at the technical, legal level - but did Trump's blathering suggest "government sanction" in any way? To "sanction" something requires the use of official powers, not just the expression of a desire.
Click to expand...


The complete phrase is "government-sanctioned boycott". The word "sanction" has a different meaning in this context: "official permission or approval for an action". Edit: You can quibble about the "official" part, but if someone directly asked Trump, "Do I have your permission, as President, to boycott the NFL," I have no doubt that he would answer in the affirmative. You could still argue that doesn't make it official, but I doubt very many people looking for that kind of support would take it any differently.

Skeptic Ginger said:
So with the 'government' in this case the POTUS tells employers to fire people or tells the public to boycott a business, you don't think that's the government impinging on free speech rights?

It takes a lot of contortions to rationalize the POTUS telling a business to fire an employee for exercising their free speech right isn't really the government suppressing free speech.
Click to expand...


It's certainly an overt attempt to influence and to create a chilling effect, but I don't think it rises to the level of government suppression of free speech; the government itself has taken no direct action.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not saying it's nothing to worry about. This is the President being belligerent and making threatening movements in the direction of a certain group of citizens. "Self defense" is entirely justified.

Noztradamus said:
Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it
Click to expand...


Nah.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom