US Politics VII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if there were a few genuine terroristic types in that large crowd "hiding in plain sight" and trying to do harm- that's fucked up.

OTOH the IDF have (as often in the past) A LOT to answer for as well!

I don't buy that this is true, and I don't think it would matter even if it was. Israel can tell lies all they want about Palestine and most of the world will believe them because Israelis are mostly white and Palestinians are not.
 
I mean, on the one hand, the new rules say players can choose not to be on the field for the anthem, so .... okay.

On the other hand, this is pretty lame.
Which doesn't matter at all because the whole point was to be seen. That's what protesting is. When people say "don't protest here," what they mean is "don't protest where I have to see it."
 
I think this goes back to 2014, and frontline had a story on it a month or two ago.

Disturbing nonetheless
 
So how does that equate to artists’ management in your head?

Does Live Nation have the right to limit their artists’ behavior?

Not sure, but over the last year we've seen plenty of people who were never convicted in a court of law of sexual harassment kicked out of their roles as actors, anchors..etc. Obviously if the behavior of an actor/musician...etc is hurting the brand, it is the right of the management to release them from their contract. Now that's different from a peaceful protest (which there is no protection for at work), but nonetheless even in my role as a teacher, I have a "morality clause" that I have to abide by. Things that I do outside of my contract day can still affect my employment if it disrupts the educational environment of my classroom.
 
Not sure, but over the last year we've seen plenty of people who were never convicted in a court of law of sexual harassment kicked out of their roles as actors, anchors..etc. Obviously if the behavior of an actor/musician...etc is hurting the brand, it is the right of the management to release them from their contract. Now that's different from a peaceful protest (which there is no protection for at work), but nonetheless even in my role as a teacher, I have a "morality clause" that I have to abide by. Things that I do outside of my contract day can still affect my employment if it disrupts the educational environment of my classroom.



I get what you’re saying, and of course employers have a right to have some say, I just think the NFL royally dropped the ball on how they handled this.
 
I get what you’re saying, and of course employers have a right to have some say, I just think the NFL royally dropped the ball on how they handled this.

Oh I agree. It's always best to be proactive rather than reactionary because after what, 2ish years of controversy and people becoming entrenched, they put the whole league in a no win situation.
 
The argument should not be about whether or not they have the right to limit the speech of their employees so long as the only "risk" is losing their job or fines. It should be about how this is fucking stupid and right-wing nutjob shit. They don't want them to protest because they disagree that it's a problem that cops kill unarmed black people. That's fine, according to NFL owners. That's what this is about.
 
Given the fact that Donald Trump has said that the protestors “maybe shouldn’t even be in the country” pushed this far, far beyond a workplace issue. This is Grade A racist bait for his base, and his only plan for damage reduction going into the mid-terms — appeal to white identity politics.

White owners, a league that’s 70% Black. Enforced “patriotism,” now go getnout in thst field and make us some goddamn money.
 
Given the fact that Donald Trump has said that the protestors “maybe shouldn’t even be in the country” pushed this far, far beyond a workplace issue. This is Grade A racist bait for his base, and his only plan for damage reduction going into the mid-terms — appeal to white identity politics.

White owners, a league that’s 70% Black. Enforced “patriotism,” now go getnout in thst field and make us some goddamn money.



But he pardoned a black boxer that Obama didn’t, so all is forgiven, he can’t be racist.
 
The argument should not be about whether or not they have the right to limit the speech of their employees so long as the only "risk" is losing their job or fines. It should be about how this is fucking stupid and right-wing nutjob shit. They don't want them to protest because they disagree that it's a problem that cops kill unarmed black people. That's fine, according to NFL owners. That's what this is about.

UgLs.gif
 
Given the fact that Donald Trump has said that the protestors “maybe shouldn’t even be in the country” pushed this far, far beyond a workplace issue. This is Grade A racist bait for his base, and his only plan for damage reduction going into the mid-terms — appeal to white identity politics.

Exactly.

To say nothing of how disturbing it is that our president is trying to act like he can control what people can and can't say. If the NFL personally wants to put restrictions on people's speech, fine, they're a private organization, they're allowed to do that, regardless of whether or not one personally agrees with their restrictions (and I don't).

But the president of the United States chiming in and trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't say? Yeah, that kind of flies in the face of the First Amendment. It's not his place to decide such things. It's not his place to tell the NFL what they should and shouldn't do in regards to this issue. One would think our president would have far more important issues to concern himself with than whether or not football players are kneeling during the anthem.
 
Remember when Mike Pence showed up at that football game so he could be filmed walking out of that football game in disgust?
 
But the president of the United States chiming in and trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't say? Yeah, that kind of flies in the face of the First Amendment. It's not his place to decide such things. It's not his place to tell the NFL what they should and shouldn't do in regards to this issue. One would think our president would have far more important issues to concern himself with than whether or not football players are kneeling during the anthem.

Keep in mind that Trump has a personal vendetta against the NFL for blocking him from being an owner years ago. It's personal vengeance for him; he doesn't give a fuck about patriotism outside of the fact that it plays well with his base.
 
Ahhhhhhh, I didn't realize that. I agree with you that he's just doing this to rile people up, yeah. Just that if anyone had any spine, they'd tell him to stuff it simply because as president, it's not his fight, whatever his reasons for jumping in may be.

So glad we have a president who deals with personal attacks in the most petty, immature way possible :|.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-son-concerned-wiretaps-show-trump-jr-met-putin-ally-231215529.html

The FBI has obtained secret wiretaps collected by Spanish police of conversations involving Alexander Torshin, a deputy governor of Russia’s Central Bank who has forged close ties with U.S. lawmakers and the National Rifle Association, that led to a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during the gun lobby’s annual convention in Louisville, Ky., in May 2016, a top Spanish prosecutor said Friday.

José Grinda, who has spearheaded investigations into Spanish organized crime, said that bureau officials in recent months requested and were provided transcripts of wiretapped conversations between Torshin and Alexander Romanov, a convicted Russian money launderer. On the wiretaps, Romanov refers to Torshin as “El Padrino,” the godfather.

“Just a few months ago, the wiretaps of these telephone conversations were given to the FBI,” Grinda said in response to a question from Yahoo News during a talk he gave at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. Asked if he was concerned about Torshin’s meetings with Donald Trump Jr. and other American political figures, Grinda replied: “Mr. Trump’s son should be concerned.”

:whistle: Nope. Nothing suspicious and shady going on here. Nuh-uh.
 
season 2 of the Roseanne reboot just got cancelled.

because Roseanne tweeted some vile, racist shit.

what is it about Trump supporters and racism?
 
season 2 of the Roseanne reboot just got cancelled.

because Roseanne tweeted some vile, racist shit.

what is it about Trump supporters and racism?

I honestly have yet to have a single conversation with a Trump supporter that didn't end with them saying something racist (or sexist, or homophobic). I'm not exaggerating. Maybe there's the rare Trump supporter that isn't like that, I don't know, but I've yet to find them. At some point, people have to acknowledge the fact that yes, racism absolutely played a LARGE role in support for Trump. The very fact that people didn't seem to mind casting a vote for a guy who spent the past seven years fueling the birther conspiracy about Obama should be proof enough right there that racism was a factor.

As for Roseanne and the show itself, I like the rest of the cast, so I feel for them in regards to the cancellation, but yeah. Wise choice in the end. I do find it odd that ABC were willing to overlook some of her other horrid tweets up to this point, though, such as some of the shitty things she said and tweeted about the Parkland students.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom