ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , NFL incidents , protest incidents , sports controversies , sports incidents , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 25th September 2017, 04:13 PM   #201
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I never said that liberals in particular need it explained. But conservatives were already mentioned, and liberals hadn't been.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 04:42 PM   #202
Sherkeu
Critical Thinker
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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.
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.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 04:55 PM   #203
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,647
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
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.
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.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:11 PM   #204
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,882
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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?
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.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:16 PM   #205
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 13,332
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.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:28 PM   #206
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,442
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
What does this have to do with President Trump coming out against free speech?
This is news to me. Where did he come out against free speech?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:37 PM   #207
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
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.
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:38 PM   #208
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,622
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
This is news to me. Where did he come out against free speech?
When he used his position as the highest officer of the government to attack private citizens expressing it.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:43 PM   #209
Dread Pirate Roberts
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
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.
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.
Dread Pirate Roberts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:51 PM   #210
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,611
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
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.
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.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:52 PM   #211
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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?
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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 05:56 PM   #212
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,544
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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.
.
Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:18 PM   #213
gregthehammer
Critical Thinker
 
gregthehammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 404
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. https://sports.yahoo.com/cowboys-tak...005655363.html

Last edited by gregthehammer; 25th September 2017 at 07:22 PM.
gregthehammer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:24 PM   #214
beren
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by gregthehammer View Post
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
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.
__________________
Drive-by snark artist.
Deep thinker as long as I can do it quickly with minimal effort.
Band wagon pile-oner
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:32 PM   #215
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,433
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it
Ha ha ha.

No.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:32 PM   #216
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it
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 by Giordano; 25th September 2017 at 08:33 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:35 PM   #217
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,433
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.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:39 PM   #218
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And if Molly Ivins could just find somebody who burns the constitution she'd have made a valid point.
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?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:43 PM   #219
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
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.
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.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:45 PM   #220
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,367
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Whereas the Left would have been perfectly comfortable with it

Nah.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 25th September 2017 at 07:58 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:50 PM   #221
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,863
Originally Posted by beren View Post
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.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 07:58 PM   #222
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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.

Last edited by Giordano; 25th September 2017 at 08:32 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 08:08 PM   #223
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
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..."

Last edited by Giordano; 25th September 2017 at 08:13 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 08:50 PM   #224
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,096
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 08:59 PM   #225
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,334
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
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.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:03 PM   #226
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,096
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
"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.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:04 PM   #227
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,544
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
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.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:38 PM   #228
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,642
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:46 PM   #229
Arcade22
Illuminator
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,080
Quote:
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/2017/0...-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?
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 25th September 2017 at 09:47 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:51 PM   #230
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,439
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
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.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:54 PM   #231
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,882
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 09:58 PM   #232
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,882
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
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.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 11:38 PM   #233
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,632
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
When he used his position as the highest officer of the government to attack private citizens expressing it.
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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 ?
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 11:42 PM   #234
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,064
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
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.”
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 26th September 2017 at 12:15 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 11:46 PM   #235
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,442
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2017, 11:58 PM   #236
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 22,632
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:33 AM   #237
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,600
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:33 AM   #238
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,642
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:39 AM   #239
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 62,882
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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?
Quote:
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
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2017, 12:43 AM   #240
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,058
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
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.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
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.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.