Trump and NFL boycott

[Meadmaker]

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.

I don't usually go for this sort of rhetoric but, this time, yeah.

I'm still not crazy about using a football game as a venue for a political statement, but when The Donald decided to get into it, what else is there to do? Once the President gets involved, it's political. Joining the protest is political. Not joining the protest is political.

The Cowboys' choice of statements seems perfect to me, so if people are still complaining, there has to be some other explanation. It can't be about disrespecting the flag or the national anthem, because they didn't. What's left?


I'll repeat something I said yesterday. One great thing about Americans is that if someone in authority tells us we can't do something, we are strongly inclined to tell the authority figure where to shove it. Donald, you have your answer.

 

[Giordano]

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.

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?

Yet it was not their employers who opposed their protests and insisted that they be fired- it was the President of the USA.

Similarly the President called for the boycott.

In his role as the head of the US government.

This is bad enough, but it is also important to remember is that the President and executive branch hold the power to target businesses that displease them in many ways, from steering resources and money elsewhere to changes in regulatory rules. Having the President demand an action by a business is intimidating in very real terms. So this is very much a government violation of free speech.

Finally, what is it about how this subject attracts tu quoque defenses? Beyond the senselessness of this form of argument, I can only say that for me and the people I know yes, it would be problematic if Obama did it. But I guess he understood that, because he did not.

 

[Giordano]

More broadly I would ask a general question. How does one truly destroy a country? Turning its citizens against one another at all levels over issues both small and large is a particularly effective method. Divide. Stir up anger and hatred. Make people define themselves not as Americans but as members of petty little subgroups separated by their political beliefs, their religions, their race. Make them suspicious of one another. Tear us apart rather than try to join us together.

Surely we on this Forum recognize this! Of all things Trump has done, these repeated divisive acts are for me the most difficult to forgive. It truly is anti-American.

To quote Edward R Murrow in response to another dangerous demigod in US history, "“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular..."

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Because the POTUS, speaking as President from the "bully pulpit" of the White House has no element of "the use of official powers".

Riiight.



We can keep this in mind. When the President makes pronouncements as President he is only expressing a desire, and it has no official implications whatsoever.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because the POTUS, speaking as President from the "bully pulpit" of the White House has no element of "the use of official powers".

Riiight.



We can keep this in mind. When the President makes pronouncements as President he is only expressing a desire, and it has no official implications whatsoever.

It doesn't have any official implications.

 

[quadraginta]

"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 sure miss her.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

Try to keep up. The discussion was about some hypothetical outrageous statement by Obama. JK suggested the Right would be rightfully outraged. Specifically only mentioning the Right suggests that the Left would view it with equanimity.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Try to keep up. The discussion was about some hypothetical outrageous statement by Obama. JK suggested the Right would be rightfully outraged. Specifically only mentioning the Right suggests that the Left would view it with equanimity.

We got that. We're slow but we figure things out eventually. So how about the further hypothetical? The topic conservatives are assiduously avoiding. What do you think of Trump's statements and his use of his bully pulpit to target political foes, which is what he sees them as.

Forget that Nixon-Agnew patriotism crap. Trump likes to model himself after ******* Richard Nixon! Now those were the days. We had the flag-waving war-supporting right wing in an actual war against those hippies and colored folks who dare to shout for "Peace, Now!" He's trying to rekindle that kind of ugly jingoism.

 

[Arcade22]

President Donald Trump on Monday dug in on his feud with professional athletes, declaring on Twitter that “many people” booed the NFL players who kneeled during the national anthem, and denying that he’s stoking racial tensions with his attacks.

Trump’s clash with the NFL is extending into its fourth day, and while it’s pulling attention from heated debates on health care and tax reform, those around the president say he sees the issue as a way to reconnect with his base.

"He knows it'll get people stirred up and talking about it," a senior administration official said.

The official added the Trump fears his supporters may be feeling neglected after he decided to not immediately cut off protections for undocumented young immigrants known as Dreamers and after he cut a deal with Democrats on the debt ceiling and government funding.

Chris Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax and a longtime Trump friend, said on Monday that the president is focused on the patriotism angle of the debate and is brushing off the charges of racism.

"He's in a bubble here because he knows he's not a racist. His friends know he isn’t,” Ruddy said in an interview. “He sees himself standing on the high ground of the truth. But the media are telling the rest of the country a different story about him."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/25/trump-nfl-fight-nascar-243091

The President can't accomplish anything meaningful so instead he's going to do something he's actually good at: sowing discord and social strife to rile up his white trash base.

Oh and Trump's definitively not racist or prejudiced against black people in any shape of form despite acting like he is. He knows he's not racist and that means he isn't. I mean you'd trust Trump wouldn't you? You're a patriot aren't you?

 

[Giordano]

Try to keep up. The discussion was about some hypothetical outrageous statement by Obama. JK suggested the Right would be rightfully outraged. Specifically only mentioning the Right suggests that the Left would view it with equanimity.

i can keep up just fine for now although I intend to go to sleep soon. I read what people actually write, and it is obvious that you were making a swipe at your favorite strawman, the mystical mythical Left. You used this as an opportunity to state that a similarly outrageous statement by Obama would be okay by the "Left," which was obviously not what JK was saying. If you instead only intended to question the exclusion of the left by JK then a question mark at the end of your statement would have indicated so.

As my English teachers told me, proper punctuation is soooo important for correct communication.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When he used his position as the highest officer of the government to attack private citizens expressing it.

How some of the right-wingers in this thread simply overlook this is mind boggling.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it

Evidence?

The reason we wouldn't be comfortable is the same reason Obama would not abuse his position like that.

 

[The Don]

When he used his position as the highest officer of the government to attack private citizens expressing it.

How some of the right-wingers in this thread simply overlook this is mind boggling.

We're supposed to take President Trump seriously but not literally (whatever that means - I mean how can you know what to take seriously when you literally cannot believe it ) so I guess he's serious about supporting first amendment rights for athletes who take a knee ?

 

[GlennB]

Because the POTUS, speaking as President from the "bully pulpit" of the White House has no element of "the use of official powers".

Riiight.



We can keep this in mind. When the President makes pronouncements as President he is only expressing a desire, and it has no official implications whatsoever.

I was talking about the legal implications - whether his statement constituted grounds for legal action against him. That's where this branch of the discussion started, at post #164 by zooterkin, which detailed U.S. Code § 227, including:

(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

My highlighting. The POTUS expressing a desire, however strongly, doesn't constitute "an official act" in any legal sense, afaics. If you disagree - in terms of the legality of his actions - then please feel free to explain.

eta: Some discussion of the interpretation here:

Like in many statutes, however, qualifying language substantially limits the applicability of 18 U.S. Code Sec. 227. In order for it to apply, Trump must make his statements “with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation” (emphasis added).

It seems like a stretch to argue that Trump’s directive to league officials and owners reflects his “intent to influence solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation.”

 

[Brainster]

When he used his position as the highest officer of the government to attack private citizens expressing it.

So no doubt the criminal trials of Kaepernick and the other protestors are just around the corner?

 

[The Don]

So no doubt the criminal trials of Kaepernick and the other protestors are just around the corner?

I understand that they will proceed right after Hillary's

 

[KDLarsen]

A well known figure, greatly admired by Trump, tweeted that the president has more important things to focus on than the NFL.

This tweet came from Trump himself years ago during the whole Washington Redskins issue.

Another one for Trump Criticizes Trump

Hell, that very same figure even supported peaceful protests earlier this year:

Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.

 

[Foolmewunz]

So no doubt the criminal trials of Kaepernick and the other protestors are just around the corner?

Where's TBD when you need him? Classic "Rule of So". (Not a random pluckage of someone who simply used the conjunction.)

JK said nothing about prosecution, but about the President using his bully pulpit to threaten political opponents' livelihood.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So no doubt the criminal trials of Kaepernick and the other protestors are just around the corner?

What is it about the law cited in post 164 that you think doesn't apply here?

18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

 

[Travis]

Of course, it doesn't say anything about what it means. But there is an explicit code about how one ought to behave regarding the flag and explicitly it says that one ought to stand for the anthem and face the flag.

This is a long-held tradition. Like other forms of etiquette, there is some arbitrariness to it, but it wasn't pulled out of thin air last Tuesday.

(Again, I'm not saying that the protestors aren't behaving reasonably. I'm merely saying that those who argue the protestors should stand aren't being bizarre or arbitrary.)

Every nonsensical tradition (which anthems and flag ceremonies are) begins with someone just making crap up.

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

And I will continue to ignore you because I think places where unhinged asshats can't yell continuously about how other people need to be killed are a good thing.