• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Roughly 3 weeks into Trump as PEOTUS...

Demonwolverine said:
The irony of a citizen (the president no less) expressing through his freedom of speech that flag burning should lead to a loss of the citizenship that protects that first amendment right is pretty astounding.

How about, rather than ban or imprison those citizens, we try and have a country where people choose not to burn our flags.

Just bring in President Pence. Im sorry LGBTQ community. We'll keep fighting.
Click to expand...

There will always be the nattering nabobs of negativism.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Sailor, how do you feel about this tweet?
Click to expand...

Not particularly a fan of flag burning. In his tweets, in as much as I can determine, not being on twitter either, Trump overstates things quite regularly. I don't think he should be taken literally but rather his exaggerations simply reflect that he feels strongly about the issue, and that's probably the way his voters understand it. But I am just guessing here.

I might also add that the SC has permitted flag burning, so that is the law of the land until the decision is reversed. I think Trump probably knows that; on the other hand, someone, who approves the burning of the flag, probably should not try to be POTUS.

Question for you lawyers out there: couldn't flag burning be interpreted as hate speech, even a hate crime? Why, or why not?
 
sailordeac said:
Not particularly a fan of flag burning. In his tweets, in as much as I can determine, not being on twitter either, Trump overstates things quite regularly. I don't think he should be taken literally but rather his exaggerations simply reflect that he feels strongly about the issue, and that's probably the way his voters understand it. But I am just guessing here.

I might also add that the SC has permitted flag burning, so that is the law of the land until the decision is reversed. I think Trump probably knows that; on the other hand, someone, who approves the burning of the flag, probably should not try to be POTUS.

Question for you lawyers out there: couldn't flag burning be interpreted as hate speech, even a hate crime? Why, or why not?
Click to expand...

Really, you think he knows this?

The point isn't whether or not you think flag burning is good or bad, but rather the fact that the PEOTUS either doesn't know or doesn't care about the SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
While I know this tweet is likely just trying to distract from something, the idea of a PEOTUS even joking about revoking citizenship as a punishment for something worries me a little. Maybe I'm just being too PC though.
Click to expand...

Even a cursory knowledge of US civics says that such consequences would have to be preceded by a Scotus decision that overturns their previous decision on the matter, then both the congress and President would have to act on what I suspect would be pretty low priority legislation, and then that legislation would have to survive Scotus scrutiny, which it wouldn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deacsfan27 said:


Really, you think he knows this?

The point isn't whether or not you think flag burning is good or bad, but rather the fact that the PEOTUS either doesn't know or doesn't care about the SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think he does. Disagreeing with a SC decision is not the same as not caring about it.
 
sailordeac said:
Not particularly a fan of flag burning. In his tweets, in as much as I can determine, not being on twitter either, Trump overstates things quite regularly. I don't think he should be taken literally but rather his exaggerations simply reflect that he feels strongly about the issue, and that's probably the way his voters understand it. But I am just guessing here.

I might also add that the SC has permitted flag burning, so that is the law of the land until the decision is reversed. I think Trump probably knows that; on the other hand, someone, who approves the burning of the flag, probably should not try to be POTUS.

Question for you lawyers out there: couldn't flag burning be interpreted as hate speech, even a hate crime? Why, or why not?
Click to expand...

So in your world, someone who supports the 1st Amendment and the SC shouldn't be POTUS.

You've posted some whoppers, but this one has to be Top 5.
 
Trumps tweet is hideously embarrassing for someone who is going to be our president. It is the exact reason why he should have never been elected. He is like a petulant child who thinks he can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. This is probably because he has spent his entire life without consequences for poor actions. What an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wrangor said:
Trumps tweet is hideously embarrassing for someone who is going to be our president. It is the exact reason why he should have never been elected. He is like a petulant child who thinks he can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. This is probably because he has spent his entire life without consequences for poor actions. What an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But Hillary's staffers sent some emails.
 
Wrangor said:
Trumps tweet is hideously embarrassing for someone who is going to be our president. It is the exact reason why he should have never been elected. He is like a petulant child who thinks he can do and say whatever he wants without consequences. This is probably because he has spent his entire life without consequences for poor actions. What an idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm not sure which is scarier:

1. He doesn't know how the government works in terms of checks and balances and thinks he can do whatever he wants because he is going to be POTUS (as a narcissistic psychopath this would make sense).
2. He knows exactly how the government works and just doesn't care, choosing instead to portray via Twitter the attributes of an authoritarian dictator.
 
#2 is how his buddy Putin tells him that it works.

:)
 
Last edited:
Elaine Chao for Transportation Secretary. Has held prior cabinet position (labor) and has worked in other prior cabinet positions. Married to Mitch McConnell.

In other words, the #swampiest choice imaginable.
 
deacvision7 said:
Trump tweets stupid shit to distract the media and divert their attention away from real stories like his conflicts of interest around the world.

OH LOOK A SHINY OBJECT! Never mind about that real news we were about to talk about...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/us/politics/donald-trump-international-business.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I really do buy into the use spectacle as distraction theory. However, I think in the case of this tweet, he was literally just watching Fox News and couldn't help himself but tweet commentary. Apparently Fox was running a piece on flag burning at the same time of this tweet. A buddy of mine is really excited that he's not controlling his tweeting, because he thinks it will lead the unprecedented transparency since the guy just can't help himself. "Got a great deal on selling weapons to the cartels! Sold them for twice what they're worth!"
 
"Can you believe there really are aliens at Area 51. Been there the whole time! Build a space wall!"
 
RJKarl said:
So in your world, someone who supports the 1st Amendment and the SC shouldn't be POTUS.

You've posted some whoppers, but this one has to be Top 5.
Click to expand...

Lots of presidents have had disagreements with interpretations of the Supreme Court. Indeed, we have probably never had a president who has agreed with every single interpretation of the court. It's not capital crime to disagree with some Supreme Court decisions, including some concerning the First Amendment. Indeed, disagreeing with the SC from time to time is as American as apple pie.
 
sailordeac said:
Lots of presidents have had disagreements with interpretations of the Supreme Court. Indeed, we have probably never had a president who has agreed with every single interpretation of the court. It's not capital crime to disagree with some Supreme Court decisions, including some concerning the First Amendment. Indeed, disagreeing with the SC from time to time is as American as apple pie.
Click to expand...

This is what YOU said, " on the other hand, someone, who approves the burning of the flag, probably should not try to be POTUS."

That's what I responded to. You made an outrageous, irrational, dictatorial statement that spits in the face of the 1st Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top