The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

You appear to be reaching heavily. Most liberals don't like Duncan at all. He made a ton of enemies among teachers' unions. However, as I am not one that is all against charter schools (which tends to be rare in Democratic circles), I don't think that is necessarily a bad mark against him.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Don't make it more complicated than it is. I am just saying when someone whom I view as very predisposed to particular beliefs suddenly espouses a stance that is not in line with that (i.e. you not being 100% behind Duncan's track record), it suggests to me he must be pretty crappy, if even the loyalists aren't right there behind him.

Doesn't this allow you to write off everyone not consistent with your ideology? If liberals like X, he/she must be a political hack, and if liberals don't like X, he/she must be incompetent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Trump goes after the media

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good piece on the decapitation strategy being used by the U.S.

ISIS’s second-in-command hid in Syria for months. The day he stepped out, the U.S. was waiting. - The Washington Post

[Subby]

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

Good luck with that, buddy!

[NobodyHere]

Elaine Chao expected to be Trump's Transportation secretary - POLITICO

So Trump is going to drain the swamp by appointing The Bride of Swamp Monster to a cabinet position?

(She's the Wife of Mitch McConnell)

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Subby

Good luck with that, buddy!

3:55 AM. Somebody put this toddler in check. Such a classic example of an individual who has never been told "NO" his entire life.

Typically on this board we see it play out in sports with athletes that have been catered to their entire life and eventually crash out once they are finally forced to leave the confines of the AAU atmosphere.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

That, to me, is the genius (unintentional or not) of the GOP. They realized that the media does not have a liberal or a conservative bias. The media has an eyeball bias.

And stupid shit like Jill Stein inspired recounts and who is booing whom at Hamilton gets eyeballs. Actual news like the President-Elect's conflicts of interest, gets pushed off the front page.

Trump is perfect for this strategy.

Now, Trump places himself as the defender of the flag. And that's all we talk about.

Would punishing someone for burning the flag violate the First Amendment? Of course it would. Does he care about that? Of course he does not.

Is he really happy to be talking about this instead of his deals with foreign governments? Of course he is.

The dude is a media genius.

[digamma]

Not to mention we don't really revoke people's citizenship for general crimes.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Now, Trump places himself as the defender of the flag. And that's all we talk about.

Would punishing someone for burning the flag violate the First Amendment? Of course it would. Does he care about that? Of course he does not.

Is he really happy to be talking about this instead of his deals with foreign governments? Of course he is.

The dude is a media genius.

And how quickly we forget or have selective memory about the 2005 Flag Protection Act, which would have made flag burning with intent to incite violence or disturb the peace illegal and punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a $100,000 fine.

Co-sponsored by...........NY Dem. Senator Hillary Clinton

Actions - S.1911 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Flag Protection Act of 2005 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

[cartman]

Hmmm, don't see any mention of revoking citizenship in that proposed bill.

[JPhillips]

Since I was against that then, do I still get to be against it now?

[molson]

It's a crime to incite violence or disturb the peace now even if you don't burn a flag along with it. The act of burning a flag for protest doesn't convert those criminal activities into constitutionally protected ones. Though burning the flag couldn't itself be the only evidence of the intent to do one of those things.

Edit: And it's REALLY hard to prove intent to actually incite violence - calling for violence in the abstract is not enough (which is why Trump couldn't be prosecuted for some of his campaign bluster). So there really wasn't anything to that Flag Protection Act, it didn't make illegal any new activity, it was just for show. But it was still kind of symbolically hostile to that form of protesting, so I can see why people would oppose it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Since I was against that then, do I still get to be against it now?

Of course not .

Btw, I'm sure no one has actually read the bill (well, aside from molson in his post above this one).

Flag Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) 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; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.

Attempt to ban the burning of the flag when it's purpose was for inciting violence or intimidation (or burning a US owned flag) - basically using the yelling fire in a crowded theater idea of some speech isn't constitutionally protected. Though, even there, I'm not sure I'd back this law.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And how quickly we forget or have selective memory about the 2005 Flag Protection Act, which would have made flag burning with intent to incite violence or disturb the peace illegal and punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a $100,000 fine.

Co-sponsored by...........NY Dem. Senator Hillary Clinton

Actions - S.1911 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Flag Protection Act of 2005 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

One of the countless reasons that so many of the posts about Hillary from her supporters during the election started with "Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate BUT"

There's no selective memory here. I'm disgusted by the fact that Hillary sponsored this bill in 2005 and equally disgusted that Trump would suggest the same today.

[JPhillips]

What is meant by, "knowingly converting" under 3?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What is meant by, "knowingly converting" under 3?

"Theft by conversion" is my guess. That's where you legally obtain someone else's property and 'convert' it to your own use. Usually it is used in regards to rentals. I guess in this case if you borrowed a flag from the government and then destroyed it, the law would apply.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Radii

One of the countless reasons that so many of the posts about Hillary from her supporters during the election started with "Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate BUT"

There's no selective memory here. I'm disgusted by the fact that Hillary sponsored this bill in 2005 and equally disgusted that Trump would suggest the same today.

And I hold no concerns that either of them will pass a law that mandates that.

In other words, much ado about nothing.

[molson]

I think the plain meaning of that term is that context is just another way of saying stealing. To make sure they cover the situations where a U.S. flag that is the properly of the U.S. government, is hanging in some public place, and it's burned right there.

So sub-section 3 just makes stealing/converting property of a flag a special kind of stealing/converting. It doesn't create a new criminal activity. (or wouldn't have if it passed).

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And I hold no concerns that either of them will pass a law that mandates that.

In other words, much ado about nothing.

The ado really isn't about flag burning.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by digamma

The ado really isn't about flag burning.

Ding ding ding

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

The ado really isn't about flag burning.

I know. It's about all the stupid people who continue to allow Trump to control the message and media through saying silly things. He does it for a reason and the actual message is rarely why he's doing it.

The rulebooks are being rewritten because people give him far too much power and he knows it.

[RainMaker]

With all the stuff about "fake news", Washington Post looks bad here.

'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful, Disgusting - Rolling Stone

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The rulebooks are being rewritten because people give him far too much power and he knows it.

Yeah, it is well known that the de facto leader of the free world never really had much power or influence until Trump came along.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, it is well known that the de facto leader of the free world never really had much power or influence until Trump came along.

The fact is each president has been gaining more and more executive power by misusing the real intent of executive orders. IMO some presidents like Obama at least used it for more noble purposes but still completely opposite it's intent. The problem is that for every 1 person like myself that is outraged when either side uses them there are 100 partisans that will get riled up when Obama or Bush or whomever uses them but not the other side. Now we get Trump where I think most people will grow tired of how much power he thinks he is supposed to have. Who is to blame? The clueless American public.

[stevew]

Really pulling for the local guy, Tim Ryan, to unseat Pelosi. Will not happen, at least not this cycle.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

Really pulling for the local guy, Tim Ryan, to unseat Pelosi. Will not happen, at least not this cycle.

I'm guessing he's worse than Nancy Pelosi, then?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Subby

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

Good luck with that, buddy!

All for it.

If you love being American and want your voice heard, raise that flag up high and protest under it's protection. Put it under your feet and yeah...fuck off...

[RainMaker]

If you love being American perhaps you should love the Constitution too?

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you love being American perhaps you should love the Constitution too?

The 2nd amendment IS the constitution. All the rest is just fluff.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm guessing he's worse than Nancy Pelosi, then?

He's just a guy.


Five things to know about Rep. Tim Ryan

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

He's just a guy.


Five things to know about Rep. Tim Ryan

I'm gonna need a better source than the USA Today. Gotta link to Breibart or something?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

The 2nd amendment IS the constitution. All the rest is just fluff.

It's just a flag...blah, blah, blah...it's our flag, buddy!

[tarcone]

So the next 4 years, this thread is going to be a bunch of elitist liberals being condescending?

[RainMaker]

Everyone who says something I don't agree with is an elitist liberal.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So the next 4 years, this thread is going to be a bunch of elitist liberals being condescending?

With our current president-elect, it's going to be pretty hard NOT to be condescending.

[Dutch]

It's gonna be pretty hard not to be entertaining.

[cartman]

Damn elitist liberals with all their "bringing up two centuries of Supreme Court precedent" to show why you just can't decide to revoke someone's citizenship. Why can't they just go by feeling and embrace knee jerk reactions?

[tarcone]

Bah. This is the HRC circle jerk moved to this thread.
Now it is the "we lost, but we are still better than you"-fest

[JPhillips]

When Jim looks directly into camera pic.twitter.com/F6sJuFmQQk

— Jarett Wieselman (@JarettSays) November 30, 2016

Poor Mitt.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's just a flag...blah, blah, blah...it's our flag, buddy!

You're 100% correct. It is our flag. Every Americans flag whether they are white, black, brown, purple, straight, gay, etc.

It's also an act (one that I would never take upon myself) that one of the most praised conservative judges lauded as an expression of free speech. You know that item us Americans like to refer to as the First Amendment. Direct quotes below.


“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

“Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea."

So basically he would say Trump is akin to a Tyrant.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Big publicity win for Trump. He complained in a debate in September that Carrier was moving their factory and 1,400 jobs to Mexico. He's apparently worked out a deal for them to stay in the U.S.

Carrier says it has deal with Trump to keep jobs in Indiana | Fox News

[JPhillips]

If I'm a CEO I immediately announce a plan to move to Mexico and see what I can get from Trump.

[cuervo72]

Very curious what this deal is (and how he can make it without actually being president yet).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Everyone who says something I don't agree with is an elitist liberal.

Basically.

Though, I've been watching "The Crown" on Netflix and somewhat jealous at this moment at the non-political Head of State they have over there in Britain. And I wonder whether or not the term elite can be reclaimed as a point of pride like the right likes to do at times (aka "deplorable"). Of course it can't be a wishy-washy elitism that shies away when someone goes off on elites - it has to be muscular - an affirmative ownership. And, to be fair, it has to be a different kind of elite than just rich people making deals to get theirs... it has to be a elite that cares about public service - like George H.W. Bush or Winston Churchill.

[kingfc22]

It would be like me telling my kid to eat broccoli, them telling me no, with my response being just finish up and I'll give you a big piece of cake and moving forward you can have all the cake you want.

Good for those 1400 individuals who get to keep their job, but subsidizing work is not the answer as it's going to lead to what JPhillips wrote above. Now all my kids want cake.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

It would be like me telling my kid to eat broccoli, them telling me no, with my response being just finish up and I'll give you a big piece of cake and moving forward you can have all the cake you want.

Good for those 1400 individuals who get to keep their job, but subsidizing work is not the answer as it's going to lead to what JPhillips wrote above. Now all my kids want cake.

Trump is going to be a shitty president no doubt. However I would love to hear how this particular deal is any different than business as usual in DC? Rake Trump over the coals all you want (especially since he is an "outsider") but if this is now suddenly a come to Jesus moment for some of our resident liberals that our government is corrupt and beholden to businesses both large and small than they need to pay closer attention.

The liberals complaints about Trump combined with the conservative complaints about Obama are reality. I think Fox News coverage of anything blue and CNN/MSNBC of anything Red is pretty close to how things really work.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

if this is now suddenly a come to Jesus moment for some of our resident liberals that our government is corrupt and beholden to businesses both large and small than they need to pay closer attention.

It's like people have forgotten all about Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

[cuervo72]

Hard to say how it's different if we don't know what the deal is.

(Although I'll admit that I don't know how the federal government typically makes deals with individual companies.)

[JPhillips]

Without released terms this is just conjecture, but from what I've read the deal is really between Indiana and Carrier. I hate the way states bargain for companies, as it ends up being a competition between states that can least afford the giveaways.

But if Trump is going to get into this game with Ford and Carrier and whomever, I'd bet all sorts of outsourcing deals get announced. If you're a manufacturer why wouldn't you try to see what you can get?