Trump General Discusion II

[anitram]

The President-elect of the United States just suggested that anyone who burns a flag, an act protected by the first amendment, should be stripped of their citizenship and/or put in jail for a year.

If you love America, then you have nothing to fear.

 

[gump]

But he has such great kids!!!

Ivanka Trump’s Terrible Book Helps Explain the Trump-Family Ethos - The New Yorker

When Ivanka was a kid, she got frustrated because she couldn’t set up a lemonade stand in Trump Tower. “We had no such advantages,” she writes, meaning, in this case, an ordinary home on an ordinary street. She and her brothers finally tried to sell lemonade at their summer place in Connecticut, but their neighborhood was so ritzy that there was no foot traffic. “As good fortune would have it, we had a bodyguard that summer,” she writes. They persuaded their bodyguard to buy lemonade, and then their driver, and then the maids, who “dug deep for their spare change.” The lesson, she says, is that the kids “made the best of a bad situation.” In another early business story, she and her brothers made fake Native American arrowheads, buried them in the woods, dug them up while playing with their friends, and sold the arrowheads to their friends for five dollars each.

 

[gump]

As is often the case with bullies, the lack of subtlety comes back to haunt them. At this point, it's pretty clear to everyone that Trump's tactics is to pick issues that his base will be happy with - patriotism! opposing the liberal media! rigged elections! - while he embarks on an unprecedented effort to corrupt state institutions to enrich himself, and to implement the most right wing agenda in recent memory. Fortunately, the media is starting to get the hang of how to cover it and not allow him to set the reporting agenda. As of now, today's tweet is only reflected in a side bar at the NYT frontpage while other stories - more uncomfortable to Trump - are displayed up top.

 

[mama cass]

The President-elect of the United States just suggested that anyone who burns a flag, an act protected by the first amendment, should be stripped of their citizenship and/or put in jail for a year.

does he think he can rule by tweet? i mean, does he think something is enshrined by law if he tweets it? so absurd... not to mention terrifying

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I can't imagine they'll even let him keep his own Twitter account once he's in office. They took Obama's blackberry away (ha he was president so long BlackBerry was still a thing!)

 

[BVS]

His entire twitter account is a global embarrassment, how is it they haven't taken it away yet?




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

The President-elect of the United States just suggested that anyone who burns a flag, an act protected by the first amendment, should be stripped of their citizenship and/or put in jail for a year.

Hillary voted for the Flag Protection Act in 2005

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have banned “destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace,” punishable with a year in prison.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[anitram]

Hillary voted for the Flag Protection Act in 2005

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have banned “destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace,” punishable with a year in prison.

So your view is that they're both idiots then?

 

[BEAL]

No, because Clinton voted for that, it negates what Trump is calling for now.

 

[Oregoropa]

So your view is that they're both idiots then?

I have mixed feelings on the subject but I disagree with both.

It's a first amendment right to dissent. As long as the act of burning the flag does not physically harm person or property it should not be criminalized.

Every American has a breaking point against their government and burning the flag is the most powerful peaceful statement you can make.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Hillary voted for the Flag Protection Act in 2005

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have banned “destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace,” punishable with a year in prison.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

No, that was Shillary Clinton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

It's a first amendment right to dissent.

We'll see for how much longer...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

No, that was Shillary Clinton.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Damn, someone already fixed it, 5 min ago it looked like this:




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think the idea that I'm expected to instill the same values into an object as everyone else is intellectually detestable and insulting.

It's a piece of cloth. Symbolism belongs to the self. If I clean my teeth with a cross shaped toothpick, wipe my ass with an American flag, or bake a cartoon-Mohammad-shaped cake with swastikas on it, if I'm not forcing it upon you, I shouldn't be expected to cater to your views. Flags are fucking stupid.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

The President-elect of the United States just suggested that anyone who burns a flag, an act protected by the first amendment, should be stripped of their citizenship and/or put in jail for a year.

I get his point. There's a lot of flag burners who have way to much freedom so he wants to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I get his point. There's a lot of flag burners who have way to much freedom so he wants to make it legal for policemen to beat 'em.

Lol wut

 

[BVS]

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Hillary voted for the Flag Protection Act in 2005

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have banned “destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace,” punishable with a year in prison.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

And she was wrong to do so.

 

[Irvine511]

back to the future.

An article in the paper the other day caught my eye and led me to ponder something I’d rather not have to think about at all: the Republican Party platform.

The article that prompted these unwanted thoughts had nothing to do with politics. It reported that the German pharmaceutical company that had once made thalidomide, a sedative that 50 years ago led to deformed or missing limbs in thousands of babies whose mothers took it during pregnancy, had issued an “apology” to the drug’s victims.

The route that led me from there to thoughts of the Republican platform ran through one of the most compelling stories in pre-Roe v. Wade America: the story of Sherri Chessen, a mother of four young children who left the United States for Sweden in order to obtain a legal abortion after learning, to her horror, the consequences of the pill she had taken to help with morning sickness early in a much-wanted pregnancy. (Thalidomide was not available in the United States, but her husband had picked up a prescription as a sleeping aid while on a business trip to London.) The fetus she was carrying turned out, as feared, to have neither arms nor legs.

It was 1962 — “50 years and two weeks ago,” Ms. Chessen said when we spoke on the phone this week. Sherri Finkbine, as the national media dubbed her, bestowing on her a married name she never used, lived at the time in Phoenix, where she was Miss Sherri on the Phoenix franchise of the popular children’s television program “Romper Room.” Abortion was illegal in every state, and Arizona, like most states, had an exception only for abortions necessary to save a woman’s life.

It’s unclear from the language of the Republican platform — “we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed” — whether the Republicans would permit even that single exception. (Mitt Romney, trying to have it both ways, told the CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley the other day that despite his party’s platform, “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother.”) Whatever.

In any event, Ms. Chessen’s situation matched no exception, either then or those proffered by the Republican nominee today. Her own life was not in danger, but she was well connected, and her doctor arranged for a Phoenix hospital to give her a quiet abortion. However, wanting to warn other women who might unknowingly be in her position, she told her story, on the promise of anonymity, to a Phoenix newspaper editor she knew. The newspaper kept its promise, but the article it published under the headline “Baby-Deforming Drug May Cost Woman Her Child Here” caused a sensation and led the hospital to cancel the scheduled procedure. Soon enough, her name became public and she was on the cover of Life magazine, on her way to Sweden after concluding that she had no prospect of obtaining a legal abortion anywhere in the United States. Upon her return, she lost her job, expelled from “Romper Room.”

The publicity, and specifically the Life cover story, had a galvanizing effect on public opinion. Abortion was not considered a fit topic for the mainstream media at the time, and I remember as a child reading the Life story with fascination. I had never heard abortion discussed. Researching the period many years later for a book on the history of the abortion debate, I found newspaper editorials from the conservative heartland calling on legislatures to re-think blanket bans on abortion. “Here is a need for common sense,” The Tulsa Tribune wrote in its editorial response to Ms. Chessen’s plight.

A decade later, when the Supreme Court had Roe v. Wade under consideration but had not yet issued its decision, the Gallup Organization reported that sizable majorities of men and women in all demographic groups agreed with the statement: “The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.” The majorities included Protestants, Catholics, Democrats and, most notably, by a margin of 68 percent to 27 percent, Republicans. What a difference a generation makes — a generation of determined effort by Republican strategists to use the abortion issue as a tool of party realignment and political self-interest.

Fifty years is a long time. The “thalidomide babies,” as they were known, are middle-aged now. Sherri Chessen, who eventually had six children and who writes and publishes children’s books, is of course old enough to be their mother. She follows the abortion issue closely. “It’s a ploy,” she said of the Republican platform’s abortion plank. “What hypocrites. They’re against abortion until some woman in their family needs one. Believe me, I know.”

Her story beckons to us from across a generational divide. In lecturing on the history of the abortion debate, I often ask the audience if the name Sherri Finkbine means anything. People younger than 60 look at me blankly. It’s women my age who raise their hands.

Doing research several years ago among the manuscript collections of the Schlesinger Library at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard, I came upon a typewritten manuscript of a talk Sherri Chessen gave in 1966, recounting her experience at a conference put on by an early, long forgotten abortion-rights group. Despite not having heard her name for decades, I recognized it immediately, found a phone number, and called her cold, requesting her permission to include the essay in the book I was working on. I wouldn’t have been surprised if she had told me, a total stranger, that she had long ago put the episode behind her and had no desire to revisit it. Instead, she responded warmly in words I won’t forget. “I’ll help you any way I can,” she said. “People need to know my story.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/a-never-ending-story/?_r=0

one might also point to the dying off of the WW2 generation and the rise of far right parties across the west.

history isn't so much repeated as forgotten.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

And she was wrong to do so.

A lot of veterans would disagree with you, myself included.

I would say that anyone who feels the need to burn a flag probably needs to find something more constructive to do with their lives, like perhaps, go to a nearby VA Hospital and spend some time with sick or wounded veterans. They don't have to agree with them on anything, just visit them, learn about what they did in the military. Most of the older veterans are probably lonely and could use the company. The younger ones who are missing limbs are probably not much good company but all the same im sure they could use some comfort.

I guess my point is this; our country is far from perfect and yes it is still perfectly legal to burn a flag, however it takes a special type of POS person who would actually go through with it. Or to desecrate a flag in any manner. I agree with both with TRUMP and HRC on this. At the same time, i get that it is kind of hard for someone who has never served in the military to understand the impact flag burning has on those who have served.

A couple of notable examples of flag burners and people who dishonor or disrespect the flag:

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Lol wut

And freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Let them burn flags.

 

[BVS]

A lot of veterans would disagree with you, myself included.



I would say that anyone who feels the need to burn a flag probably needs to find something more constructive to do with their live, like perhaps, go to a nearby VA Hospital and spend some time with sick or wounded veterans. They don't have to agree with them on anything, just visit them, learn about what they did in the military. Most of the older veterans are probably lonely and could use the company. The younger ones who are missing limbs are probably not much good company but all the same im sure they could use some comfort.



I guess my point is this; our country is far from perfect and yes it is still perfectly legal to burn a flag, however it takes a special type of POS person who would actually go through with it. Or to desecrate a flag in any manner. I agree with both with TRUMP and HRC on this. At the same time, i get that it is kind of hard for someone who has never served in the military to understand the impact flag burning has on those who have served.



A couple of notable examples of flag burners and people who dishonor or disrespect the flag:

As my grandfather, who was a vet, would say, "you fought the wrong fight if you believe you fought for just the parts you agree with".


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

A lot of veterans would disagree with you, myself included.



I would say that anyone who feels the need to burn a flag probably needs to find something more constructive to do with their live

I respect your service and willingness to do a job that I am not willing to do.

I don't see the flag as symbolic of your service.

I don't need a symbol. I can support legislation that supports you. I have. I can support social gatherings that thank you. I have. I can donate to causes that take care of you. I have.

I also find people who burn a flag to be silly, and I believe they fail to be constructive or get their point across. I find them to be divisive, because you might take offense to it. It's provocative.

But I personally don't identify with any universal moral symbol, and don't plan on doing so ever. It's someone's free speech/expression to do or say whatever they want if it doesn't put anyone in harm's way. And where that's not the case, the law ought to be revised.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

A symbol is just a symbol and for a lot of people, there's plenty of things that mean more than the flag such as religious iconography. Like, remember that crazy woman that sat on and destroyed the naked Hillary Clinton statue because she didn't like that her god was being defamed?

First Trump, now naked Hillary Clinton statue appears; scuffle breaks out in New York | Q13 FOX News

 

[corianderstem]

Eh, on edit: what LN7 said.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Setting aside the obvious free speech argument in regards to flag burning, I think the constant controversy over it is stupid because I could probably count on one hand the amount of times I've even HEARD of anyone burning a flag. Maybe it was a much more common means of protest at one time, I don't know, but it just doesn't seem like it happens anywhere near enough nowadays to even be worthy of so much fuss. I'd like to think politicians have significantly more important, serious things to worry about than whether or not somebody decides to light the flag on fire.

 

[Oregoropa]

That Bill Ayers story (him standing on the flag) appeared in the paper on September 11, 2001 IIRC

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

I respect your service and willingness to do a job that I am not willing to do.

I don't see the flag as symbolic of your service.

I don't need a symbol. I can support legislation that supports you. I have. I can support social gatherings that thank you. I have. I can donate to causes that take care of you. I have.

I also find people who burn a flag to be silly, and I believe they fail to be constructive or get their point across. I find them to be divisive, because you might take offense to it. It's provocative.

But I personally don't identify with any universal moral symbol, and don't plan on doing so ever. It's someone's free speech/expression to do or say whatever they want if it doesn't put anyone in harm's way. And where that's not the case, the law ought to be revised.

Thank You.

Let me just say that for most of us the flag is not a symbol of our own service but rather it is symbolic that we served something much greater than ourselves. This of course means that we were ready to give our lives to defend it if necessary. It's duty, honor, country. I did not comprehend all of that when i first took the oath, nobody does, a person only fully understands when they have walked the trail, so to speak.

I think what HRC proposed (flag burning with the intent to incite violence or disturb the peace punishable by a year in jail and a $100,000 fine) or TRUMP (perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!) might be extreme. However, i would support a small fine, let's say $100 first offense just for the sake of this discussion.

 

[anitram]

So we can trample all over the first amendment but God forbid anyone brings up the 2nd amendment interpretations...

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

So we can trample all over the first amendment but God forbid anyone brings up the 2nd amendment interpretations...

Seriously, this.