• 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...

2actMF.jpg
 
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...

Obama just overstated the keep your doctor thing....
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
2actMF.jpg
Click to expand...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s1370/text

"`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both."


The bill doesn't mention anything about protesters or burning the flag. I have a feeling that whole "with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence" would be where they'd get ya.
 
Last edited:
Demonwolverine said:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s1370/text

"`(b) ACTIONS PROMOTING VIOLENCE- Any person who destroys or damages a flag of the United States with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, and under circumstances in which the person knows that it is reasonably likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace, shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both."


The bill doesn't mention anything about protesters or burning the flag. I have a feeling that whole "with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence" would be where they'd get ya. Language like that is usually what leads to false imprisonment. It's also what makes these types of issues "GOTCHA!" statements for candidates, and why they USUALLY try to avoid them...unlike Mr. Trump who tends to bring upon himself. It's just too easy to bait someone into a sound bite that makes them sound like they're about to burn a flag right then and there.
Click to expand...

That's still a bad bill.

Better question is when do we start judging trump on his own merits and stop comparing him to private citizens. Do we have to wait until January? Does he get a grace period as he learns the basics of government?
 
Junebug said:
OOOPPPSSS
Click to expand...

I assume you posted that because BS4L's meme is a gross oversimplification of the proposed law, especially since it suggests the absolute maximum penalty is a standard penalty.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
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
Click to expand...

unfortunately I don't think Trump has cursury knowledge of or basic respect for US civics. I'm also not super confident that Congress or those within a Trump administration will stand up to him if he decides to openly flout SCOTUS. I certainly hope I'm wrong
 
RJKarl said:
She was wrong on that issue. I don't have to agree with everything any candidate says. Many, many times I stated she wasn't my first or even third or fourth choice, but as compared to Trump there was no comparison.

But YOUR position is anti-1st Amendment and anti-freedom.
Click to expand...

As usual, your position is full of shit, and it suits you well.
 
sailordeac said:
Whom did you vote for RJ? Maybe you should check out this NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/senator-clinton-in-pander-mode.html?mwrsm=Twitter‬&_r=1
Click to expand...

Does it matter? The election is over, Trump is the President-elect. He's about to be the most powerful man in the world and he just suggested revoking US citizenship as a punishment for flag burning.

I don't care what a former senator voted for in 2005. I do care that our future president wants to roll back first amendment freedoms
 
RChildress107 said:
And that's funny and/or relevant because...?
Click to expand...

Conservatives are having a tougher time coping with Hillary's loss than liberals. Nobody cares about her anymore except conservatives who are looking for somewhere new to channel their hate.
 
Junebug said:
People were suggesting Trump was unfit to be president because he proposed punishing people for flag burning.

You're slipping.
Click to expand...

No, people were suggesting Trump (as the President Elect) should not state things like that on Twitter (i.e. in 140 characters or fewer), particularly when it shows a gross misunderstanding (or flippant attitude) of how the branches of government work. That's concerning for multiple reasons.
 
PhDeac said:
I assume you posted that because BS4L's meme is a gross oversimplification of the proposed law, especially since it suggests the absolute maximum penalty is a standard penalty.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that memes lack nuance? Mind. Blown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EatLeadCommie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Flag burning is despicable, but why waste political capital on a low priority issue? People get worked up more about the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment is sacred, so why marginalize that?

Do think people have buried the lede a little bit here-revoking citizenship?!? Sadly people can reasonably doubt Trump's grasp of even basic high school civics. Newt suggested revoking citizenship of even natural born US Muslims and deporting them if they were convicted of terrorism. Where would they deport them, especially if they were Muslim descendants of freed slaves? Surely Newt knows that and thankfully he won't serve in Trump's cabinet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top