Go Back   Fratching! > General > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 10-01-2017, 04:01 AM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
Actually, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you there - the President- a government official- was attempting to suppress a legitimate protest. (If he had criticised the protests, it'd be a different story, Actively demanding the NFL fire the players, however, is a step too far. (the NFL do have the right to fire them- however, Trump doesn't have the right to demand they do so)
Actually he does have the right to demand they be fired just as you and I do as affirmed within in First Amendment. The NFL has no obligation to follow those wishes. What he should have said (if anything) is that he's disappointed that they choose this method of protest.
Personally I gave up on watching or following a bunch of over grown over-paid "men" playing children's games.
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 10-01-2017, 04:59 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanasi View Post
Actually he does have the right to demand they be fired just as you and I do as affirmed within in First Amendment.
Actually he doesn't. Him doing so is actually in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Donald Trump is no longer a private citizen he is a head of state. As such EVERYTHING he says holds the weight of his office behind it. When he demands they be fired he is not doing so as a private citizen but as the President of the United States in direct violation of the First Amendment demanding that they be silenced.

The government cannot infringe upon the right of the citizens to criticize said government.

This isn't Donald Trump saying that the NFL should fire its players because they are protesting against fur.

This is the President of the United States demanding the NFL should fire its players for protesting the actions of the United States Government. Agree or disagree with what they are protesting or how it should worry us all when the President wants critics to shut up.

However while his vitriol was clearly demanding his word choice puts him in the realm of "suggesting they do so"
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 10-01-2017, 02:21 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,019
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
Actually he doesn't. Him doing so is actually in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Actually, he can. They aren't his employees. The NFL is not part of the government. He can say it's what they should do all he wants. He just can't order them to. There's a difference between saying what the NFL should do and telling them what to do.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 10-01-2017, 05:51 PM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
Actually he doesn't. Him doing so is actually in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Personally I think you're reading into too much of what Trump said but that's OK. If he said that as POTUS I demand that these players be dismissed for their actions during the playing of our national anthem, then I'd agree with you but he didn't. The owners by standing with the players have basically told Trump to pound sand and that is also their right. What it boils down to is either we have free speech for all citizens or we don't.
Granted his message carries more weight than others but is this instance it doesn't carry any more than yours or mine. In this he has no authority, he can order the military not to participate but I doubt the NFL will refund their money, he has no authority over state or local officials. Too many folks grant too much perceived power to POTUS and other government "officials."
All that being typed if you still disagree that's OK I'm willing to agree to disagree.
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!

Last edited by MadMike; 10-01-2017 at 10:26 PM. Reason: We've already read it, thanks.
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 10-02-2017, 03:48 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanasi View Post
If he said that as POTUS I demand that these players be dismissed for their actions during the playing of our national anthem, then I'd agree with you but he didn't.
To my mind he was giving a speech as POTUS not "Hey I am just some random guy talking here" he was giving a speech that was meant to be him speaking in his capacity as POTUS.

Him saying what he did is the difference between my boss saying something to his church, family. or journalists versus him standing in front of a meeting at work and saying the same thing.

If you are acting in a professional capacity utilizing your job title then what you say or do is reflected as being you doing that under that job title.

The US Army, unless it's changed since I served, Even has laws forbidding certain actions and speech while in Uniform as it will be seen as the US Government endorsing or condemning.

For example I could have marched in a protest but I could not have done so while in Uniform. If you're invited to give a speech not as Donald Trump but as POTUS and during the POTUS speech that absolutely will go into the Library of Congress along with all of the other speeches that go there then anything said during that speech is said with the weight and power of the office.

That's why I argue he's saying it as the President.
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 10-02-2017, 10:41 AM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,205
Default

The reason why I personally disagree about Trump having the freedom of speech to make such a demand is the "turbulent priest" problem- Henry II said "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" about the Archbishop of Canterbury- some knights then took this as an assassination order, and killed the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own cathedral IIRC. Henry II himself recognised that he was responsible for the murder, since he had taken insufficient care that his temper tantrum wasn't taken as a royal command. Same problem- there is too much chance of it being interpreted as "the POTUS demands the players be fired" for it to be acceptable.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 10-04-2017, 07:06 PM
protege protege is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,212
Default

While I think Trump is an assclown of the highest order, I have a problem with restricting his right to free speech. That would be a *direct* violation of the 1st Amendment. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a problem with that. Sure, he's speaking out of his ass, but the Constitution gives him the right to do so. It *doesn't* protect him from any consequences, including the field day that talk show hosts and comedians are having at his expense. Do I think Trump should shut the hell up? Of course I do. But, to restrict the President's right to speech? He's a US citizen like the rest of us. Also, where would it end? Do we restrict speech based on stupidity or how "offensive" it is? Or, would speech be regulated as to whether or not we agree with it? Either way, it's unconstitutional.

As to the NFL, Trump can make all the "suggestions" he wants. But, as they're not his employees, that organization is free to tell him to fuck off. As for me, I don't give a crap about football. Too many overpaid assholes "working" a few hours every Sunday playing a kids' game? Screw that.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 10-05-2017, 12:46 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by protege View Post
While I think Trump is an assclown of the highest order, I have a problem with restricting
I don't think we should restrict his speech but we should have an expectation that there is a clear and obvious difference between when he's speaking as "Donald Trump citizen" and "Donald Trump POTUS" Most of the people in Government do not take anything he says on Twitter to be him saying things as "POTUS" even though he's said things there clearly with the intent that they be taken that way because Twitter is not an official channel of communication.

The same should apply to all other things coming from him. There are world leaders alive today that do the "suggestion but not really you better fucking do it" type suggestion where they actually expect people to listen to them but then play it off like "ha ha I was just talking out my ass" when people actually do it.

So there needs to be a clear distinction between when he's communicating something like the Royal We.

Queen Elizabeth when using the Royal We is speaking as the Queen of England. If she switches to first person she's speaking as Elizabeth. The President no matter who she or he is has the same responsibility to make it clear when they are speaking for themselves and when they are speaking for the United States of America.

So no don't silence him but instead hold him to the same standard we expect everyone else's leaders to follow.
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 10-05-2017, 03:00 PM
TheHuckster TheHuckster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
I don't think we should restrict his speech but we should have an expectation that there is a clear and obvious difference between when he's speaking as "Donald Trump citizen" and "Donald Trump POTUS" Most of the people in Government do not take anything he says on Twitter to be him saying things as "POTUS" even though he's said things there clearly with the intent that they be taken that way because Twitter is not an official channel of communication.

The same should apply to all other things coming from him. There are world leaders alive today that do the "suggestion but not really you better fucking do it" type suggestion where they actually expect people to listen to them but then play it off like "ha ha I was just talking out my ass" when people actually do it.
So far, the NFL has not heeded his suggestion, so as far as I'm concerned, nothing Trump said made any POTUS-level impact. He said this at a rally. Had he said it on prime time TV from the Oval Office, there might be some eyebrows raised as to whether Trump the citizen is speaking or Trump the President.

I agree with the others that he shouldn't have said it, he's an idiot for saying it, and people should roll their eyes and defy his wishes about it. But restricting his speech introduces a slippery slope I want to steer clear from.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 10-05-2017, 06:29 PM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHuckster View Post
But restricting his speech introduces a slippery slope I want to steer clear from.
Again not wanting to restrict his speech merely draw a hard line to make it clear to even the least intelligent when he's speaking as POTUS. Also it's easier to ignore the leader of our country when he says things like this because in theory it's harder to arrest people for not doing as he says in this country. Other countries aren't so lucky.

He doesn't stop being POTUS when he leaves the oval office nor is that the only place he makes speeches as POTUS.

I started my job only last week and I was introduced to the concept that I can still be considered guilty of creating a hostile workspace even if I am in a bar with friends in my own personal time and one of my co-workers takes offense at something I said.

So if me a lowly shipping clerk has to be careful of what I say and where to make sure it's not perceived as my work self then why is the President exempt from that need?
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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. The time now is 05:13 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.