The NFL vs. Donald Trump

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Thought on this whole "kneeling for the Anthem" dustup?

Personally, I believe that Americans have the freedom to take such actions. I also believe that in doing so they accept any and all consequences of those actions.

I also believe you express frustration with something while at the same time respecting it. For example, having respect for the Military while at the sametime bemoaning how financially wasteful certain projects are.

[TheHuckster]

I understand both sides.

For the record, I do think it's disrespectful. However, it's blown so out of proportion, with people comparing it to people lighting the flag on fire or literally spitting in the face of a veteran. I see it for what it is: a peaceful protest that I think is in the wrong place. Police brutality and other racial problems need to be addressed in this nation, but the message shouldn't be to completely turn one's back on the country. The US needs improvement, no doubt about that. It always has needed improvement throughout its history. That doesn't mean the Star Spangled Banner should be shunned. However, it's a message I cannot in any moral conscience deny someone's freedom to express.

Trump's statement on the issue was completely out of line. First by referring to the protesters as "sons of bitches" and by calling on the NFL to fire the participants. That's supremely unpresidential for someone who is supposed to stand up for the first amendment.

[jackfaire]

I think it's completely wrong to be mad at those people for throwing tea into the Boston harbor *gnome whispers in his ear* Oh really?

I don't think it's ever wrong to be protesting. I think that the things they should protest though have to mean something. To a lot of people the Anthem and The Flag represent them personally. I will be honest they do not represent me.

The whole idea behind protesting is to get the conversation moving. If you're quietly taking a knee in an empty room that's not protesting but that seems to be what most people want.

[mjr]

This "problem" (if you will) is very, very easy to solve, but still puts the NFL in a no-win situation.

My understanding is that several years back (I believe pre-2009, if I am not mistaken), the Anthem was played before the players took the field.

Solution: Go back to doing that. The anthem gets played, and it essentially eliminates the "on field" protests.

Though the NFL has policies and procedures (note I did not use the word "rules") that say that players should stand for the Anthem. I recently heard someone suggest a change from should to must.

But apparently, Colin Kaepernick sat at first, then asked a guy who was a Green Beret what to do, and he is the one that suggested kneeling. The Green Beret said it's what they do to honor fallen colleagues in the military.

[victory sabre]

I do know that back in the 70's, when Bud Grant was the coach for the Vikings, he had the players in formation, on the field, during the Anthem. He also made the players practice said formation throughout preseason.

Now to my take on this sitation, for what it's worth.

The players have the right to do what they're doing, 100%. I will support said right. I have the right to not like what they're doing, and also, because of that fact, not watch anymore. Will I burn my Vikings #4 Favre jersey, like a lot of people are doing to their NFL clothing? No. Will I wear it again? I doubt it.

[jackfaire]

http://www.snopes.com/nfl-sideline-anthem/

This discusses the situation in good detail.

[Greenday]

I have mixed feelings on everything:

Prior to Week 3, the only people who protested were doing so for human rights. There's almost never a wrong time to do it (barring say funerals). It was an excellent protest as it was peaceful and it raised a lot of attention. What pissed me off were all the people who complained saying they should protest some other way. And what does that really mean? It means they want them to go protest somewhere else where the protests can be completely ignored. Out of sight, out of mind. People don't want to admit that there are still racial injustices going on. These people want to stick their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes so they don't have to acknowledge other people's suffering.

Then right before Week 3, Trump opened his mouth like the jackass he is and said they should lose their jobs for it. This sparked all the teams to protest. My problem is these players/coaches/owners weren't protesting because they care about human rights. No, they were protesting because rich people don't like being told how to spend their money.

Group 1? Fighting for human rights. Group 2? Just don't like being told what to do, don't give a crap about human rights. Donald Trump? Asshole.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Then right before Week 3, Trump opened his mouth like the jackass he is and said they should lose their jobs for it. This sparked all the teams to protest. My problem is these players/coaches/owners weren't protesting because they care about human rights. No, they were protesting because rich people don't like being told how to spend their money.

Group 1? Fighting for human rights. Group 2? Just don't like being told what to do, don't give a crap about human rights. Donald Trump? Asshole.

There's a theory Trump did this as a deflection to steer the national conversation away from health care/hurricanes/Russia etc. Seems plausible to me.

[jackfaire]

There's a theory Trump did this as a deflection to steer the national conversation away from health care/hurricanes/Russia etc. Seems plausible to me.

It's been my working theory since Bill Clinton. Every time there's a huge political scandal that sucks up all of the nation's attention but is visibly dumb (in that it's not worthy of the scandal status we give it) that it's to draw attention from things people would rather the public not pay attention to.

[s_stabeler]

Then right before Week 3, Trump opened his mouth like the jackass he is and said they should lose their jobs for it. This sparked all the teams to protest. My problem is these players/coaches/owners weren't protesting because they care about human rights. No, they were protesting because rich people don't like being told how to spend their money.

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)

[Tanasi]

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.

[jackfaire]

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"

[Greenday]

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.

[Tanasi]

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.

[jackfaire]

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.